‘Preglimony’ Would Make Men Financially Responsible for Pregnancies or Abortions

[Turbulent]

i'm ok with a woman getting financial support while pregnant if paternity is established.

only part i disagree with is the abortion thing. i don't think the man should have to pay for that. if two people decide to sleep together i think in a way they are both aware that it could result in a pregnancy and that they will both be responsible. personally i'm against abortions but i do believe that women should have the right to choose. but if she chooses to have an abortion, why should the man pay especially if it goes against his morals and values? pregnancy is a natural consequence of sex which they both implicitly signed on for when they had sex. abortion is not natural. a man doesn't implicitly sign on for an abortion when he decides to have sex with a woman. she has the right to choose because it's her body. so she should also pay because it's her body.

i'd be fukking pissed if my girl/wife got pregnant, i want her to carry to term, she wants to abort. cool it's her choice. it's a bitter pill to swallow but it's fair. but then on top of that i have to pay for the murder of my child? a murder which i didn't sign up for? and that's justice??

 

[rapdonttweet]

Or maybe if SHE was a responsible woman and doesn't have kids outside of wedlock, this wouldn't matter in the slightest... so why implement something unnecessary if it's all about both parties being responsible?

Who is "she"? You're talking about an imaginary female in this scenario. I'm talking about the guys in this thread. Why cry about something that doesn't affect you? Unless you want to come out and tell us you're incapable of practicing safe sex.

If you're that irresponsible I can't feel sorry for you. Making you help pay for your own seed's needs is cool with me.

 

[Sam Peel]

this law is gonna put a lot of women in danger. Instead of dudes just running off they might just start killing them.

 

[kevm3]

Who is "she"? You're talking about an imaginary female in this scenario. I'm talking about the guys in this thread. Why cry about something that doesn't affect you? Unless you want to come out and tell us you're incapable of practicing safe sex.

If you're that irresponsible I can't feel sorry for you. Making you help pay for your own seed's needs is cool with me.

"She" is the average woman, just like 'he' is the average man. You complain about something that doesn't affect you immediately because it WILL affect you later down the line. What kind of society will we have if all we concern ourselves with are the problems that immediately affect us? A garbage society, that's what we'll have.

There IS a problem with the notion that men legally owe women money the moment a woman gets pregnant. Just like child support, there's no telling if that money will be used for. Child support is understandable since you do have men who refuse to take care of their child. Preglimony is not. You won't even have a say over whether your child gets to be birthed or not. You're just now forced to give her payments for being pregnant. If you think this would be implemented in some fashion where every single expense has to be tracked and given to the government so they can match the money's usage, you are deluding yourself. This will most likely be implemented as a set of periodic payments given to the woman to 'compensate her' for having taken time off of work to have the kid and incurring expenses during the pregnancy. This will also give the woman power to have select men be tested on a mandatory basis when no such option will exist for men.

Guess who pays for the test, even if he's found not to be the father... yeah, that's right, the man will most likely pay for that test. And the biggest concern comes with the fact that this will end up being like child support in the aspect that even the innocent will have to start paying for women being pregnant because the woman is now legally owed money during her pregnancy. Instead of the test being necessary to get these payments, there will come a time when she just has to think she knew who got her pregnant and she will get 9 months of payments. You know what happens if you don't pay child support? You go to jail. Imagine the same for this 'preglimony.'

So essentially we'll have a situation in which women have another legal sword to wield over the heads of men... she can soon drag different men in to get a dna test on a SELECTIVE basis to get that preglimony, but testing will never be made mandatory upon birth to aid men in avoiding illegitimate children... oh you know why" Because it's just too harsh and unfair for the woman that her infidelity might be uncovered... but let's give women power to drag men in at her choosing so she can get an additional 9 months of payments, even via wage garnishments if necessary, or have you pay for a process to terminate your own kid in which you had ZERO say over. Man screw that.

 

[rapdonttweet]

"She" is the average woman, just like 'he' is the average man. You complain about something that doesn't affect you immediately because it WILL affect you later down the line. What kind of society will we have if all we concern ourselves with are the problems that immediately affect us? A garbage society, that's what we'll have.

Speak for yourself. I can't imagine how this would ever affect me at any time in my life.

There IS a problem with the notion that men legally owe women money the moment a woman gets pregnant. Just like child support, there's no telling if that money will be used for. Child support is understandable since you do have men who refuse to take care of their child. Preglimony is not. You won't even have a say over whether your child gets to be birthed or not. You're just now forced to give her payments for being pregnant. If you think this would be implemented in some fashion where every single expense has to be tracked and given to the government so they can match the money's usage, you are deluding yourself. This will most likely be implemented as a set of periodic payments given to the woman to 'compensate her' for having taken time off of work to have the kid and incurring expenses during the pregnancy. This will also give the woman power to have select men be tested on a mandatory basis when no such option will exist for men.

So you're saying men shouldn't have to care for the needs of their own seed. Yeah, that's retarded. I come from the school of thought where if its your kid, its your responsibility. And this may come as a shock to you, but an unborn fetus has needs.

And the biggest concern comes with the fact that this will end up being like child support in the aspect that even the innocent will have to start paying for women being pregnant because the woman is now legally owed money during her pregnancy. Instead of the test being necessary to get these payments, there will come a time when she just has to think she knew who got her pregnant and she will get 9 months of payments. You know what happens if you don't pay child support? You go to jail. Imagine the same for this 'preglimony.'

I don't know where you live, but I'm pretty sure women can't go after men for child support without proving its theirs.

So essentially we'll have a situation in which women have another legal sword to wield over the heads of men... she can soon drag different men in to get a dna test on a SELECTIVE basis to get that preglimony, but testing will never be made mandatory upon birth to aid men in avoiding illegitimate children... oh you know why" Because it's just too harsh and unfair for the woman that her infidelity might be uncovered...

lmao mandatory testing? That would be pretty fukked up to force every couple in love to have to take a test proving its theirs. Definitely would kill the miracle of my child being born to have the doctor interrupting "just got the test results back, its a positive match the child is yours." Not every man wants/needs a test done.

but let's give women power to drag men in at her choosing so she can get an additional 9 months of payments, even via wage garnishments if necessary,

That's the worst case scenario. The worst case scenario if men didn't have to support their children is much much worse.

or have you pay for a process to terminate your own kid in which you had ZERO say over. Man screw that.

I don't agree with that. But the article says nothing about that. If anything it implies that men will have more power over the fate of their child.

Guess who pays for the test, even if he's found not to be the father... yeah, that's right, the man will most likely pay for that test.

What? Where in the world did you draw this conclusion from? Look that's a nice essay and all but at the end of the day men should have to chip in to care for the needs of their children. I see no issue with that including the time it spends in the womb.

Yes, there will be some skanks to milk the system. Maybe the system needs improvement. But child support is a necessary system and this makes just as much sense as that. The worst case scenario is some hoe abusing the system to milk money out of an irresponsible dumbass. The worst case scenario without child support is a child whose needs aren't being met because of a deadbeat dad. Yeah, I'm going to support the child over the irresponsible dumbass.

 

[Ain't That Something]

Here is a serious question? In the instance that she want an bortion but he wants to keep the child does he still has to foot the bill for the abortion?