Tale of a 19th-century abortion provider

[milomorris]

But surely if the woman is made to have the baby the man then should:
 
a) compensate the woman for making her go through months of unwanted pregnancy.
b) compensate the woman for having to deal with the child post birth.

Agreed. But nobody can make a woman carry a child to term. She has a choice, and is the only person who can make it. She holds the cards.

I could imagine a situation where the man pays the woman for having the baby. Kinda like the way surrogate moms work. The only problem with that is that in most cases the man has already had sex with the woman in good faith, with no expectation of payment.

[Monika]

But surely if the woman is made to have the baby the man then should:
 
a) compensate the woman for making her go through months of unwanted pregnancy.
b) compensate the woman for having to deal with the child post birth.

Yes indeed.



The more of I've thought about this the more unrealistic it seems. There is also the risk that If a woman that doesn't want a child, knowing that an abortion could lead to paying the man large sums of money (money she possible doesn't have), that she feels even less inclined to tell the man about the pregnancy at all/or the have the pregnancy done illegally which could potentially be a threat to her health.

No. The woman is the one that carries the child. It´s her body. She is the one who puts her health in potential jeopardy. It's the woman decision, and her decision only.

[Monika]

Riiiiiight. And people use the company cell phone only for business calls. In spirit I agree. In practice, things are quite different.

I doubt you know much about what it´s like to raise a child on your own, Milo. Or what it costs. I know a few single mothers and they have a very hard time to get by, even with financial aid from the father. It´s quite insulting to imply that they are living in some kind of luxury. Raising a child is expensive.

[milomorris]

I doubt you know much about what it´s like to raise a child on your own, Milo.

Not much. I have no children, and don't want any. I know plenty about being a child raised by a single parent. ANd I've seen my aunt and my sister raise their kids. So I'm not blind to the situation.

quote author=Buffymon link=topic=36493.msg520023#msg520023 date=1244441052]
It´s quite insulting to imply that they are living in some kind of luxury. Raising a child is expensive.
[/quote]

I NEVER implied that and I think it would be best if you would read what I write rather than plugging in your own assumptions about what I'm thinking.

And yes, raising a child is expensive. That's why women who want to keep their illegitimate children should think long and hard about that choice, especially if they know in advance that the father is not willing to participate.

[Monika]

Not much. I have no children, and don't want any. I know plenty about being a child raised by a single parent. ANd I've seen my aunt and my sister raise their kids. So I'm not blind to the situation.

quote author=Buffymon link=topic=36493.msg520023#msg520023 date=1244441052]
It´s quite insulting to imply that they are living in some kind of luxury. Raising a child is expensive.


I NEVER implied that and I think it would be best if you would read what I write rather than plugging in your own assumptions about what I'm thinking.

And yes, raising a child is expensive. That's why women who want to keep their illegitimate children should think long and hard about that choice, especially if they know in advance that the father is not willing to participate.

I did read the post, Milo. Perhaps I misunderstood it. This was what I read and responded to




"Riiiiiight. And people use the company cell phone only for business calls. In spirit I agree. In practice, things are quite different."

which was your reply to Delalluvia saying: "Child support isn't about funding a mother's lifestyle, it's about supporting a child."

[milomorris]

I did read the post, Milo. Perhaps I misunderstood it. This was what I read and responded to

"Riiiiiight. And people use the company cell phone only for business calls. In spirit I agree. In practice, things are quite different."

which was your reply to Delalluvia saying: "Child support isn't about funding a mother's lifestyle, it's about supporting a child."

The reality is that the money goes to both mother AND child. Its not like you can separate the two fiscally. Even if there were some magical way to ensure that the money was spent directly only on things that the child needs, there is still the issue of the man being required to fund a project in which he wanted no participation.

[Mandy21]

Agreed. But nobody can make a woman carry a child to term. She has a choice, and is the only person who can make it. She holds the cards.

Milo, what if the couple is in an abusive relationship; i.e., violence, drugs, gangs, etc.  I read all the time here in the St. Louis area crime section of the paper about women who are thrown down stairs, beaten with pipes, strangled until they give in to the abortion, etc., by the baby's father.  At that point, it becomes the MAN holding the cards, unfortunately.  I realize it's not the norm, but it does indeed happen -- way too often.

[serious crayons]

there is still the issue of the man being required to fund a project in which he wanted no participation.

Nope. Again, he participated in "launching" the project, so to speak, and now is financially responsible for carrying it through.

And likewise a woman has to get used to the idea that if she has sex with a man, she may get pregnant.

Of course.

What if the man want to get married, but she does not? Is he still liable for child support?

Sure. I don't see what marital plans have to do with it.

And I still say that if the woman retains the right to carry to term, but the man wants an abortion, the woman should shoulder the responsibility for raising the child. She is, after all, making a unilateral decision to become a parent...in spite of the father's wishes.

Not unilaterally. The father made a decision earlier on that he was open to the possibility of becoming a parent.

FWIW, despite my seemingly inflexible views on this, I actually do have considerable sympathy for men in this situation, one of whom happens to be my brother. He became a father 17 years ago. The mother is someone he was dating very casually, was getting close to 40, heard the biological clock ticking, and wanted a child. My bro and the woman haven't had a romantic relationship since, but to everybody's credit, they get along pretty well. My brother has been a very responsible father, both financially and emotionally. Custody is not equally shared, so the mom shouldered far more of the day-to-day child-raising burden, but my niece has her own bedroom at my brother's house and they spend a lot of time together. At one point, he even moved from one state to another so he would be in the same city she is. Others in my family, including my late parents and even my widowed stepmother, have considered her as much a grandchild as they do my sons. My niece appears extremely well-adjusted and mentally healthy. She is friendly, popular, well-behaved, active in her church youth group, successful in school. And although fatherhood was not in my brother's plans initially, and he might not have been thrilled with the idea at first, I am certain he has never regretted it.

[milomorris]

Milo, what if the couple is in an abusive relationship; i.e., violence, drugs, gangs, etc.  I read all the time here in the St. Louis area crime section of the paper about women who are thrown down stairs, beaten with pipes, strangled until they give in to the abortion, etc., by the baby's father.  At that point, it becomes the MAN holding the cards, unfortunately.  I realize it's not the norm, but it does indeed happen -- way too often.

Oh, absolutely!! That guy should go to jail. And I wouldn't call the ACLU if he "lost his balance" on the way to the police car.

[Monika]

The reality is that the money goes to both mother AND child. Its not like you can separate the two fiscally. Even if there were some magical way to ensure that the money was spent directly only on things that the child needs, there is still the issue of the man being required to fund a project in which he wanted no participation.

It´s correct that the money does go to both, since the mother is the caretaker. But I think it´s rarely the case that she gets so much that she spend it on her own. The baby has to be fed, get new dypers etc. Most mothers I know, hardly can afford to spend the money on herself so therfore I think the money does go to the child.

Regarding the father. If the man doesn´t want to pay, then the society has to because the child has the right to be provided for. I guess we´ll just have to agree to disagree where that money should come from.