(February 24, 2016 at 11:09 pm)Old Baby Wrote:

(February 24, 2016 at 10:55 pm)pool the great Wrote: What about the man being forced to pay support even after not consenting to have a child?

I'd like to hear some opinion on the matter.
How does this situation work out,as in legally where you live?

He got her preggers.  Did they not use contraception?  Should a would-be mother who wants to raise the child be forced to have it killed because the would-be daddy went "oops, I'm not ready"?  The "it's just a fetus" distinction is a convenience for those who don't want to go through with having a kid, but to those who actually want to be a parent, that ugly tadpole looking thing is their human baby child.

Please don't say "preggers." Please. For fuck's sake, we are adults. Just saying...

I still can't understand your position Pool dude!

How can you "not allow" a child to be born, without forcing an abortion?

(February 25, 2016 at 1:35 am)robvalue Wrote: I still can't understand your position Pool dude!

How can you "not allow" a child to be born, without forcing an abortion?

Forced sterilization comes to mind, at least before the fact.

I'm pretty sure that's not OK with me either.

Yeah, that is a harsh measure also.

I'm confused because pool appeared to be talking about a situation where a woman is already pregnant, and then the man decides he doesn't want the kid. Then the child "isn't allowed" to be born, but pool said he's not talking about forcing abortions.

So how would it work, in any case where the woman isn't compliant?

My opinion is simple,

When in the womb, all decisions belong with the woman because it is her body and her life. Till the baby is conceived, it is just a part of the woman's body.

When the baby has been conceived, it's survival and well being should be of priority and thus whoever is willing and able to provide the best care and love to it should get it's custody.

Right on!

That's just how our biology works, and pretending it isn't doesn't help come up with better solutions.

Well Rob, in my opinion both parents must consent to have a child. But if the woman insists on having one while the man don't want to then the sole responsibility should lay with the woman since the man didn't consent.

(February 24, 2016 at 9:57 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(February 24, 2016 at 6:56 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Just wanted to say that if the father's name is on the birth certificate, he cannot back out or sign over any parenting responsibility. He will either have to raise the child directly or pay support. Only a prenatal agreement can absolve him of those responsibilities, and if the mother goes on any form of public assistance the State will attach his paycheck without regard to any private agreement.

This is how it works in California. Not sure about other states.

Does the father need to be there and agree/sign? Or agree/sign at some point?

What happens if he does not agree/sign and the mother wants financial support. The paternity test route?

If the father isn't actually there, then yes, they will complete a paternity test, in a contested case. The mother can provide the father's name for the birth certificate, but that is not supported unless the father signs for paternity on the form itself, or until a paternity test is completed.

(February 24, 2016 at 9:57 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: What if dad is total scum and mom wants a complete and total break and is willing to include no financial support in the break. Is he no longer obligated according to the state?

To my knowledge (which is incomplete, obviously), if the father is listed on the birth certificate or certified by a paternity test, and even if the mother stipulates no support, if she thereafter goes on state assistance, the father's wages will be attached. So far as I understand, the state is not enforcing the father supporting the child, but rather that the father is compensating the state.

Furthermore, that support can be changed by the state, without request from the mother, and without appeal from the father. My own support was modified about 370% in 2010 (from $70/mo to $260/mo, with no change in my 42% custody) despite his mother herself testifying that the previous support was fair and adequate. She had him five days per month more than I did, on average.

(February 25, 2016 at 2:09 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(February 25, 2016 at 1:35 am)robvalue Wrote: I still can't understand your position Pool dude!

How can you "not allow" a child to be born, without forcing an abortion?

Forced sterilization comes to mind, at least before the fact.

I'm pretty sure that's not OK with me either.

When a man has to carry that child and nourish it from his own lifeblood -- literally from his own life's blood -- then that man has a say in whether or not the child is or is not carried to term.

Until then, us men should be silent, and that is only right. We don't suffer the indignities of pregnancy, and we goddamned sure don't risk our lives giving birth.

(February 25, 2016 at 5:09 am)pool the great Wrote: Well Rob, in my opinion both parents must consent to have a child. But if the woman insists on having one while the man don't want to then the sole responsibility should lay with the woman since the man didn't consent.

The man gave his consent going in without a wrapper. That is the tradeoff for avoiding the pangs of pregnancy and childbirth.

You're a man? Great. If you want a piece of ass and don't want a child, take responsibility for your own behavior. Don't fuck her, use a condom, get a vasectomy, or make damned sure she's remembered her pill.

But don't shoot off inside her unless you've taken precautions, or are ready to pay the bills, because that is what owning your behavior entails. And being a man is about owning your behavior.

(February 25, 2016 at 5:32 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: And being a man is about owning your behavior.

That rubs me the wrong way, but I get who you are talking to