If the law forces a pregnant woman to deliver why doesn’t it force the father to also stay with her?

[BarryLiverstone]

Whether you are pro choice or pro life, why doesn’t the law mention the father’s responsibility?

[Anonymous]

It doesn't require anyone to stay together... often it's the woman deciding that. Divorce and break ups are still legal (and common).

I have several friends who were never married to the women they dated (and had children with)... and they have to still pay child support. They do, on occasion, get to see their kids (some of them), but that is also largely dependent on women.

If she decides to just not show up at a meeting place, he doesn't see those kids for several weeks (if not months)... and now he has to go to the courts (if he wants more hassle to get the courts) to say "naughty, naughty! you should show up for custody handoffs!" (but won't really do much about it to enforce it)) to make sure she actually shows up. Luckily he won a small case so she's more obligated to actually let him see his kids. He gets to also occasionally talk to them on the phone, so at least they don't grow up thinking he doesn't care.

One friend, who supposedly has partial custody, hasn't seen his first born in probably 10 years, because she fought him so hard on it. She changed numbers constantly, moved around, and keeps his kid from him (he used to pay child support, but it's hard to find her, so at least with those games, he doesn't have to pay). but he's kind of given up trying, and wasting money on trying to find her and their "kid" and trying to get courts to help him - so he's created a new life for himself.

[BarryLiverstone]

But I wasn’t asking about after the baby is born. It was about the father and the nine months the baby is growing in the mothers womb

[Opinion Owner]

I don't think they have to do it during pregnancy. There MAY be some form of "spousal support" financially, but it depends on the area you live in. A guy should want to be involved, but you can't force someone to be there. And in some cases, I don't think the guy SHOULD be around, at least physically (I think he should pay, but again, hard to enforce).

I did some research - you can test 3-4 months in (but that's two or three months that you can't test), but it can be done during amnio (later on, second trimester). So once that testing is done, the father should at least contribute money, even if you don't get along and can't be together (for whatever reasons).

[BarryLiverstone]

“But you can’t force someone to be there”.. that’s I guess the answer to my question. The mother is forced to be there for 9 months regardless but you don’t think the father could be forced. Right?

[MrOracle]

Because all too often, the woman DOESN'T WANT HIM AROUND.

Many women sleep with men that they know full well would make horrible relationship partners or fathers - but they're hot, and they're dangerous, and in many cases she was drunk or high, and it seemed like a fun thing to do at the time. Later on, when she's sober and thinking a little more, she wants nothing to do with that man other than to pay child support. If you tried to pass a law forcing the man to be with the woman, it would be WOMEN who would overwhelmingly complain about that law and do their best to vote it down.

[BarryLiverstone]

Does that happen more than 50% of the time?

[MrOracle]

Today? I suspect so. Remember, we're talking specifically about the group of women who got pregnant but didn't want to - most of those women aren't those with serious relationships - most are one-night-stands or casual "relationships". So, yes, I'd be pretty confident that the number was over 50%. But even if it was 20%, women would still throw a huge fit.

[BarryLiverstone]

Oh ok. I was talking about all women who got pregnant. Ty

[monorprise]

@MrOracle It would be women complaining about such a law, but the same women would be far less likely to continue sleeping around with such men with both of them being taken off the market by the same. Thus the social problems all 3 parties cause would be resolved once more.

[sage2021]

Oh, they do remind him in court of his responsibility to his child by paying child support he will never pay and got away with it.
Of course this takes place in a courtroom during the divorce because he cheated on his child's mother.

It isn't rosey for everyone! Some guys shouldn't get a woman pregnant even if they are married.

[BarryLiverstone]

I meant the nine months of raising the baby in the mother’s womb before birth. Where does the law mention the father?

[Anonymous]

In biblical times, it was law for a man to stay with a woman he got pregnant. Marriage, in those days, was a form of protection for women, protection from shame and from destitution. Women in this day and age, with their ability to provide for themselves and own their own property, do not have any incentive for keeping the man around.

[BarryLiverstone]

I thought one incentive for the father to be around was that children are more successful with having both parents.

[Opinion Owner]

That is absolutely true! It’s really sad how many people don’t consider that factor when they bring children into the world.

[BarryLiverstone]

Very sad

[MzAsh]

Imagine court ordering men to earn 4 times what it takes to raise a child annually.

[MzAsh]

Also, imagine court ordering men to simply do the things women typically do more of when it comes to child care. Many would sooner die.

[BarryLiverstone]

I can’t imagine that. But I was asking about the nine months the baby is inside the mom. Why isn’t the father responsible?

