Why Utah is making men pay women's pregnancy costs

[Saiwania]

The man played a role in getting the woman pregnant, why shouldn't he take some responsibility for that?

Because how her pregnancy progresses has nothing to do with him. That's arguably her problem. It is sufficient that he pay half of child support or any alimony and that's it.

[Salus Maior]

The man played a role in getting the woman pregnant, why shouldn't he take some responsibility for that?

Because how her pregnancy progresses has nothing to do with him. That's arguably her problem. It is sufficient that he pay half of child support or any alimony and that's it.

I don't agree. But then again you and me operate on completely different planes of existence when it comes to things like morality and responsibility.

[Farnhamia]

Their welfare can be guaranteed. By their mother getting one of those great things called a "job". My wants are more important than a lazy leech who thinks everyone else should pay for the child nobody forced them to have.

So you volunteer to look after the kid during her 12 hour shift at the local diner?

Or you too busy banging the latest bird that's flashed their pussy at you?

*** Warned for flame-baiting ***

[Saperetia]

M: "Did you take your birth control?"
F: "Yeah"
M: "You sure?"
F: "Yeah"
M: "You Really sure?"
F: "Yeah"
M: "Good, i dont want a child"

Trusting people is the first mistake. If you are not sure don't do it.
The same mentality as if you are not certain if it is a friend or foe don't pull the trigger, pid.

And yet, during rape or domestic abuse cases, we immediatly trust the woman. If we trust them in court, why not in the bedroom?

[Saperetia]

Being okay with the kid ceasing to exist but not okay with the kid’s dad signing away custody and parental obligations seems odd.

Where am I ok with it? Abortion exists, should we pretend it doesn’t?

"If the kid has needs, you need to care for them"
"If the woman aborts the kid, there is no kid"
Those are the two sentences you wrote in the first quoted post.
Edit: This one

Because the kids needs come before yours. If the woman aborts the kid without you there is no kid to support.

[Ethel mermania]

Where am I ok with it? Abortion exists, should we pretend it doesn’t?

"If the kid has needs, you need to care for them"
"If the woman aborts the kid, there is no kid"
Those are the two sentences you wrote in the first quoted post.
Edit: This one

Because the kids needs come before yours. If the woman aborts the kid without you there is no kid to support.

Abortion exists legally whether we like it or not, and must be considered when discussing potential outcomes of unwanted pregnancy. I didn't realize it was that difficult a concept.

[Saperetia]

"If the kid has needs, you need to care for them"
"If the woman aborts the kid, there is no kid"
Those are the two sentences you wrote in the first quoted post.
Edit: This one

Abortion exists legally whether we like it or not, and must be considered when discussing potential outcomes of unwanted pregnancy. I didn't realize it was that difficult a concept.

It isnt difficult, its just that you first tell the mother to abort the kid then pretend like you didnt. AND you first make a statment:

Because the kids needs come before yours.

And the sentence IMMEDIATLY AFTER is:

If the woman aborts the kid without you there is no kid to support.

So you first say that the kid's needs are a priority, then give the advice to kill them.

[Bienenhalde]

I am...not sure what I think about this. My initial reaction was it is better than nothing, but then I wondered about men who do not want to be a father while the mother is unwilling to have an abortion.

It is a matter of personal responsibility. If they didn't want to pay for a child, they should not have gotten a women pregnant.

[Ethel mermania]

Abortion exists legally whether we like it or not, and must be considered when discussing potential outcomes of unwanted pregnancy. I didn't realize it was that difficult a concept.

It isnt difficult, its just that you first tell the mother to abort the kid then pretend like you didnt. AND you first make a statment:

Because the kids needs come before yours.

And the sentence IMMEDIATLY AFTER is:

If the woman aborts the kid without you there is no kid to support.

So you first say that the kid's needs are a priority, then give the advice to kill them.

You are aware I said 'If" not "the mother should".

[Page]

Look, I'm just going to set aside gender issues entirely and say this: It is fucked up that pregnancy care and giving birth costs money for pregnant women. It would be fucked up for it to cost a single cent. Nationalize all health care. Abolish health insurance, nationalize hospitals, nationalize drug companies, take that one trillion that all of America's billionaires earned in just the last few months and pay for every childbirth for the next century with it!

