• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Child Support Payments

Since you say so... :lol:

You are again missing the point. She can make any choice she wants to. She needs to be responsible for her choices.

Sometimes yes... that is why I put the caveat into the OP.

Deciding to have the child IS taking responsibility for her choice, just like having an abortion would be. Either choice is "taking care of it". Child support laws are about CHILDREN. What part of that is not sinking in here?

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:
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.

I'm pro-life and what has been my point? It doesn't seem to me that those argueing that the man should have an out are pro-life. I'm betting the overwhelming vast majority of pro-life people support forcing the man to pay up.

Perhaps you might quit generalizing?
 
I'm pro-life and what has been my point? It doesn't seem to me that those argueing that the man should have an out are pro-life. I'm betting the overwhelming vast majority of pro-life people support forcing the man to pay up.

Perhaps you might quit generalizing?

Apologies. I meant some pro-lifers. You are obviously not included in my statement! I will avoid generalizing next time :)
 
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.
 
This again, Bodhi? This has become a recurring theme for you. Something you'd like to share with us? :mrgreen:

Anyway, I'll play. Again. But this is the last time!

In my view, if an unmarried woman gets pregant, and she plans to carry the child to term, she is ethically bound to inform the father of her choice. If he does not want to be a part of that child's life, she should have him sign a legally-binding waiver of all parental rights and agreeing to stay out of the child's life, and she agrees not to put his name on the birth certificate or reveal that he is the child's parent. Once that is done, she has the option of either giving the child up for adoption ... the father now has no say in this... or raising the child herself... again, the father has no say in this.

If she chooses to raise the child herself, she has the responsibility of supporting that child on her own. If she marries down the road, her husband may legally adopt the child. The biological father goes on about his life unfettered. The only way the biological father would ever see the inside of a courtroom and be forced to pay child support is if one of the two violates their legal agreement. Then all bets are off.

Obviously, this was not done in whatever occurred to make you feel so adament and victimized, and I'm truly sorry. However, sexual intercourse comes with all kinds of potential price tags attached, as has been pointed out repeatedly in the Abortion forum, so when having sex with an individual one does not wish to have tied to the rest of one's life, it might be a better option to pass... or hire a pro. Just sayin'. ;)
 
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.

Or I disagree with your assessment?

The law is bias, outdated discriminatory in this area.

Nature is discriminatory in this regard. It can't be helped.

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.

And then who pays instead? The general public?

In the very beginning he should get the choice and all his parental rights are negated if he chooses not to pay.

He had the choice when he gave up his sperm to impregnate a woman.

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)

This is a common myth that rarely, if ever, happens. It's commonly cited by people who are against the child support system but it's completely baseless. Unless you have some evidence you can put forth to prove its commonality?

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.

So... you don't know how the law should be worded instead but you'd happily strike down the current system. Well, I'm glad we are so solution oriented!
 
To all of the folks and ninnies who missed post #20 - I invite you to feel free to read it.

I read it, I agree and for the record it doesnt change my stance. The law is broken in this area and needs fixed.

But theres some key words in your post ONCE THE CHILD IS BORN.
I want steps put in place BEFORE the child is born.
 
Except that a woman has a uterus and a man doesn't. The man gets to walk away from the choice to have sex but the woman does not. She has to deal with it - whether she decides to have the baby or have an abortion.

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.

Last I checked, if I get a woman pregnant then what grows inside of her contains MY DNA too. When she had sex with me, she knew damn well that pregnancy was a risk and she consented. I think if a woman aborts a kid when the man wanted to be a loving father then she deserves to go to hell.
 
But theres some key words in your post ONCE THE CHILD IS BORN.
I want steps put in place BEFORE the child is born.

Yeah... like forcing the woman to abort OR carry the child, all according to the man's whim. News flash: women are persons now and men do not own them. Maybe you need to join the 21st century.
 
How is the man dysfunctional if he does not want a child since the mother has the legal right to abort? The mother would be dysfunctional, that is for sure. Also, dirt poor people have children all the time in America and nobody cares about the world of dysfunctionalti ythat the child is being born into there. Same with abusive or neglective parents. Opportunites are limited all over America.