[monorprise]

Or you could simply raise a child on less money as was done thou-out human history until now.

Your ancestors had nothing at all and your complaining about having good shelter and food?

Granted the state demands you have theses things via regulations but that just goes to show you how the State has killed the family

[monorprise]

@BarryLiverstone They use to force him to marry and therefore support her for the rest of their lives. That was called a shotgun wedding.

The State has since abandoned not only that but marriage all together with no-fault divorce.

[dreamstar72]

That why it’s the law is made up by men. The man does NOT have to have to live with all the problem associated with pregnancy for nine months, the pain of delivery, be a mother for the next eighteen years or more, be treated as an outcast by other, getting blamed for her fault in becoming pregnant and the list goes on.
The man gets nothing but people praising him for forcing her to have the child. As for paying child support good luck on that.
New law he forces the mother in carrying the baby. He must wear a fake pregnancy tummy for nine months, take gag medicine every few days, do all the other stuff women go through, on delivery day he is place in reverse order and his butt (I know the opposite) is opened up (yes he will be awake). He will take the baby home with him because he is the one who forced the girl to have the baby. His responsibility not hers. Oh he has to pay the mother the same as paying a surrogate mother for having a baby.

[Singing_Hollow]

Firstly, this is the exact reason why men and women should be married and Divorce abolished.
Secondly, coming from a woman thats given birth, we dont need a special award or for a man to have to go through the same to feel sorry for us, our bodies were made to carry life, stretch, deal with pain etc etc... its not a big deal, some women like to make it sound like men should be punished for what women go through but its BS, a job for a man is to provide for his wife and children financially and physically that in its self is stressful enough.
Third, Sex = babies. You dont want a baby, dont have sex or wear protection. We are always looking for stupid loopholes to not take responsibility for our actions.

[monorprise]

@dreamstar72
Its made by lying politicians trying to buy votes at all cost.

The crippling social problems created by the very behavior permitted by the same are huge.

Not only do the same men remain on the marked free to impregnate other women creating yet more instances of the same problem. The children born or not born of the same create huge problems for the host sociality either because they lack a father or worse still don't exist at all (having not made it).

But politicians in "democracy" not only have no limits but only care about the next election, not the issues that show up 20 years down the road. Which is also why they don't alliance their budges.

[Apple1996]

Yeah in those states where abortion is not allowed they should set strict rules on the father as well. Either pay up to fully support the mother and child or to stick around and marry the woman. It's wrong to force a child into the world knowing that it might not have a active father

[monorprise]

@Apple1996
I can't help but notice you haven't killed yourself or any orfant given you see life as such a burden to be "Forced" upon someone.

The Father is indeed financially responsible to the mother and in a functioning culture would be forced to marry her as we once did. But our culture has for 60+ years now abolished the institution of marriage and is now dying for want of fathers and even children.

Our lands are well on their way to being settled by other cultures who reject theses ideas and are not afraid to do shotgun-weddings to avoid the far worse social problems without them.

[Yabbut]

In states where abortion is not legal, there is no law requiring the mother to keep the child. There's always adoption. It's not about responsibility, it's about the belief that abortion takes a life.

[BarryLiverstone]

Right but there is still the nine months the law says the mother can’t kill her child. I’m asking why not mention the father?

[Yabbut]

I see. I guess I thought you meant stay with her to raise the child. If she has to suffer through, I guess it would only be fair if he had to as well. However, she may not want him around.

[BarryLiverstone]

Yes, I know in rare cases the mother may have suffered rape or abuse. I was just curious why the laws only mention the mother and had no mention of the father for those nine months.

[JacobJordan]

The fathers responsibility is child support or being present. What do you mean? Men have had to be responsible for the child for a long time. The removal of abortion is giving women the equality they so desperately crave. She makes a mistake and gets pregnant well now she has to take accountability and can't just run to planned parenthood to murder the unborn child

[BarryLiverstone]

What I mean is if the laws are forcing the mother to not kill her child, why is there no mention of the father?

[JacobJordan]

Because the father has no say according to the law. So it doesn't mention the father

[BarryLiverstone]

And why is that? Both are required to create new life and if she’s carrying the baby shouldn’t he be with her?

[MzAsh]

If abortion is illegal, then I firmly believe a man walking away should be illegal. It’s still far too easy for men to skip out on responsibility. They move away. Start other families. Earn too low wages to support.

[JacobJordan]

@MzAsh that would require both men and women actually being responsible enough to wait until they are in a healthy relationship to engage in intimacy. Somehow I don't see either being willing to do that

[BarryLiverstone]

The father and mother were responsible enough to have sex with each other. Raising a baby together isn’t easy but the alternative is worse isn’t it?

