I find it incredibly telling that on one hand, the pro-life want to stop women from "murdering babies", but since they can't, they'll turn around and try to argue for men's rights to financially coerce women into having abortions just so that men can have equal freedom to choose. That looks a lot more like punishing women than it does fighting for men's rights.
In your vendetta against women's rights, you are overlooking what child support laws are about: children. It has nothing to do with women, but providing children who are born with the best chance at life. So while you're busy trying to equalize a woman's right to choose because you perceive that men are at a disadvantage, the law is more concerned about the welfare of children.
Women have a right to choose because of biological determinism. It sucks for men but that's just the way it is. She can abort or have the baby. When men are capable of carrying children to term, then we can have this discussion. Until then, I care more about children being supported than I do men shirking their responsibilities.
Men will never have equal abortion rights because men don't carry fetuses. Get a clue.
Uh, what?Originally Posted by Boddhisatva
Conservatives believe the government is incompetent, and seek to elect people who will prove it
Ignorance is Bliss Bliss is the same as happiness US Christian conservatives are the happiest in the US according to studies Do you see a connection?
To all of the folks and ninnies who missed post #20 - I invite you to feel free to read it.
And if the man can opt out? What then? The child has one less support factor and the mother is just as likely to apply for social welfare, in which case we ALL pay. I would rather the man pay for his act than me pay for his desire to disconnect.
Rule of thumb: don't have unprotected sex with a woman who is not a suitable candidate to have your child and/or you are not ready to have a child. It's just that simple.
A woman can abort. Men have no such option. That's reality and it's not going to change. If the child is born then the man must pay. It's in the best interest of society for him to do so, and the courts agree. Sorry that it's a hard pill for you to swallow.
Last edited by Temporal; 08-31-11 at 09:15 PM.
As I responded in similar threads the law is without a doubt wrong and broken in this area. Anybody that denies that is just dishonest and or blind.
The law is bias, outdated discriminatory in this area.
A man should have the option to not pay child support if he wants BUT it should just be at any whim which he chooses.
In the very beginning he should get the choice and all his parental rights are negated if he chooses not to pay.
Now of course the laws/rules/conditions would need worked out and much more in depth that this lol but IM sure you get the idea.
A women currently could trick the man into having a baby and make him pay, simply not tell him for years then come after him for support and back support or simply just abort against his will (btw this I would NEVER change, cant force a women to carry a baby but its the main reason why logical there needs to be other options)
Anyway like I said I dont know all the laws that would need written or fixed but this area of law is definitely broken and thats obvious to anybody objective.