That argument doesn't fly and doesn't address her legal rigth to have an abortion.

It is sooo frustrating to see three of five posters not even address the OP properly. WHY?!?!?! ARGH!

I didn't answer properly?

In the man's case, I mean 'dysfunctionality' as in unwilling to reconcile himself to the reality that he has produced a child. If the woman had aborted, that would have let him off the hook, but if the child is a future event, the law must compel him to respond to it.

That women abort or don't abort their pregnancies is a separate issue from whether parents have to support their children. Women have the freedom to abort their pregnancies for a reason, parents of both sexes are compelled to support the child for a different reason.
 
Last edited:
Child support isn't about the crotch bumping buddies who got stoned and made a kid.

This isn't about laws.

Come on folks! This is about helpless children who can't fend for themselves. Gezzzzzzzzzzzzz!
 
Child support isn't about the crotch bumping buddies who got stoned and made a kid.

This isn't about laws.

Come on folks! This is about helpless children who can't fend for themselves. Gezzzzzzzzzzzzz!

It's a battle of gender rights, basically... and it typically comes down to men who are pissed off that women have more reproductive rights than they do. But what they aren't understanding is that those rights are by virtue of biology and it can't be helped. The man has no control over the fate of the fetus - to do so would be controlling the woman's body and that right hasn't been his since before the Progressive Era.

I agree... this is about children, first and foremost. Also... these proponents of financial abortion are typically silent when you ask WHO will pay to support the children. That really puts conservatives into a tizzy, doesn't it? Choosing between mens imaginary reproductive rights in this department, and social welfare.
 
Last I checked, if I get a woman pregnant then what grows inside of her contains MY DNA too. When she had sex with me, she knew damn well that pregnancy was a risk and she consented. I think if a woman aborts a kid when the man wanted to be a loving father then she deserves to go to hell.

Cry me a river. Your DNA is now part of a child and that child needs support. Maybe you should have thought about that before you gave a woman your sperm.

If women have more right to choose than men by virtue of their biology, then that means men need to be careful. Yet in most child support cases, we are dealing with deadbeat dads who thought they could sleep around and then slouch off their responsibilities onto the women they impregnate.

I agree that there is a discrepancy in the system that favors women TOO much, but the discrimination is there because most of the cases involve deadbeat dads. Sorry to say. Ask any family court officer and they will tell you the same.

The vast majority of single parents collecting welfare are WOMEN. The men have shirked their payments even after the courts ordered them to.

Your outrage is unjustified.
 
Child support isn't about the crotch bumping buddies who got stoned and made a kid.

This isn't about laws.

Come on folks! This is about helpless children who can't fend for themselves. Gezzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Exactly: they can't defend theirselves and must be reliant on responsible individuals for the whole of 16 - 18 or more years.

Raising children is not a simple task, an easy undertaking - for how easy it is to begin it is nothing but an endless struggle and a stress to continue.
 
Or I disagree with your assessment?
disagree all you want :shrug: nothing changes lol



Nature is discriminatory in this regard. It can't be helped.

actually its not, women HAVE the babies and thats it, you cant POSSIBLE be that shallow can you

guess all the pigs out there that want to be as shallow as you and not hire women because they have periods and might take time of work to be pregnant should use your same lame, shallow unsupportable defense "its natures fault not mine" LMAO



And then who pays instead? The general public?
the one who wants the child should pay LOL and then yes social services kicks in just like it does NOW, nothing really changes



He had the choice when he gave up his sperm to impregnate a woman.
this is just more PURE dishonesty LMAO
what if birth control failed
what if he wasnt trying to make a baby
what if she tricked him
ETC ETC ETC



This is a common myth that rarely, if ever, happens. It's commonly cited by people who are against the child support system but it's completely baseless. Unless you have some evidence you can put forth to prove its commonality?

WOW it must be FUN to live in fantasy land. IT HAPPENS EVERY DAY!!!! LMAO

I personally know 3 guys and 1 girl that this happened to for a fact and probably 5 others that is just hearsay.

