Not disagreeing with the poor sexual choice argument, but you seem to be putting all the blame on the woman. Should the man be forced to financially support the child because of his poor choice?
He already is through child support.
Yes. Who else should financially support his offspring? You play, you pay.
I don’t think payments should be so excessive that the man cannot support himself or be thrown in jail for failure to pay excessive amounts.
I believe these days wages are garnished.
Here is where I say one of the most destructive family statements ever promoted: “It takes a village to raise a child.”
So the momma doesn’t need a daddy for her child. She has a village to help raise her child. The truth is a child NEEDS a mommy and a daddy.
That’s correct. But a man who got a woman pregnant by sex for fun, so-called “pumping and dumping” is likely not going to have a village (his own extended family) highly involved in this kid’s life as future thinking wasn’t on his mind when he was screwing.
In pumping and dumping both families aren’t even aware of one another.
I think it depends on how you look at it. You can support and promote having a present father and mother, and still encourage the “village” aspect - grandparents, siblings, mentor figures, etc. I 100% believe that children are better off with both parents in the picture, but also support the idea that it is good to have a community of sorts there to help raise and guide that child.
Sorry, I misinterpreted your post.
Usually with standup parents comes supportive extended families (a village).
The political quote never intended “a village” to mean the extended family. IMO, extended family is still family. I also stand that the husband/wife unit is critical for a thriving civilization.
Probably an unpopular opinion but I do think that if abortions are legal then either:
- Fathers/ would be fathers should have a valid legal say in whether an abortion happens or does not
OR - They can choose to not be financially responsible for the child
Back on thread topic despite not being in the US (I’m in the UK) this is all over my social media feeds including bloody LinkedIn with a huge uproar of emotion about how this will make abortions illegal and how this is a violation of women rights ![]()
It’s actually scary how much emotion is coming from people who don’t even think the legal points being discussed are relevant
Why should this be an option in any situation, even if abortion were legal? (Yes, I noticed that you wrote or). If a man doesn’t want kids he has the options of abstinence or condoms.
It should be an option if he does not have a legal say in whether an abortion takes place.
If a man has moral (or religious) reasons for not agreeing to an abortion but the woman wants an abortion then that decision lies solely on the woman. He has no say.
Yet if that woman falls pregnant a few months later with another man and she chooses to have the child and he wants her to get aborted then she keeps the child. He has no say and he is financially responsible for the child.
I agree.
But what I don’t agree with is that a man’s say on whether he becomes a father ends at penetration whereas a woman’s say on whether that man becomes a father (and thus financially responsible) ends at birth because she has full control on abortion regardless of if the father wants the child or not.
I understand your point, although we differ.
My take is that if a man wants to have sex, he should understand responsibility for that, and that it is simply not about getting his rocks off. If a man wants to totally ensure he won’t be a father, he can abstain or get a vasectomy.
There’s something to be said about a man who chooses to not care for his offspring, just totally abandons them. I usually keep my writing on here clean, but I’ll say that sort of man is one cold, careless bastard, and the woman who chose such a man, chose poorly.
From all the uproar, my guess is that a scary number of Americans believe that there should be a Constitutional right to allow All people to fornicate without consequences. And that any and all consequences are the responsibility of the government to rectify.
That’s correct. @RT_Nomad
100% Agree and I admit this may make me a hypocrite. I am for having the choice but I heavily disagree with exercising it in most cases (if it existed).
And I understand yours and think we share the same point on abortion as a whole.
Ill admit that i was in exactly the same boat as you. Wanted a boy first; had a girl. Now i look all the monsters everyone calls “little boys” and think about how lucky i am to have had a girl. (Will probably correct itself if we have another child)
Girls are better (YMMV)
The uproar is coming mostly from gen z and millenials. Both of which have a startling lack of morals/clothing and aversion to responsibility.
Gen X paved the way towards oversexualizing society, and when combined with something as innocent as the internet and smart phones - leads to neurotic requirements of attention and dopamine hits via the ‘like’ button. In short: my generation and that which came after me are addicted to sex and attention yet feel allergic to responsibility. To say the last two generations ought to be responsible for their actions would put you at odds with 90% of my peers… to say they ought to have less sex with strangers would be fuel for a riot.
I don’t have a solution to this problem as it is both culturally encouraged and addiction-driven. I’m just glad i found my wife young so i could avoid the cesspool that is today’s dating scene.
EDIT:
I wish the profound stances towards responsibility in generations past would return. When a boy would adopt a puppy, the fathers used to tell them they had the ultimate responsibility over that dog. From feeding and walking it to putting it down when it was the dog’s time to go. It taught extreme responsibility at a young age… a sentiment we - as a nation - are in desperate need of.
LOL. I thought the same thing till I had a boy.
So they are coming out as pro abstinence as a response, weird.