MMAF.NET DEBATE: Should men have to pay child support if they don't want the kid?

[Tallica1981]

This is no knock at you Knockout but I agree with Nate in this thread. The woman had a child that the guy did not want. People always look at the monetary value of child support but they never look at the emotional side of child support. You can pay money or not to a child but the real problem in America is not the monetary aspect but the emotional aspect of raising a child. If the guy wants to abort the child then more than likely he won't want to raise the child as his own when she/he is born. Then, a majority of the time, you are left with a child who has no real perspective on what a real loving father/man should be like and instead all you get is a child whose whole perspective on life is majority based on one parent's perspective.

Also, I see no real blame for the woman here. What kind of woman will have a child on a drunken one night stand? She knows going in that she can't raise the child alone which is why the child support question exists. The guy is basically being a guy here. He's drunk, he's sees a woman good enough to have sex with, and has sex with her. If anything in this situation you can debate whether or not the woman is responsible enough to have a child.

I don't see what your first paragraph really has to do with anything in this scenario. I'm not saying it isn't true, but what does that fact that he didn't want it have to do with his responsibility for it? Regardless of what emotional guidance the child will be missing, he (or his mother) still deserves to have support from the other half of the pair that made him.

In paragraph 2, you are making some pretty big assumptions. It doesn't say she can't handle the financial burden of raising the child on her own. Even if she can with no problem, that does not absolve the father from his responsibilities. If "being a guy" ends up getting someone pregnant, then "being a man" means doing your part to help.

[wK78]

Yes!! stupid debate.

[Jazzy Jeff]

I don't see what your first paragraph really has to do with anything in this scenario. I'm not saying it isn't true, but what does that fact that he didn't want it have to do with his responsibility for it? Regardless of what emotional guidance the child will be missing, he (or his mother) still deserves to have support from the other half of the pair that made him.

In paragraph 2, you are making some pretty big assumptions. It doesn't say she can't handle the financial burden of raising the child on her own. Even if she can with no problem, that does not absolve the father from his responsibilities. If "being a guy" ends up getting someone pregnant, then "being a man" means doing your part to help.

If the kid is born the kid does "deserve" support but not necessarily from both parties. It would be nice but that seems not to be the case in this scenario. The guy has already made it known that he does not want the child. Hence, there is a higher chance the guy will not be in the child's life. If another guy steps up eventually then that is great, but I think you are not giving enough attention to the emotional side effects which are likely more important than the monetary value the guy would give the child. The old saying "If you give a guy a fish he can eat today but if you teach a guy to fish he can eat for a lifetime." fits here to me. You can give the child all the money you want but nothing can replace the emotional and logic aspects that the child would get by having his/her biological father be there for her.

You are right though I am making assumptions which you generally have to do in open ended debates such as this one. You make a valid point with your last sentence and I am glad I was not aborted but why is it when a woman has a child a man should step up and yet no one ever asks the woman "Are you ready to have the child?" or "Can you afford this child?" We all just assume that because the woman carries the baby that her decision, generally speaking, is valid. The guy had a drunken night with her and even protected himself. He went into the situation drunk still aware of trying to prevent any pregnancies. Then the guy offers to abort the child paid out of his own pocket, and most are saying he should step up and be a man. Obviously, he does not want to be a father. Forcing him to be a father does not mean he will step up and be a man.

[wK78]

If the kid is born the kid does "deserve" support but not necessarily from both parties. It would be nice but that seems not to be the case in this scenario. The guy has already made it known that he does not want the child. Hence, there is a higher chance the guy will not be in the child's life. If another guy steps up eventually then that is great, but I think you are not giving enough attention to the emotional side effects which are likely more important than the monetary value the guy would give the child. The old saying "If you give a guy a fish he can eat today but if you teach a guy to fish he can eat for a lifetime." fits here to me. You can give the child all the money you want but nothing can replace the emotional and logic aspects that the child would get by having his/her biological father be there for her.