[MzAsh]

Jacob, irresponsible individuals and couple… that’s exactly why I think abortion laws are nothing but a bandaid on a much deeper wound, so to speak. We’re not going to solve this issue until we empower men and women towards being more responsible.

[JacobJordan]

@MzAsh which part of it is not giving people an escape for poor choices

[WintersDaughter]

First, a law doesn't "force" a woman to give birth. Birth is natural and will happen whether you like it or not. Unless you get an induction, birth is never forced.

Second, the laws about abortion only apply to those who can get pregnant (aka WOMEN) and the abortionist.

There are already a lot of laws surrounding men and their children. Taking away the option to kill their children doesn't take any rights away from women, it doesn't give men any additional rights.

[BarryLiverstone]

As you say the laws only apply to the moms when pregnant. That’s my question. Why isn’t the dad involved in those laws?

[WintersDaughter]

Because he doesn't need to be. It's literally about abortion, only women can get an abortion because only women can get pregnant.

The only thing the law does is say she can't kill her child. Guess what? The man also can't kill the child. There's no need to include the father in the law. There's no law saying the mother has to raise the child, she's free to give them to a good family, she just can't kill them.

What would the law even say about the father?

[BarryLiverstone]

The law would say that as long as she’s pregnant that he should support his child. She must endure nine months even if she gives the newborn up for adoption. So he should also endure nine months with her

[WintersDaughter]

So basically you think men should pay child support while she's pregnant?

I fully support that, however when the baby is born if it's discovered that the child isn't his then the mother has to pay twice as much back.

The problem with that is that women will take advantage of it. Most men are already supporting both the mom and their child, so that would only apply to men who want to leave or for hookups.

Laws similar to that are already being introduced. Look up S.4512 Unborn Child Support Act.

[BarryLiverstone]

I wasn’t thinking child support. While that’s possible I was thinking he has to be around her, show up to pregnancy class, he can’t go date someone else. I’m just wondering why she’s stuck getting pregnant when if it was a one night stand he could be allowed to never see her again.

[WintersDaughter]

Bruh that's not something you can put into law 💀.

First of all, if she didn't want to get pregnant, she wouldn't have done the one natural act that can get her pregnant. She can't kill her child, boo hoo.

You can court mandate pregnancy classes, but forcing him to be around her and not date anyone isn't possible and, frankly, idiotic.

[BarryLiverstone]

Not idiotic. 100 years ago in many places the father would have been forced to marry her if she was carrying his new child and unwed. I’m just asking about the nine months that her body is being used to raise his child. And the same can be said if he doesn’t want to be with her for nearly a year then he could make the same choice to not have sex

[WintersDaughter]

Men were never forced by law, they were massively pressured to marry.

Again, I agree. If you don't want a kid, don't have sex unless you're prepared to deal with the result of your actions. That goes for both men and women.

[BarryLiverstone]

Ty we both agree. Peace.

[WhitneySnow]

Because unfortunately the two are not equivalent. Sadly, you can force a pregnant woman to give birth (or at least you can get); you can’t force a guy to be a good father.

[WhitneySnow]

Or at least you can try

[BarryLiverstone]

That is sad. It took both to create a baby. He should stay with her while she’s pregnant.

[WhitneySnow]

I totally agree

[HighValue]

Fathers already are at least financially responsible, even though mothers are not. Even men that are proven with DNA to not be the father because his wife cheated are still often held responsible for kids that aren't theirs.

Many women need to spend their lives in prison for what they have done, right along with the sexist corrupt judges.

[BarryLiverstone]

Are the fathers forced to stay with her during pregnancy? If she is forced to raise the child inside her for 9 months

[HighValue]

Where is her financial responsibility for 18 YEARS?
Or criminal responsibility for fraud?
Don't hold women accountable do you?

[Agape93]

Give it time, a lot of fundamentalists don't believe in separation or birth control. Tyrants never stop finding new ways to exert control over others until you remove them from power or kill em

[BarryLiverstone]

So based on the question you would be against more control and forcing men to stay with their child’s mother until delivery?

[Agape93]

Correct. I don't even want her to be made to have the kid to begin with.

[DishLady]

Sometimes the father isn't a good person… sometimes the baby is the product of non-consensual intercourse… It's a very complicated topic.

