- NEW!
by mekare on March 13th, 2007
it took both people to make the baby and a guy can't think that it all ends with the fun part .... that's the thing with kids having sex .... if you aren't responsible enough to be a parent, you aren't responsible enough for sex
by Midnighttoker on June 2nd, 2007
yes, you play, you pay. simple.
by Sheriff Raff -Answerhag on September 9th, 2007
If you cannot afford a fifty cent condom and use it, you should not be having sex.
by Nelson - Jetpacking from bed on June 18th, 2007
Crude answer, but: If you breed them, you feed them!
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on June 2nd, 2007
ABORTION IS NOT A FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL.
by unknown on March 13th, 2007
She didn't get pregnant by herself so yes he should pay child support. If you don't want to or can't pay for a child then don't have sex.
by Miss Anubis loves this season on July 28th, 2008
That's what birth control is for. Condoms are alot cheaper than supporting a child.
by P. W. Pasobrio loves Marines on June 2nd, 2007
Yes, he needs to get off his butt and get a job. He knew bofore hand she could still get pregnant and it would be his responsability to help raise and care for the child. If he doesn't want to have to deal with that then he needs to keep it in his pants. And to pressure someone he claims to love to kill the child is just selfish and shows he doesn't love her.
The only time I don't think a guy shouldn't have to pay is if he can prove she tricked him into getting her pregnant.
by Jamaican on March 13th, 2007
In my opinion, if a man tell his counter part that he does not have the money to support a child, but is much in love with her, and he suggests that an abortion happen, but the woman decides to keep the child, in my opinion she is on her own financially as far aas the child is concerned. (Let the Negative Comments Roll In)
by FLYxNIGHT on March 13th, 2007
I personally think no; that's probably going to score me many negative points, but that is my opinion. When the decision to have or not to have a child lies exclusively in the hands of one party, and the other goes on record as being against it, they should not have to bear the burden.
by Someone on July 22nd, 2007
I think he should have thought of that before having sex with her. Same with anyone.
by Namaste formerly future_health_educator on June 2nd, 2007
If he was willing to have sex than he is responsible to help support the baby.
by Gideon on March 13th, 2007
Absolutely. You made the same decisions to have sex and not use proper protection as did the woman in this situation. Your decisions lead to consequences. This consequence here is a child. The child is yours and is now partially your responsibility. Welcome to the world of personal accountability.
I hope you do the right thing for your child so that it knows both parents and has a decent upbringing. Not because you have to, because you want to.
by Kamilah on March 13th, 2007
This is going to come off as really mean but if the guy cannot support a child he shouldn't have taken the risk and kept it in his pants.
Otherwise this is a difficult subject. Having an abortion can be a very wearing on a girl. Both physically and emotionally. The fact that he actually asked her to have an abortion says something.
All in all, it's his child he should be there for it in any way he can.
And yet again, didn't mean to offend but this is what I think
by zee-ster on June 18th, 2007
yes. abortion is plan b. if he didn't want to get a girl pregnant, he should have considered the reprecussions before that pregnancy test came out positive.
by pcorr99 on April 6th, 2007
This is a tough topic, yes it takes two to tango.
Yes he chose to do the deed.
But she made the choice to keep it, he had no power to change that.
I think that legally yes he is responsible, but morally if she knew his feeling (especially if befor having sex) about having a child, then she should respect his stand and accept sole responsibility.
That said, what kind of jerk would actually not try and help
by Anonymous on March 13th, 2007
Believe this or not, if the father is a minor and the mother to-be is a minor, both parents can be liable for the care of the baby. yep, you heard it here folks.
If this is not the case. financially able or not, the father will be sued in civil court for support. not financially able, in this case, means exactly what? if you are employed, the court will see that the baby is supported by you.
Yes, it takes two to tango, but someone has to be responsible for the infant.
It cannot support itself.
by Someguy on March 13th, 2007
Legally, it is the woman's decision to go forward with the pregnancy or not. The father/sperm donor is legaly responsible for all costs incurred, including child support.
The courts don't care how much you make, they will take a portion of it to care for the child. It is not going to make for a happy Dad, but that is what is going to happen.
If she's smart, she will name him as the father on the birth certificate and then sue his butt for as much child support as he can afford. It takes two to tango and the court will support that. The court's interest is to protect the welfare of the child. Hopefully, he will use this as an example that he must take his responsibilities seriously.
by Sarita1 Goes Bollywood on March 13th, 2007
More correct, the question should be, can he be sued.
If she can prove its his child, he can be sued for child support in some states.
I hope he learned an important lesson about using birth control.
Why is he not financially able to support the child? Is he really young and jobless?
And its her body so ultimately, its up to her what she will do with it, including having a child if she chooses to do so. If she has stated she doesnt want any involvement from the guy, he needs to get that in writing and signed in front of a lawyer!
by Anonymous on June 3rd, 2007
So, just because he says he can't support a child, he shouldn't have to? So what if the woman also can't support the child? What then? I'm sure she's not exactly thrilled about having a baby with no father, but on top of that she's supposed to carry the financial burden of this child for the rest of her life and he gets off scot free because he won't get a job?
Bottom line; If he can't financially support a child, then he shouldn't be having sex.
Just because you don't WANT a child, doesn't make you any less responsible for them once they're born.
by slothmister on June 1st, 2007
Without any doubt he should be!
At the end of the day it is the womans choice to have the baby or not, he is the father therefor he has responsibilities for it!
There is only one case I have ever heard of where I have thought the father should not pay support, and that was when the mother was a multi-millionaress (lottery win) and the father was working 16h a day and earning maybe 250 dollers a week (take home) and paying 200 per week in support!
by TheJoker on May 20th, 2009
Yes he should. After all no one forced him to bonk her, it's just one of the risks / responsibilities you have to accept with sex.
by DA BEN DAN yanggui zi on December 10th, 2007
Yes
by Deni on August 19th, 2007
Where were you when you were created by your biological mother and father?? Duh, when you were born did they say, "Hmmm lets see, do we go through with what we already did?, make a human being?" This child has as much rights to live the best life possible as you and I do and the two who made him/her have the responsibily to give them that.... no choices at this point..it was made when they had their playtime... sounds like that's what sex was to them, consiquently we all have to stand behind our behavior, choose wisely. nuff said
by Berenise on March 13th, 2007
if a guy doesnt have the financial funds to support a child than he should at least try to have the finacial funds to buy himself some rubber.
when a guy does not want to have a child he would make up any excuse possible in the book to not take care of that child. the court would not care one bit about if the guy wanted to have a baby or not, they are gonna see it as if you did not want to be responsible for your actions than maybe you should not be looking for actions and keeing your shit in your pants.
i personally would never put a guy on child support because at the end everyone regrets what they do and if a guy doesnt want my child oh well, they are the ones who are gonna suffer when they feel ready and their already old enough child hates them...that to me is enough.
by farseer on October 6th, 2011
If you're willing to have sex, you should be willing to deal with the results.
by Frenchman on a Horse on June 20th, 2011
No, he shouldn't be sued, because he should be a man and take responsibility for his actions. If one is with a girl and doesn't know her views, one shouldn't be with her anyway... If one gets that girl pregnant, and she wants to keep the baby, guess what, it's daddy's problem, not the taxpayer's.
I'm weary of subsidizing single moms because the dads skip out... I don't care if it ruins his life, his dreams or not, he made a choice and needs to live with it... It is not the publics responsibility to support every baby a deadbeat dad leaves behind. If a guy really doesn't want these issues, $400 bucks gets a vasectomy... Way cheaper than a baby. The government should offer vasectomies for free.. It would save by far more money than it would cost.
by Stormarm on February 25th, 2011
1) Wanting the woman to have an abortion ... or to put the child up for adoption ... is irrelevant.
2) What the Law used to say (and still should say) is: (a) if you were living together (had a common law marriage) then YES, she and the child have a right to your financial support; (b) if it was just casual sex, then NO, the man has no LEGAL obligation to support the child. (You're MORAL obligation is another matter.)
That being said, IT'S YOUR KID, DAMMIT!!! Be a man and do what's right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by -O-uknow on January 17th, 2011
For every cent since the money must come from somewhere and better him than the rest of us.
by Gratefully Me on December 15th, 2010
Yes.
by scorpio on December 15th, 2010
Well I'm assuming he didn't have financial burdens thrust upon him overnight and was aware he can't financially support a child before deciding to have unprotected intercourse so maybe a better option would be to think this through before hand. You know it's just as easy for a man to put on a condom as it is for a woman to insist he uses one. So yes in my opinion he should pay child support.
by gproductions on December 15th, 2010
hell yeah
by Icameback4now on December 15th, 2010
Ya but he should be man enough to take care of his responsibilities without being sued!!
by staffie on December 6th, 2010
it took two people to make a baby and if you knew you wernt ready for a child or you couldnt support a child then you shouldnt of been selfish and you should of used a condom!
by gillaspy01 on June 11th, 2010
I heard about this woman who had three kids and was collecting child support from three different fathers. She was taking welfafe too and living off the child support and welfare checks. She wanted a new car so she tricked a fourth guy into getting her pregnant again. She tells all the fathers that she doesnt want them to see their kids or beinvolved in any way other than child support checks. She sits on her butt and eats junk and does drugs and watches cable all day every day.
Fair? unfair?
by call_me_ishmael on March 3rd, 2010
can't do the time, don't do the crime....
by Nicola on October 19th, 2009
In one word.........yes.
Its not all about the money though.
by Radioactive Ducky on June 6th, 2009
Yes because he could have not had sex with her.
by iamidoit on May 26th, 2009
if he isnt "finacally prepared" he shouldnt have sex without nowing the consiquents
by Ditto on May 20th, 2009
Absolutely. It's called taking personal responsibility for your actions. Maybe next time he'll be a bit more careful.
by artnastics on May 20th, 2009
If he can't afford to pay, he should have never played! What kind of question is this? Because you can't afford a child you request the child to be aborted, because it's not aborted then their is no reason to help support it? It takes an egg and a sperm to make a child. I haven't heard of an asexual adult yet or cloning. If you can't afford a child don't have sex. At the very least wear a condom.
by parrib1 on May 10th, 2009
When you engage in behavior that has certain reasonable risks you need to be prepared for the potential consequences. Unless the guy was raped or the semen was collected trickery, ie. removed from a condom, the guy is responsible for whatever happens with the seed he has fired into a crowded uterus. If you fire a gun you are responsible for whatever damage the bullet does whether the result was intentional or not.
by Anonymous on August 26th, 2008
Yes. He should be placed on child support. You made the decision not to be protected. If the girl doesn't believe in abortion then why should she have to raise this child on her own. She didn't make the baby by herself.
by jflanagan on July 28th, 2008
Sorry big guy. I suggest you get out and find a second job if need be because you are responsible for that child.
by Audiotron on June 25th, 2008
Yes. If you can't deal with the consequences, keep it in your pants guys! You do the deed, you deal with what happens, or you are a coward.
by Anonymous on January 27th, 2008
You jerk. You choose to have sex and made the baby and you are responsible for it. You have no right to ask the woman to kill her child because you were both irresponsible and you don't want to pay. You are sick!
by Anya on January 15th, 2008
Yes...He is resoponsible for child support regardless. If you are not married the court will order a paternity test of the child....if it's your child, you are 100% financially responsible, even if you did not want it.
the way the courts see it is if you did not want a child, you should not have engaged in the act of making one.
by .avallach on June 18th, 2007
I honestly do have a problem with the way things are set up, a woman's right to choose can condemn a man to 18 years of child support whether it's his choice too or not. Yea yea he shouldn't've had unprotected sex or whatever but except in cases of rape, every decision leading up to the pregnancy is shared 50/50, why should the choice of keeping the baby and/or requiring child support be entirely up to the woman?
For the record I am pro-life and could go on & on about this subject, but that's my answer to the question.
by garnorche on June 1st, 2007
Legally, ou have to because of the wide contraception methods available, I'm not even talking about abortion which is a last resource after all the other ones. But, your life can't suck that bad, there's got to be a good job after all the crappy ones. What they can do, is give you at least the opportunity to do somehing for a better job and just ask for back payment after. remember, it's your kid.
by Nellie Wise Gamgee on March 13th, 2007
no but he will be and they will prolly make him pay
i think this is a conversation you should have before you have sex with anyone you should ask are you also ready to have children with them because even with protection things happen.
Do custody papers have to be notarized?
by Answerbag Staff on May 21st, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Can your spouse make you move out until a divorce is final?
by Answerbag Staff on May 20th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Who gets custody in a divorce?
by Answerbag Staff on May 17th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
brother got a girl prego she wants to sign her rights over to me what kind of lawyer would i have to get and how would we go about that?
by babygirl3 on September 8th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Should the Judicial system be reviewed in the context of alimony cases?
by Masculinist on December 5th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
You're reading If a guy get a girl pregnant, but is not financially able to support the child, and requests that the girl have an abortion, but she choses not to, should he still be sued for child support?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
Well said!!!
by NightOwl on June 2nd, 2007
I suspect the hidden point is why. If she can make the decision alone. Then why not suffer the consequences alone? For example in the reverse. What if he wanted the child but she did not. Does he then have the right to force her to bear. The answer in most cases is no. There you see the disparity.
by -O-uknow on June 2nd, 2007
The point is: She didn't make the decision to have sex alone, therefore the man is just as responsible no matter what she chooses to do (have the baby or not). It was his choice to have unprotected sex when he wasn't ready for a child, now he has to deal with it.
by Anonymous on June 3rd, 2007
The "missing" point is the decision to have sex was not alone. Then why is the decision whether or not to have the child done alone? What if he is ready and wants to "deal with it" but she is not?
by -O-uknow on June 3rd, 2007
It's ultimately NOT the man's choice. She's ready to accept her responsibility for having sex, so why should he have to do the same?
by Anonymous on June 3rd, 2007
Why is it her choice alone to have or not have the child?
by -O-uknow on June 3rd, 2007
Because she is the one who has to carry and give birth to it, not to mention the fact that SHE'LL be tied to it for the rest of her life, while in most cases the father runs off and shirks his responsibility.
by Anonymous on June 3rd, 2007
There you go. I've been waiting. It's "her" body and she is more "invested". Therefore she carries the "greater" responsibility for not getting pregnant, but luckily tis a matter resolved in the courts.
by -O-uknow on June 3rd, 2007
I don't see how the woman possibly carries a greater responsibility for not getting pregnant, since it takes TWO people to engage in the sexual act (which last time I checked, aside from artificial insemenation, is the ONLY way to get pregnant). that's why BOTH parties are equally responsible once the child is born.
by Anonymous on June 3rd, 2007
Aye..once the child is born..agreed, but don't be naive. The one who bears the greater consequence as you yourself have indicated. Bears the greater responsibility..right or wrong. No one is more apt to look after your best interest than you are yourself. Don't think that because the law makes him responsible he feels this way himself.. despite your pleas. Although both participated in procreation. The decision to have the child is not equally his. Until this disparity is resolved socially, not just in the courts. You can expect resistance from the male to take on the responsibility both the law and society demands.
by -O-uknow on June 3rd, 2007
I never said that the woman carries the greater responsibility. I said that in most cases it's the WOMAN who ends up BEING the responsible one after the guy runs out on her. You're the one being naive. It takes TWO people to conceive a child. It only takes ONE woman to carry and birth a child. When men start becoming pregnant, then they can decide whether or not to HAVE a baby. Until then, they are legally bound to provide financial support for any children they helped conceive. They aren't legally bound to be a FATHER to those children, just to be financially responsible for them (AS IS THE MOTHER, by the way).
by Anonymous on June 4th, 2007
"I said" the woman ultimately carries the greater responsibility since it is her choice alone whether or not to have the child. We both understand that legally they both share equal responsibility if she does decide to have it, but as you indicated this does not bound the male to be a FATHER to the child. The unfortunate consequence of the female making the sole decision is that the male in too many cases often opts not to be. This is the issue I believe receives little attention and cannot be settled in the courts due to a woman's rights over her body. So it must be settled socially.
by -O-uknow on June 4th, 2007
I don't think it's "unfortunate" that a man who obviously isn't cracked up to be a dad in the first place refuses to be a father to their child. In cases like that, the kid is better off without some resentful "father figure" in their life anyway. The reason it's the woman's choice is because it's her body. It's also because if the woman chooses to have the baby, it's already pretty obvious that she's going to be a mother to that child as best she can. A woman doesn't usually have a baby and then say "oops, I didn't mean to do that!" (although it DOES happen, but it's not what I would consider normal). Like I said, you can't force a man to be a father but you CAN force him to take responsibility for his bad decision making by being financially responsible for a child he helped create (even if he never wanted it in the first place)
by Anonymous on June 4th, 2007
Very well said!! You are so right
by supermommy6 on December 10th, 2007
It's not a question of who carries the "greater" responsibility for not getting pregnant. It's a question of who is going to suffer for nine months and then risk her life in childbirth.
by purplecows on August 13th, 2011
condom
by Nutsy_Rail on December 11th, 2011