You are right though I am making assumptions which you generally have to do in open ended debates such as this one. You make a valid point with your last sentence and I am glad I was not aborted but why is it when a woman has a child a man should step up and yet no one ever asks the woman "Are you ready to have the child?" or "Can you afford this child?" We all just assume that because the woman carries the baby that her decision, generally speaking, is valid. The guy had a drunken night with her and even protected himself. He went into the situation drunk still aware of trying to prevent any pregnancies. Then the guy offers to abort the child paid out of his own pocket, and most are saying he should step up and be a man. Obviously, he does not want to be a father. Forcing him to be a father does not mean he will step up and be a man.

Really?!?? Really?? A m.... Really?? A man is not responsible for providing for his own son? Really?? No he is, and yes preferably he'd be in his son's life too, responsibility doesn't end with a check. But whether he is there or not he's 100% responsible for that child. What did the child do wrong?? And there are thousands of people that were raised by one parent that have had fantastic lives. Really???

[clamcakes]

You do know that if the condom breaks you're supposed to stop, right?

[Serge Storms]

Yes, you pay to play. Easy debate.

[Tallica1981]

If the kid is born the kid does "deserve" support but not necessarily from both parties. It would be nice but that seems not to be the case in this scenario. The guy has already made it known that he does not want the child. Hence, there is a higher chance the guy will not be in the child's life. If another guy steps up eventually then that is great, but I think you are not giving enough attention to the emotional side effects which are likely more important than the monetary value the guy would give the child. The old saying "If you give a guy a fish he can eat today but if you teach a guy to fish he can eat for a lifetime." fits here to me. You can give the child all the money you want but nothing can replace the emotional and logic aspects that the child would get by having his/her biological father be there for her.

You are right though I am making assumptions which you generally have to do in open ended debates such as this one. You make a valid point with your last sentence and I am glad I was not aborted but why is it when a woman has a child a man should step up and yet no one ever asks the woman "Are you ready to have the child?" or "Can you afford this child?" We all just assume that because the woman carries the baby that her decision, generally speaking, is valid. The guy had a drunken night with her and even protected himself. He went into the situation drunk still aware of trying to prevent any pregnancies. Then the guy offers to abort the child paid out of his own pocket, and most are saying he should step up and be a man. Obviously, he does not want to be a father. Forcing him to be a father does not mean he will step up and be a man.

Your logic is very perplexing to me. I'm not sure why you keep trying to make the argument that because the father likely won't be in his life that he shouldn't pay child support when that is precisely what child support is for. If the father is not going to have equal custody, then there has to be compensation. In what world does the father NOT being in the kids life factor into him NOT paying child support?

Also, I'm surprised at your position on this based on past comments regarding deadbeat fathers in the black community. While ideally the father would play an active roll in the child's life, offering monetary assistance at least improves the chances the child will be able to have a better child hood and access to better things. Also, as long as the father has parental rights and is paying support, he has an open window to see his child. Child support likely increased the odds that the father will remain a part of the kids life even if he wasn't wanted in the first place. It's not terribly uncommon for someone to come back into their child's life after maturing a bit.

[wK78]

Your logic is very perplexing to me. I'm not sure why you keep trying to make the argument that because the father likely won't be in his life that he shouldn't pay child support when that is precisely what child support is for. If the father is not going to have equal custody, then there has to be compensation. In what world does the father NOT being in the kids life factor into him NOT paying child support?

Also, I'm surprised at your position on this based on past comments regarding deadbeat fathers in the black community. While ideally the father would play an active roll in the child's life, offering monetary assistance at least improves the chances the child will be able to have a better child hood and access to better things. Also, as long as the father has parental rights and is paying support, he has an open window to see his child. Child support likely increased the odds that the father will remain a part of the kids life even if he wasn't wanted in the first place. It's not terribly uncommon for someone to come back into their child's life after maturing a bit.

Yeah could you imagine how easy a child support hearing would be.

Judge: Mr Jeff you haven't paid you child support once. Your child and mother are living in a single small studio apartment. She is working two jobs to keep him somewhat fed, and clothed with used clothing. What do you have to say for yourself?

Mr Jeff: I don't wanna be in his life.

Judge: Oh!!! Case closed, dismissed.


lol

[Greezy]

Yes, you pay to play. Easy debate.

Exactly. And it's not cheap.lol

[Greezy]

You do know that if the condom breaks you're supposed to stop, right?

Not sure if serious or never had an orgasm. I'd add the futurama pic but I'm too lazy.