[Stellar Colonies]

This seems remarkably vulnerable to abuse, unless they are planning to be exceedingly careful in ensuring that the father wasn't an unwilling one. Working that out is always a stubbornly gray area.

I'd like to emphasize that, there are cases in which the father is unwilling do exist, and they must be accounted for. It would frankly be disturbing if the state was financially tying an individual to someone who potentially raped him, which is certainly possible given how many rapes (especially those involving male victims) go unreported.

Additionally, this should involve a paternity test by default when deciding this, because it would quite certainly be outrageous to not carry one out.

I'm assuming this would work the same way for gay/lesbian couples, or..?

Finally, it seems that having functional social programs would be a perfect solution to this problem, since you don't have to work out as many of the niggling details that implementing this fairly would entail.

[Genivaria]

Trusting people is the first mistake. If you are not sure don't do it.
The same mentality as if you are not certain if it is a friend or foe don't pull the trigger, pid.

And yet, during rape or domestic abuse cases, we immediatly trust the woman. If we trust them in court, why not in the bedroom?

Not sure what cou try you've seen this in.

[Galloism]

I tink the more bigger problem would be abortions where the man doens't agree with not doing it but the law seems to say they will have to pay no matter what they want. So a father is at the mercy of the mother, which does not seem fair.

While writing this i already realised that an argument that would be most likley used against this on the streets would be that "Now the men may feel how it is to be at the mercy of a woman" which is: 1. bs 2. if you switch "Men" and "Woman" the same person making this argument would flip the hell out.

The second paragraph is what i would expect form those "Feminists" that i usually see on youtube, and i completly understand that they are not representative of all feminsts, i would still expect this argument to come up atleast once.

Edit: Feel free to correct me if i'm wrong.

What i mean by this is the following situation:

M: "Did you take your birth control?"
F: "Yeah"
M: "You sure?"
F: "Yeah"
M: "You Really sure?"
F: "Yeah"
M: "Good, i dont want a child"
They proceed to have s8x
*Bout 1 week later*
F: "Honey guess what? I didnt take my birth control and now i'm pregnant!! I'm so happy i really wanted a child!!"
M: "What? But i didnt! Take an abortion ASAP!"
F: "No. And YOU have to pay me now! Oh and i could divorce you later and get child support no matter what!"
(Not sure if court would give her the custody, but she's more likley to get it.)

It’s even worse than that tbh.

Remember, about half (+/-) of rape victims are male, and a significant majority of those are raped in a manner which reproduction is possible.

In a nontrivial number of cases, this is forcing rape victims to pay their rapists for the medical costs incurred to the rapist as a result of her committing rape against them.

It’s a bit like Randall Volar’s family sending Chrystul Kizer half the bill for his funeral.

[Flowera]

I think this law leaves some situations unsolved. For example, if the mother has to terminate the child halfway through the pregnancy, what would happen to the costs paid by the husband?
And like all laws that have been passed, there’s a chance of the effects of the law swinging into the extremes.

[Costa Fierro]

I'll make a rare appearance to say that this proposal is literal horseshit.

Firstly, let's look at who is earning incomes. Approximately 23% of households have women as the primary breadwinners in the United States, and 41% have the woman earning the same as the man. Which means the remaining 35.8% of households are where the man earns the higher income. This case is likely to be so in Utah, which has the fourth largest wage gap in the United States.

In other words, it's a case of "well you're a man, you're more likely to earn the majority of the income in a household, so cough up". This is regressive for two reasons.

One, it makes the presumption that men in households in Utah are not reflective of the national trends and can therefore afford the healthcare required to pay. This is wrong, and negatively impacts working class [insert Utah demonym here] on the basis that they are not only less likely to be able to afford to pay for the healthcare, they're also less likely to have men in households capable of paying half of the healthcare costs, in addition to working class households being generally non-white, having more children, and having little access to family planning facilities. Of course the upper class white politicians that promoted this know this is the case, it's one way to screw over non-white and non-wealthy communities.

Two, men are under immense societal pressure to "measure up" in terms of earning enough money to be able to provide for a family as what societal norms in western Anglophone countries dictate but the economic necessities being unable to provide. In other words, men are failing to live up to social expectations in the eyes of society and of family, and therefore this creates significant mental health deterioration on top of that caused by being forced to participate in a capitalist economic system in which they are falling further and further behind, and are generally treated as expendable drones and regarded as necessary evils for the companies they work for. Men inevitably already pay the majority of healthcare costs in the United States by virtue of working through the period in which mothers generally take off to look after their newborn children in the first few days or weeks of their lives. During that period, the family's survival is dependent on him working, and on his income alone. This will undoubtedly create more stress and pressure on men who are buckling under the weight of social derision and "failed expectations" from broader society and from their parents.

Don't be surprised if not only men are incarcerated for failure to pay, but single mothers increase, as do male suicides. The biggest consequence of this will be the collapse of Utah's birthrate. This is what conservatives will do to a society: destroy it utterly for the sake of outdated and archaic social beliefs.

[Flowera]

Agreed. In my opinion, the American healthcare system is already kind of messed up as it is, passing this law would probably, if not certainly, make it worse. And that’s not accounting for the extra strain on gender roles passing the law would add. I think a better alternative to this law is to have the state pay for most of the fees.

[The Lone Alliance]

One thing I'd add is all men who pay, if requested, can force the mother to take a paternity test and if they're not the father they will have the right to demand their money back.

Because if it's not their child why should they pay?

[Ethel mermania]

One thing I'd add is all men who pay, if requested, can force the mother to take a paternity test and if they're not the father they will have the right to demand their money back.

Because if it's not their child why should they pay?

Usually you get the test prior to a court order to pay. But yes the father can require proof before paying.

[Costa Fierro]

You seem to be railing against the proposal to make fathers-to-be pay all of the pregnant woman's out-of-pocket costs. As implied by the thread title. But the first line of the source says they will only have to pay half ...

No. I know it's half the costs. It's still more than most men can pay even on middle class wages.

[Galloism]

Ok, it just hit me why this is a thing they are doing.

Medicaid.

Medicaid picks up out of pocket costs for pregnancy for the low income that goes a certain number of days unpaid (this varies by state, but typically it’s between 60 and 180 days iirc, it’s been some years since I looked into this).

The likely real impetus is to try to make sure that these bills don’t go unpaid and the state has to pay them. Or, conversely, if the state does wind up paying them, it can go after and recover these amounts from the fathers.

[Christian Confederation]

Well if people waited until marriage to get knocked up the husband would already be paying for it.

[Joohan]

Yeah this makes perfect sense. It's your child too, you should contribute.

[Luminesa]

I am cautiously supportive of this bill; it takes two to tango, after all, and pre-natal care can be expensive, so it makes sense for the fathers to help out. I also agree with the sentiment expressed in the article; I am pro-life, but I've always thought that the pro-life movement spends way too much time trying to ban abortions and not nearly enough time actually trying to help pregnant women or support them, which I think would be more effective in preventing some abortions.

I agree, we should want to ban abortions, but that also takes drastically changing the social environment around families. Not to mention that women are afraid of getting pregnant because of expenses. I think this could remove some of the fear, at least for some mothers and fathers in Utah.

[Luminesa]

The man played a role in getting the woman pregnant, why shouldn't he take some responsibility for that?

Because how her pregnancy progresses has nothing to do with him. That's arguably her problem. It is sufficient that he pay half of child support or any alimony and that's it.

This after you say that women are also irresponsible for having too many children. Which is it, Saiwania, call the woman irresponsible for having seven children or call her irresponsible for trying to pay for pregnancy costs and needing help from the father?

[Galloism]

No. I know it's half the costs. It's still more than most men can pay even on middle class wages.

The source further says $4,500 insured or about $10,000 uninsured. Half of that, over 9 months and mostly at the end of the nine months.

If a middle class man is unable to afford half, then what about a middle class woman expected to pay ALL?

They don’t really. Not those who aren’t already well to do.

Usually Medicaid picks it up after it goes unpaid after a certain number of days.