[BarryLiverstone]

Yes I know it’s very complex. Just seems like it’s unfair that she loses 9 months and her body changes but the father can ghost and the law never mentions him while she’s pregnant

[DishLady]

She loses way way more than 9 months… it’s a lifetime contract. Even the moms who give their kids up reportedly feel the same “shadow pains” as a war veteran who loses a limb.

You’re looking for a reason to make the dads feel or be accountable… a noble cause, but if there was one way to do that then family court, bondsmen and a whole litter of other service providers would simply not exist. (There’s an entire industry hanging on the hope of women being miserable forever because some guy has left them in a state of distress… legal services, food services, clothing and makeup… the list goes on.) in my opinion, the government’s decision is based on wanting to keep up the industry.

[Pillubi]

Cause there is bias in the system. It takes two to tango, and both should b held accountable.

[BarryLiverstone]

You are right. And currently the mom gets too much blame and negative feedback

[Pillubi]

Agreed

[loveslongnails]

Because the people behind the abortion restriction laws don't really give a shit about the child's welfare AFTER it's born, it's just a ruse. Also, because it's primarily men who are in the legislature and they're not going to be held accountable for sex that results in a pregnancy! Are you kidding?

Make NO mistake about it - if MEN got pregnant, abortion would be legal up to 16 weeks in EVERY damn state, and you KNOW it's true!

[BarryLiverstone]

I’m not kidding. The men are fathers as much as the women are mothers. So the men should be around those nine months if she’s forced to deliver.

[loveslongnails]

Yes, I get that YOU aren't kidding, but the MEN who write the laws aren't going to stand up and be held accountable for their actions. Wait, it's going to get worse if red states take away contraception. As I said, the people behind the laws are all self-righteous about "protecting the unborn" and "preventing murder", but they really do NOT give a shit about what happens after birth, ESPECIALLY if you're poor. If you're poor, they'll say "why did you get pregnant in the first place? You shouldn't be having sex"... as they take away all contraception.

[Anonymous]

A worrying proportion of women would not know who the father is, nor want him to be around where they do know.

Abortion isn't the problem, poor social norms are. In some cases, encouraged by the state.

As it is, the state demands the absent parent pay dues if they are not physically supporting the child.

[BarryLiverstone]

And my question was why doesn’t the law mention the father? As you said he may be absent but if the mother is forced to raise the baby for 9 months it should dictate the father’s responsibility.

[Rangers]

Guess what? I agree, the father helped create the child, so should he stay and help take care of the child?

You're damn right, he should. If he was worth the salt he sweats, he'd stay right there and help

[monorprise]

It did, that was called marriage.

They then tried to make up for the fact that they distort marriage (with no falt divorce). Via child support, as well as allowing the woman to give up the child at any time.

[CriticalCatDad123]

Because fathers already have too much responsibility and women have zero.


Can a man opt out of fatherhood if the mother attempts to baby trap him?

[DextroShade]

Usually the woman prefers welfare and child support to having the baby daddy around, it's sick.

[BarryLiverstone]

But isn’t the law written for the benefit of the baby? Not for the father or mother’s benefit.

[DextroShade]

That's what they claim, but if that were actually true they would give men custody as children raised by single fathers have far better outcomes than those raised by single mothers.

[BarryLiverstone]

This wasn’t a question of custody, it was about the nine months the baby is in the womb.

Single fathers are given custody and usually because they are better able to raise the new child financially.

[DextroShade]

Men rarely get custody, at least in the West.

[BarryLiverstone]

Women rarely prefer welfare, at least in the west

[DextroShade]

Tell that to the black community.

[TommyMountainFigure]

The law not allowing pregnancy termination is wrong. end of.

[jahaims]

Child support is in place to try to curb that. Forcing people to be together would be worse for the child.

[BarryLiverstone]

I was asking about the nine months she is raising the child in her womb. The law doesn’t mention the father

[jahaims]

Some places are considering starting child support once they are pregnant. Outside of cases of SA, they were both consenting adults who knew what the outcome could be. If you don't want to have a baby, then don't have sex. If you don't like the outcome, don't partake in the action.

[BarryLiverstone]

Yes and that goes for both the dad and mom. As laws increase responsibilities for the father it may shift decisions that he makes and risks

[jahaims]

Nah, they will still be irresponsible. If having a child isn't enough of an insensitive, nothing will be.

[serious_miss419]

If the law forced a pregnant woman to deliver? Please elaborate.

[BarryLiverstone]

For example Texas: www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/.../TX

[serious_miss419]

Thank you but I don’t click links. If you can’t express yourself on the matter then it appears you don’t know what you’re trying to say.

[BarryLiverstone]

No worries. I click links as they are factual. God bless