On my glass forum this question was presented… Disclaimer: I don't want Dr. Phil so I didn't see the show in question.
Apparently there was a man and woman on the show, they had a child together. From the get-go, he did not want kids, ever. She did. According to the details, both of their families knew this. Their friends knew this. She was on birth control, wanted a child. He absolutely did not. He trusted her (mistake 1) and she stopped taking the birth control.
Now she's suing him for child support. He is fighting it tooth and nail with a prominent lawyer because he believes he should have a choice if the woman has the ability to choose without legally having to consider his opinion. (Abortion)
I kind of have to agree with him. Men get the short end of the stick. The argument against him is that he should have used birth control regardless, or had a vasectomy. Where as she could be using birth control, and even if it fails, still opt to have a surgical procedure to fix the mistake. The vasectomy is insisting that he undergoes irreversible surgery. What's wrong with "not right now"? Or "not with you"? Women aren't removed from their choice because they give an excuse as I'm not ready. Even if she doesn't opt for an abortion, she can legally give the child up for adoption. Here is a man who doesn't have that option.
At the same time, there are deadbeat fathers who deserve the jail time they receive because they neglect supporting their children. Where do you draw the line here? I understand women pursuing child support in certain cases. Just because it was an "oops" doesn't completely absolve you of responsibility, nor should it. She may not have wanted to be a mom, but she sucked it up and took the responsibility when she could have aborted or placed it for adoption.
But if you say NO KIDS! before you have sex, as a male you simply do not have the same options as a woman who does.
It's a little sexist. Just because a hypothetical woman who may not have wanted children opted to proceed, doesn't mean a man shouldn't have that option. He damned sure doesn't get a say so if she wants an abortion.
Actually it's a lot sexist. I think there should be a legal option to terminate all rights immediately upon learning of an impending birth. But at the same time, that kind of sticks it to the woman when he really does have just as much responsibility here. He shouldn't arbitrarily be able to say "nope, not paying". But he shouldn't have to live without the same choices to terminate parental rights either.
Instead of pre-nuptial agreements, should there be pre-coital contracts? Is this the answer?
Apparently there was a man and woman on the show, they had a child together. From the get-go, he did not want kids, ever. She did. According to the details, both of their families knew this. Their friends knew this. She was on birth control, wanted a child. He absolutely did not. He trusted her (mistake 1) and she stopped taking the birth control.
Now she's suing him for child support. He is fighting it tooth and nail with a prominent lawyer because he believes he should have a choice if the woman has the ability to choose without legally having to consider his opinion. (Abortion)
I kind of have to agree with him. Men get the short end of the stick. The argument against him is that he should have used birth control regardless, or had a vasectomy. Where as she could be using birth control, and even if it fails, still opt to have a surgical procedure to fix the mistake. The vasectomy is insisting that he undergoes irreversible surgery. What's wrong with "not right now"? Or "not with you"? Women aren't removed from their choice because they give an excuse as I'm not ready. Even if she doesn't opt for an abortion, she can legally give the child up for adoption. Here is a man who doesn't have that option.
At the same time, there are deadbeat fathers who deserve the jail time they receive because they neglect supporting their children. Where do you draw the line here? I understand women pursuing child support in certain cases. Just because it was an "oops" doesn't completely absolve you of responsibility, nor should it. She may not have wanted to be a mom, but she sucked it up and took the responsibility when she could have aborted or placed it for adoption.
But if you say NO KIDS! before you have sex, as a male you simply do not have the same options as a woman who does.
It's a little sexist. Just because a hypothetical woman who may not have wanted children opted to proceed, doesn't mean a man shouldn't have that option. He damned sure doesn't get a say so if she wants an abortion.
Actually it's a lot sexist. I think there should be a legal option to terminate all rights immediately upon learning of an impending birth. But at the same time, that kind of sticks it to the woman when he really does have just as much responsibility here. He shouldn't arbitrarily be able to say "nope, not paying". But he shouldn't have to live without the same choices to terminate parental rights either.
Instead of pre-nuptial agreements, should there be pre-coital contracts? Is this the answer?
Last edited:
