Whose Responsibility Is It?

If a W. has a child because SHE want's a child, and does not have the money for one...then she is only worrying about HERSELF. She is being selfish. She is not taking into consideration of the little human who will have needs.

If there is no money to take care of a child, then it's her responsibility to A.Find a way to provide, or B. WAIT.

Sex = babies. Or, we all know it can. If a man does not want a child, he should get sterilized. Other then that, he really can't say it's not his responsibility. With that said, if a W. tricks him (says she can't conceive), and she does conceive...why should he pay? Just as it's wrong for a man to force a pregnancy on a W., it should be wrong for a W. to do so on a man. If a W. is willing to lie and cheat her way into pregnancy, that's not someone who is qualified to be a mother, anyway.

The only way you are going to get what you want is to institute government control like in China. You haven't mentioned the difference in the classes, but since you want to keep the poor from having children, the slippery slope will prevail and it will only be the "have's" having children. And THEN it will be only the have's who a certain group wants to have children, and we'll have another Hitler. Gee, thanks.

I want to know why you think that it's up to the W. to have the birth control work. Men spread their seed everywhere. They are JUST as culpable as women. It's a huge slap in the face to women to conclude that a man can have the roll in the hay and it's solely HER responsibility to keep from getting pregnant.

Dawn

I absolutely think financial ability/stabilty should be a big factor. Why not?? If anyone says no, they're saying other taxpayers should be responsible. How is that logical or fair? If people don't care about material things and are fine raising a family of 6 kids in a tiny home with no money but they're happy, that's fine with me. (except I think for environmental reasons no one should have 6 kids...) But if they have children and then either start complaining or looking for help from other people, then I take issue. I'm personally not anti abortion if it's very early. I know that's a personal view but I also take the long-term view that it's not always in anyone's best interest for every single child conceived to be born.

Cheryl, I do agree that my children are my financial responsibility, and that played a big factor for us in determining the number of children we have. My husband would have liked more kids, but the simple fact is, we knew we couldn't provide for additional children in the way we wanted to.

I think if men truly don't want children, there are ways they can ensure they don't have any (like getting a vasectomy and wearing condoms) - so if a man sleeps with a W. who ends up pregnant, he bears as much responsibility as she does.

All that being said, just because I am financially stable today doesn't mean I'll be financially stable forever. Hard times can come to anyone for any reason - job loss, death of a spouse, illness that insurance doesn't cover. For this reason, I think that social safety nets are critical. You can't plan for every eventuality, and even if you have done everything in your power to be financially responsible, sometimes things happen outside of your control. But by and large, yes, we should all be financially responsible for our own children.

1. Financial stability shoudl play a part to a point. Very few of us would ever feel that we are financially ready for children therefore if we waiting until we reached that point, we may never have children. However, we certainly should know where our next meal is coming from, have a secure place to live, and be in a stable relationship etc. It's not fair to ourselves, the child, our families, or the "system" to do otherwise.

2. Yes, both a man and a W. are and should be financially responsible regardless of it was a wanted pregnancy. If neither the man and/or women wants a child, precautions should be taken to insure one is not conceived...abstinence, birth control (multiple forms perhaps). If one is conceived, it is BOTH the man and the W.'s responsibility. You asked if it was fair for the man to be "trapped" which sounds a bit sexist in that there are women that get pregnant even though they didn't WANT to, does that mean the man trapped them (and their bodies)? If not, how does the W. getting pregnant against the man's wishes trap him? The man certainly wants "trapped" when he had sex, so pregnancy should not be considered a trap either.

I don't believe people should have babies expecting the taxpayer to help feed or care for them. (Those kind of mothers do exist, but are actually a much smaller fraction of the cost of welfare than most taxpayers believe.) However, accidental pregancies happen, and we can all go through unexpected hard times, so I'm glad for whatever social safety nets are avaialble. Children are innocent, and didn't ask to be born into an unstable, poor or hungry family.

Fatherhood responsibility is also not a black-and-white issue. Men know that sex can initiate accidental pregnancies, so to leave prevention in the hands of the W. or of fate is foolish. If a pregnancy develops, then I think the man is generally as responsible as the W. – in fact, my mother had 3 accidental daughters because her husband was too impatient to give her time to take precautions (before the pill). An exception MIGHT be when a man is assured by a W. that she can't get pregnant and is convinced that an accident can't happen. And I can see some uneducated teens believing that all sorts of nutty things can prevent pregnancy.

