simpilotswife said:
But that is her choice. And what about the kid who now has to get a job and not graduate or wind up in a minimum wage job? Why should he be stuck with that life because of someone else's decision.
You want the man to be responsible because the woman has to be responsible. What you seem to be overlooking is that it is her choice to assume that responsibility. A man does not have any say in that choice at all.
A better solution I think would be for the father to decide who gets to raise the child. If he has to pay child support then he should be able to say who raises the child.....whaddya think?
Who are you kidding? The courts in this country are on the side of the mother. How many abused children go back to their mothers? How many children live with their mother because the court sided with them?
I will address the latter part of your argument first. The courts in this country are on the side of the child and the parent who has the physical responsibility of raising that child. My brother has custody of his daughter after a long and bitter court battle of proving the child's mother as unfit. The courts were NEVER on her side. So, your stating otherwise if far from accurate.
As for the woman choosing to have the baby, you fail to take into consideration the moral issues some have opposing abortion. Some view it as a mistake, but topping it off with an abortion would be another mistake. Go do a little research and you'll see the psychological problems many women face after having one too.
So, a man can make the same mistake and should be able to just walk away? When you convince a judge that you're right, you let me know. I have the law behind my position and rightfully so. Now, if the man doesn't want bothered with raising a child physically, there he is free to walk.
BTW, my brother was 16 when he got a 21 year old pregnant. When he was in a better position (He was never forced to quit school to pay support and I challenge you to show me some instances of your so called facts that minor boys are forced to quit school to support these children. You're the one stating that as factual, so back it up) he fought tooth and nail for custody after my niece had 3rd degree burns, lived in a vehicle, and had an incident of broken bone in the hip area.... etc. The judge had no sympathy for this mother. My brother was probably around 24 or so and he has raised his daughter since. She is now 21 and has no relationship whatsoever with her mother.
The good news however is, the law will never allow the father to simply walk away without facing any financial consequences. We can argue back and forth till we're both blue in the face, but I sleep well knowing that these fathers will be forced to pay for their mistakes and that I as a taxpayer won't be having to foot the entire bill.
As has already been stated, if a man really wants no children, he has the ability to make sure that he doesn't have any. If he's too lazy or simply chooses not to wear the condom, it's a mistake that he'll have to live with regardless of the outcome. That outcome might be positive HIV results too.
Oh, and if the father is paying support and wants a hand in raising that child, no court in this nation will refuse him. You fail to understand the laws of the nation and it shows thru crystal clear in your post.