2 guys were tricked, girls purposely stopped taking their birth control to try and keep the guys
1 guy didnt know he had a kid for 5 years! then had to pay and pay back support
1 girl her boyfriend knew the condom was broke and he wanted to get her pregnant to try and keep her

please take your fantasies else where and FREQUENCY doesnt matter.

if murder and rape happens only 10 cases a year would we not need the laws to protect us from them????

talk about myths


So... you don't know how the law should be worded instead but you'd happily strike down the current system. Well, I'm glad we are so solution oriented!

well unlike you I dont pretend to know it all LMAO

sorry for having the foresight, common sense and logic to understand that if I wrote the law it may leave some people's needs out :shrug: oh the horror LMAO

now do you have ANYTHING of substance or facts to debate of empty rhetoric? :D
 
Babies and children don't give a flying **** how irresponsible their dumbass parents are ... Or what their asswipe parents think about who pays for what.

Babies and kid have to be feed and clothed AND NURTURED!
 
Babies and children don't give a flying **** how irresponsible their dumbass parents are ... Or what their asswipe parents think about who pays for what.

Babies and kid have to be feed and clothed AND NURTURED!

No ****.

All the more of a reason not to have any unless you WILL do these things. I think there are enough suffering and unloved children in the world - don't you agree?
 
Yeah... like forcing the woman to abort OR carry the child, all according to the man's whim. News flash: women are persons now and men do not own them. Maybe you need to join the 21st century.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
uhm what are you talking about??
to you plan this stuff or just make it up as you go LMAO

again could you be any more dishonest?

who said anything about forcing abortions or forcing a women to carry?

I WOULD LOVE FOR YOU TO SHOW ME WHERE I SAID ANY OF THAT NONSENSE?????
LOVE IT!!

as a matter of fact in post 30 I said the EXACT opposite of what you are emotionally and falsely lying about LOL

maybe you need to join reality?
 
Cry me a river. Your DNA is now part of a child and that child needs support. Maybe you should have thought about that before you gave a woman your sperm.

If women have more right to choose than men by virtue of their biology, then that means men need to be careful. Yet in most child support cases, we are dealing with deadbeat dads who thought they could sleep around and then slouch off their responsibilities onto the women they impregnate.

I agree that there is a discrepancy in the system that favors women TOO much, but the discrimination is there because most of the cases involve deadbeat dads. Sorry to say. Ask any family court officer and they will tell you the same.

The vast majority of single parents collecting welfare are WOMEN. The men have shirked their payments even after the courts ordered them to.

Your outrage is unjustified.

Will you quit this crap about the "you should have thought about that before you gave a woman your sperm"? I could just as easily say that if she didn't want to get pregnant then she shouldn't have spread her legs! I'm arguing that if either biological parent wants the child then the kid should be born. Ideally, I think abortion should only be done if both parents consent. Otherwise, the child is born and both parents should be responsible for the child. However, if women are going to insist on having all the rights then you can deal with the deadbeat dads.

Just for the record, I was raised strictly by my mother because my father didn't take responsibility. Hence, I have more passion about being a dad.
 
this is just more PURE dishonesty LMAO
what if birth control failed
what if he wasnt trying to make a baby
what if she tricked him
ETC ETC ETC

He trusted too much in technology. No one has a legal or moral right for sexual intercourse not to result in pregnancies. You can only minimize the risk.
 
No ****.

All the more of a reason not to have any unless you WILL do these things. I think there are enough suffering and unloved children in the world - don't you agree?

amen
and forcing a mother to have babies (not that anybody said this) or forcing the father to pay will NOT make them real parents. This is just common sense.
 
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
uhm what are you talking about??
to you plan this stuff or just make it up as you go LMAO

again could you be any more dishonest?

who said anything about forcing abortions or forcing a women to carry?

I WOULD LOVE FOR YOU TO SHOW ME WHERE I SAID ANY OF THAT NONSENSE?????
LOVE IT!!

as a matter of fact in post 30 I said the EXACT opposite of what you are emotionally and falsely lying about LOL

maybe you need to join reality?

I said something about forcing women to carry if the father wants the child.
 
He trusted too much in technology. No one has a legal or moral right for sexual intercourse not to result in pregnancies. You can only minimize the risk.

really?
funny theres law suits and people getting convicted of crimes every day over trusting technology and or people :shrug:

whats your point?
 
Back
Top Bottom