But there are very few men today (beyond their teen years) who don't know that those fun times in the sack could make them daddies. And knowing that implies responsibility, to me: either birth control measures during sex, or financial responsibility later.

I feel that financial stability is for the most part a mirage. Most people if they lose their job will be in dire straights within 2 months. Even millionaires are quick to file bankruptcy now-a-days.

MY children will be YOUR caretakers, leaders, and future... so the little bit that some families use towards federal aid during hard times is nothing in the larger scheme of things.

Men know what happens during sex - granted women do too... but until a man can take a fetus out of the W. and choose to carry it and birth it - it remains, as it should - the SOLE choice of the W. if she wants to carry it or not and the man who impregnated her is on the ride until the child is adopted by another man or the child turns 18.

Interesting question.
I think if a man doesn't want kids then he should have a vasectomy done to insure he doesn’t make any, or not have sex (same for a W., but different surgery). If people are going to have unprotected sex then they (both people) should be responsible for the child.
If it is a married couple I would hope that children were discussed before they got married, but that both parents should be responsible.

Well, first - if someone doesn't want kids then they shouldn't have sex. Period. The end. Abstinence is the ONLY way to 100% prevent pregnancy. That goes for men and women equally. That goes if they are married or single or whatever.

Yep - I know if you are married you want to have sex. But you do so knowing that a pregnancy can result. That's called a natural consequence.

ANYTIME you have sex there is a possibility a pregnancy can occur. Even if they are 'fixed' or whatever. Even if they do natural family planning.

YES men should be held financially responsible if they have sex and a pregnancy results. Regardless of whether or not they wanted a child or intend to be active in that child's life. See my first statement for clarification.

YES "PARENTS" should be financially responsible for their child.

Should "money" be an indication of having a child? I don't really know what you mean by "financial ability"? Income level? Financial responsibility? I don't think you should have a child you can't afford - but that is different for everyone. What you can afford and what I can afford on the same salary can be two different things. My sister and her husband easily TRIPLE my income and are having a child. I am a single parent raising a child. I don't have high income at all, I'm under the national average of salary AND I owe $57,000 in student loan debt that I took on to get a degree so that I could get a job because I was unemployed for 2 years. I don't believe our "right" to have kids or how good of a parent we will be is indicative or our income level (in fact, I would say based on a myriad of other factors that I'm a better mom than she will be... but time will tell).

Should I have a child and expect to get money from someone else to help me raise that child? No, but things don't always work out the way we plan them.

Lastly the man didn't get "trapped" unless he was raped. He had sex of his own free will. Therefore he took that chance. Same as the W. who has sex but isn't prepared to raise a child. See my first statement for clarification.

HOWEVER - there are women who say they are on birth control and they are not. They lie specifically to get pregnant when they know their spouse does not want another child. In that case, I believe the man shouldn't have to be responsible if they were intentionally deceived. But this is hard to "prove", so often the guy is held responsible anyway. I think to intentionally deceive your spouse into parenting is one of the worst things you can do for that person and that child. It is also one of the most selfish actions that a W. can do.

When we decide to have a child /children..they are ours to take care of.. But in saying that.. I truly believe in it takes a village. There are many twists and turns that come up in life that have not been forseen when one made the choice to have a child.. Look what happened in 2008. How many families lost everything?? How many cashed in on any and all monies that they had. The best planning for that rainy day could have not saved many from what happened to them...their families, or their children. ....It is then that one may have to ask for help.

I dont think you ever feel as though you have enough money to have a child. Especially when you can look up on the net and see that it takes close to 1 million dollars from birth to age 18 (per child)... That would detour the best of us from procreating.
.
There are ways for a man to not get "trapped" into being a father.. Don't have sex... there is a forsure way one wouldn't become a dad... Cover it up..or have surgery if you are 100% sure you dont want kids.. In this day and age and with medicine in 2011 there really should be no oops... ...If he didnt want children I would imagine that before he got married that would be a topic to discuss??? . Or prior to having more talk about it. There are many alternatives that one or both can take to not become or get someone pregnant.

And, 100% YES.. if you are having sex, then there is a risk of your partner getting pregnant..and that baby is 50% you that she is carrying around. If you choose to not participate in raising your child, ok but send home the money. Or pay it to the DA Office..either way... you are going to contribute somehow someway.

I think that if someone plans a child, they should be responsible and be able to afford the child, but I understand that sometimes mistakes happen and a baby comes that was not planned, or that finances change after a child is already here.

As for if a man should have to support his kids, hell yes! If he does not want them than he either needs to not have sex, or if he is going to have sex make sure to wear a condom every time. But even than he has to understand that a condom is not 100% effective and if he has sex he is running a risk of becoming a father. She does not have to abort just because he does not want the kid, and once the kid is here it is no longer about what she or he wants, it is about what is best for the child, the only truly innocent in the situation.

as for the idea that some W. lie and say they are on BC, so what? My buddy told me his fathers best advice was "never trust her even if she says she is on BC, protect yourself, don't rely on others to do it for you". If he truly does not want kids, wear a condom.

Hmmm.....
We are not rich by any stretch of the imagination. My children will have to pay for their own college and I know they are not the only ones! If/when they want a car it will be their responsability to pay for it. If we were to be judged on the amount of money we make then we never would have been able to have ONE kid let alone the 3 I have! lol But, we make it work. We do double shifts, we pick up side work, we are careful with how we spend our money.
Now...I don't think any man is so stupid to not know that sex can create a baby. The only sex than can not create a baby is oral or masturbation. If the man decides that he wants to have sex than he KNOWS that there is a chance he could get his partner pregnant. Even if they wrap it up. So, my feeling has always been if the man is going to make the choice to sleep with a W. then he better always be ready to be a father. If he's not ready than he shouldn't be having sex. If the W. gets pregnant then he is responsible just like she is. Just my opinion.
L.

Cheryl,
I read your question several hours ago, and I've been thinking about it all day. I had to respond.

I read your SWH and I have to say, I drew some of the same political conclusions as some other posters. I suspect that is because I have read at least one (though I think I remember more) posting/question from you about how you are working toward reforming the welfare system in your state. I think I recall you mentioning that your plan for reform included a provision for benefits stopping if a W. becomes pregnant while on welfare. I think that was in the back of my mind while I read this question, and that it factored into my answer. Since, however that is apparently not what you intended with your question, I will try to answer it as you wrote it.

Yes, ideally financial stability should factor into a decision to have children. You should be able to feed, clothe and house your offspring on your dime. The rest is less black and white. I have no problem with my tax dollars supporting the medical care of low-income children, or with the government (again, with our taxes) subsidizing college.

For me, it was the other questions you raised in your post, about paternal responsibility that bothered me. The idea that a man should be off the hook financially because he stated a that he didn't want kids is crazy to me. Why should the child suffer because his father isn't interested in paying child support? I might say that I don't want to get into a car accident, and I may tell everyone in my path my preference, but the moment I get in that car and start driving around, I have assumed the risk that an accident may result. Sex is no different. If he truly doesn't want kids, he shouldn't engage in the behavior that produces them. If he chooses to have sex anyway, he needs to take precautions to prevent pregnancy, which means he gets a vasectomy, or wears a condom, every time, and that he accepts that even with these precautions, there is some risk of pregnancy.

I don't think that expecting men to be financially responsible for the children they produce is "trapping" them in any way. The way babies are made is not some female-held secret that we don't let the boys in on until after they have knocked us up. That would be a trap. This is simply a part of life, we make choices and we are responsible for the consequences of our choices.

If your children are your responsibility, and your responsibility alone, then you will never send your kids to public school. After all, the taxpayers and the government pay for that. Furthermore, you will never allow your child to apply for financial aid to go to college! Heaven forbid the government would foot the bill for your child's education!

Sound extreme? Yes, it does. But the fact is that EVERYONE utilizes government resources to help their kids.

Yes, I believe that couples should consider their finances as the consider growing their family. But the truth is that life takes us by surprise! You can be financially stable one minute and in a terrible pit the next. You can be planning to wait until you are more stable one minute and pregnant the next. Your responsibility is to do your best and then to roll with the punches. What more CAN you do?

The implication that those who utilize food stamps, WIC, etc. are somehow irresponsible or misguided is simply insulting. Many hard-working, tax-paying people use those resources because they don't have any other options. But the reality is simple: THOSE PROGRAMS ARE THERE TO HELP PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER OPTIONS. Granted, people who take advantage of those programs should stop. BUT, people who need those programs in order to adequately provide for their family when their best just isn't covering all the bills SHOULD NOT feel one ounce of guilt in doing so.

I think it is irresponsible to actively try to have children if you don't have the means to support them. That being said, accidents happen, job loss happens, etc, so it might not always work out that way.

I also think that men should be held financially responsible for any children they father. I'm sure that women going so far as to poke holes in condoms are rare. If you don't want kids, wrap it up. There will be some babies that are conceived while using protection, but that's still a small percentage.

Now what I don't agree with are women coming after men for back child support if they never let the man know he was a father. If you choose to keep it from him, then I think you give up the right for child support up until when you decide to let him have a place in the child's life. Coming to the father when the kid is 9 or 10 is unfair to the dad and the child.

Well...when I got pregnant with my first, just over 9 years ago, I was still in college and working part-time on the weekends. My husband (then fiance) was in the Navy, but not making a lot of money. She was not planned, but not not planned either - if that makes sense. There were a few times where precautions were not taken and now we have our princess :). I wouldn't trade it for the world.

I did not trap him. And he did not trap me. We were both on the irresponsible side, but it has all worked out amazingly well.

We were not financially ready for her, or the next one...but I do not think in any way that we were irresponsible. My dad has always told me that if you look at your budget, you can never afford another child, but it always works out.

I also did not see anywhere in your question about Government control or it being solely on the W., so I'm not sure where some of the responses are coming from...

But it's on both the man AND W. to make sure a child does not come, if that is what they want. Sometimes God works in mysterious ways and a baby is born, but it's the responsibility of both the W. and man to make the decision to "make a baby" or not.

I also do not now nor have I ever used anyone else's money to provide for my children.

Happy Sunday!!

I think finances should be one consideration on having children, but not the decision maker. Ultimately, it's a decision between a couple and God. Sometimes we don't think we are ready, but He tells us it's time and knows that it will work out despite our worries.

I do not think women should get pregnant intentionally when their partner explicitly states he does not want a child. However, if he is that adamant, then he should take responsibility for birth control and not leave it completely up to the W.. He is equally responsible for preventing pregnancy and causing pregnancy, so yes he should be held financially responsible for the child/ren. He chose to have sex, and one possible consequence is pregnancy. Just because you don't want a certain consequence doesn't mean you don't have to take responsibility for your actions.

As far as people thinking ahead and really thinking about being able to afford kids? I am sadly reminded of Forrest Gump, stupid is as stupid does. I don't personally know many people like that but I know they are all over the place (my mom was a classic example.)
And the man's responsibility?
If he didn't wear a condom then yes, he IS responsible! A young man should ALWAYS be taught that, and NEVER listen to the "oh it's ok I'm on the pill" BS. It takes two to make a baby after all.
And if the condom fails, well that's a tragedy and a whole other thread :(

Well, aside from insurance, yes, ideally people should be financially solvent before they procreate. By insurance, I mean that I don't care if a child has insurance through CHIP and the mother has insurance through medicaid.

It is a W.'s right to choose whether she has a child or not. I do not want that decision to be a man's. Ideally, a couple would discuss a desire for children prior to pregnancy and if not then, then after the fact, but ultimately it is the W.'s choice. I'm assuming the man and W. both understand how a baby is conceived, therefore, if that happens they are both responsible for the care and maintenance of said baby. That means financially. So just because a man says but I didn't want her to get pregnant doesn't absolve him from financial responsibility (and emotional but that can't be legally mandated). If either a male or female absolutely does not want a child, he or she can become sterile or abstain from sex.

If a man doesn't want kids, He should wear a condom.

I think that if someone wants to have children they should have as many as they want. That is my belief and I'm sticking to it.

I have seen so many people bash people with large families that are well off and can afford it. But even if they weren't well off I know they would find a way to feed everyone.

My BFF all through Jr. High and High School was one of 12 children. Her dad was an alcoholic who worked as a house painter when he was sober and her mom stayed at home. They lived in a very very very small 3 bedroom 1 bath home. It was a frame house and had no garage. There was a boys bedroom with 2 full beds and a girls room with 2 full beds. Then mom and dads room with a crib, full size bed, and a twin. There was no room between the beds, they were bedrooms not play areas.

They always ate good filling food. Was it steak and baked potatoes? No, not even close. Lots of normal food fixed from scratch. They did not get food stamps or have any kind of subsidy for their housing. They raised 12 God fearing children who have become pillars of their churches, wonderful parents to their many children, non-divorced happily married adults, well, one son has never married but he works for the Pentecostal church offices.

They didn't stop at one or two that they could "afford". They didn't have to have 10 TV's, 6 cars, microwaves, every modern convenience, they had to have their family and they did it.

The mom is still alive and lives in the home and watches some of her grand-kids for extra money. That's the family I wish I had been born into and raised by. The love in that house is still evident today each and every time I go visit any of them.

I completely agree with you that if you choose to bring a child into this world that you are financially responible for him/her (unless you choose to sign over your rights through adoption). I accept full financial responsibility for MY children, and I think others should do the same.

I also think that men who father a child should be held financially responsible. Claiming to be "trapped" is not an excuse. It's his choice to have unprotected sex. (I know accidents happen)

I believe those programs are there for emergencies.....to help those who have fallen on hard times due to job loss etc. I believe they are to be used temporarily/ to help one get through a rough time. I think it is completely irresponsible and wrong to actively try to have a baby that you know you can not afford to support without obtaining a welfare check/foods tamps etc. Yes, those programs are there to help you feed your family, but should be able to be used by existing needy families who have fallen on hard times and need some temporary assistance to cover them before they are able to stand on their own feet again. One should not strive to add to that burden by trying to get pregnant with a plan of collecting assistance to support the future baby. I understand those who encounter an accidental pregnancy may need some help as well and again, that seems to be why the programs are in place. By having this opinion does not mean that I believe only rich people should have children. I can’t think of anyone I know that would exist if that was the case. There are a lot of low-income households that earn enough to feed and clothe their children and keep a roof over their heads. Some of those families only have one child because they know they can’t afford two.

A man should be equally responsible for birth control. If birth control failed, both parties are equally responsible for the child, in my opinion. The only case where I can see your side is if a W. completely tricked a man into getting pregnant (lied about contraception etc.).

My son is my responsibility. I have one because that is the right number for me and because I will be able to provide for all his care, including college (and graduate school if he chooses). I would have chosen not to have a child if I was not comfortable that I could provide for him and for my retirement.

I believe a man who does not wish to have a child is responsible for 1/2 the cost of birth control and 1/2 the cost of an abortion. That's it. Since I firmly believe in my right to choose, clearly the man doesn't get the choice. So he should not pay any consequences. He doesn't get to force me to have a child I don't want. I don't get to force him to pay for a child he doesn't want.

I find it really hard to believe that so many people think that it is in a child's best interests to have a single teenage mom who gives up school and a 'father' who pays some meager percentage of his minimum wage job to support that child. Because in some way that will 'teach them' that sex comes with consequences. Adoption would so often be the best choice for all three involved (if continuation of the pregnancy is elected) and yet chosen so infrequently.

So 16 year old boys should have vasectomies? 16 year old boys don't come with 40 year old brains and life experience. They are remarkably like 16 year old girls. Planning to live forever and never have anything bad happen. That is why they die in alcohol related accidents and why they have sex. They don't see the future.

Now of course if you are married, mutually agree to have kids and several years later get divorced then both parents should be equally responsible.

I don't believe that women should be the only one financially responsible for a child before they consider having one. After all every stay at home mom would never have a kid. It is just in planning one you should be able to be financially responsible and the money considered should be willingly offered.

In other words if you are planning to have a child it shouldn't be, well I don't have a job or a good job, my boyfriend is unemployed and doesn't want kids but I will have one anyway because I can make it on federal and state aid and then you go out and try to get pregnant.

Mistakes happen, that is a different story.

I actually don't think a man should be held financially responsible for a child he doesn't want or feels he cannot afford. A child he never tried to have. If a W. can have an abortion then a man should be allowed to financially abort a child as well. It is injustice enough that a W. can abort a child that the man dearly wants and he doesn't have the option of supporting and raising that child. Seems rather unfair to me.

Hi, Cheryl:
This is an interesting question.
I wish y'all could have seen
the Mayor of Philadelphia give his
speech at the local church about
this very subject.
Crisis Pregnancies are rampant not only in our country but
also world wide.
Those who choose to have children are in the minority.
Crisis preegnancies are the majority.
God Bless the Women who choose when they want to
have a baby. More women do not choose to get pregnant than those who do..
Look at the abortion rates as well.
Just a thought.
Interesting question.
D.

Finances played a huge role in my decision to have kids. I think it's selfish to have a child just because you want to and have the govt pay for it. I think if any person gets accidentally pregnant both people should be responsible for it. If one person planned for it than that one person should be responsible for it. As for the political BS people read into your post ignore it. Hateful ignorance is everywhere .

Responsibility means being accountable for your behavior. If a man does not want children, yet he wants to have sex with a W., he needs to make sure that pregnancy cannot happen. If he is not responsible in that manner, then yes, he needs to be financially responsible for the child. Every kid deserves a dad, even if the dad does not want the child. Sometimes we have to actually be an adult, and think of the kids before we do ourselves.
And yes, people should be able to afford to have kids, BEFORE they do. It should not be the responsibility of the tax payers, to take on the burden of other peoples kids.
That is why I agree with you, Cheryl O, on your opinions on welfare and such.