• 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

You can split hairs all you want. Forcing young boys and girls to go to the doctor to get implants or be drugged is eugenic and unethical.

No, it is not eugenic. Again, eugenics is control of reproduction in order to harness certain physical traits. That's the definition of that word.

My mandatory birth control program applies to everyone who gets a 2-year degree on parenting. It doesn't matter if they're blond or brunette, Caucasian, Asian, or African, Christian, Jewish, or Muslim - as long as they get the degree in parenting they're allowed to be parents.
 
No, what I believe and what I'll argue for the case of this hypothetical are two different things. In reality, abortion is legal and women have the privilege to opt that child out of life. But if they don't, then the kid is still there and the man has to pay up. That's reality and that's not going to change. So the purpose of these sorts of threads are purely hypothetical and we're released from any real world moral quandary.

Ok... I agree to this scenario.

In that light, I use your arguments because your arguments reverse side heavily depending on gender. No woman is forced (outside of rape) to become pregnant, there was always a choice and it takes two. People keep saying "well the man should have kept it in his pants", but that essentially assumes that the woman is a non-contributor to the initial sex act. But she had a choice as well. There was always a choice. The choice has probability of creating life and in the case of abortion/child support that probability is realized. In the purely theoretical context of divorce from responsibility, if one side is given it (and regardless of how you want to define life or whatever so that people can feel better in the real world about what they are doing, abortion is the extinguishing of life for the current convenience of the one involved) then both sides are given it. If the woman can abort and chooses not to, she cannot force the man to support HER decision.

I agree with you. Both the man and woman bear equal responsibility for the creation of life. It just so happens that the woman is the receptacle for this life, which is why her choice over abortion or childbirth favors her power in this situation. If, hypothetically, the situation were reverse and the males of our species carried the fetuses, then I would argue for their rights over the women.

I also agree that there is a gender-heavy aspect to this debate, but it's not because I'm some feminist who wants the default to be the woman's right. It has to do more with natural determinism. The woman has more power because nature has made it this way. The man gives up some sperm and then, biologically speaking, his job is done. You're making it seem like I'm being heavy handed against men out of spite, but I promise you that's not where I'm coming from.

When I say the man should have kept it in his pants, the same of true of the woman; however, given the legal system and the biological imbalance of power, men are actually MORE at risk of losing their power to choose here. This is why it's even more important that men be careful which partners they choose and who they sleep with.

In a real world application as it would relate to your final statement; if abortion were not legal such that the woman could not abort; then there would be no circumstance other than mutual agreement/contract under which the man could shirk his financial responsibility to the child.

I don't understand. Why is such a legal contract contingent upon a woman's right to abort? Are we playing tit for tat here? A lot of women in America don't choose abortion, and if they didn't intend to get pregnant, the options for the child must come into effect.

I appreciate this hypothetical discussion but in reality you can't isolate the factors. Women have more reproductive control - it's just reality. We live in a patriarchy for the most part and men have other special powers. This is one power they don't have, and IMO this is the reason why we are having this argument: men are pissed that they don't have as much reproductive control as women. But this isn't about feminism... it's just biology.

And at the end of the day, children matter more. I know, I know, people are sick of "think about the children!" arguments, in this case it's true. The most effective way to minimize social burden here is making the man pay - and that has never been contingent upon a woman's right to choose. Child welfare is still a separate topic from abortion rights and male reproductive rights. If the kid is born then someone has to care for it. I'd rather it be the two people who made it than anyone else.
 
No, it is not eugenic. Again, eugenics is control of reproduction in order to harness certain physical traits. That's the definition of that word.

My mandatory birth control program applies to everyone who gets a 2-year degree on parenting. It doesn't matter if they're blond or brunette, Caucasian, Asian, or African, Christian, Jewish, or Muslim - as long as they get the degree in parenting they're allowed to be parents.

YES it is eugenics, because who do you think will get accepted the most to have children? It will be the higher financial classes and people with more status and power. The poor and uneducated will have lesser access. Honestly, did you think this through or what? Who determines parental readiness? Who determines criteria? Are we trying to create a monoculture here? Does E Pluribus Unum mean nothing to you?

Any time that government is given control over reproduction, it becomes biased to people who are deemed "useful" to society. I would rather evolution play out and let people be born who are meant to be born - whether they are poor or rich. Our most important people have come from all backgrounds.
 
YES it is eugenics, because who do you think will get accepted the most to have children? It will be the higher financial classes and people with more status and power. The poor and uneducated will have lesser access. Honestly, did you think this through or what? Who determines parental readiness? Who determines criteria? Are we trying to create a monoculture here? Does E Pluribus Unum mean nothing to you?

Any time that government is given control over reproduction, it becomes biased to people who are deemed "useful" to society. I would rather evolution play out and let people be born who are meant to be born - whether they are poor or rich. Our most important people have come from all backgrounds.

as I said, make the standards ridiculously low, be in a commited relationship and one of the parents have a job.
 
if a man can't force a woman to carry a child she doesn't want for 9 months, a woman shouldn't be able to force a man to pay for a child he doesn't want for 18 years.

A man can force a woman to pay for a child she does not want for 18 years as well
 
I agree with you. Both the man and woman bear equal responsibility for the creation of life. It just so happens that the woman is the receptacle for this life, which is why her choice over abortion or childbirth favors her power in this situation. If, hypothetically, the situation were reverse and the males of our species carried the fetuses, then I would argue for their rights over the women.

I also agree that there is a gender-heavy aspect to this debate, but it's not because I'm some feminist who wants the default to be the woman's right. It has to do more with natural determinism. The woman has more power because nature has made it this way. The man gives up some sperm and then, biologically speaking, his job is done. You're making it seem like I'm being heavy handed against men out of spite, but I promise you that's not where I'm coming from.

When I say the man should have kept it in his pants, the same of true of the woman; however, given the legal system and the biological imbalance of power, men are actually MORE at risk of losing their power to choose here. This is why it's even more important that men be careful which partners they choose and who they sleep with.

Arguments of nature and biology go both ways, you've merely taken the one which best fits your argument. Women have the kids, it could be argued that then the power of balance is shifted to the men as they have the ability to not face the repercussions of biology and hence the women are under the higher standards and strain. If they get pregnant and the guy leaves, they are still responsible for the child since they are the ones who physically carry the child. The counter argument to "You should have kept it in your pants" is "You shouldn't have opened your legs for a guy of that caliber". Wherein the blame is shifted off the man and onto the woman; just as you choose to shift blame off of the woman and place it upon the man. The other response to the question you posed to me earlier in the light of the rhetoric you use would be "Too bad, you have the child. Should have made a better choice of sexual partner".

The point being that y'all use some rather hefty double standards to impose repercussion of action against one sex while excusing it from the other. But all those arguments can go the other way and the only real reason we choose one over the is perception of how it will fit into the argument.

I don't understand. Why is such a legal contract contingent upon a woman's right to abort? Are we playing tit for tat here? A lot of women in America don't choose abortion, and if they didn't intend to get pregnant, the options for the child must come into effect.

I appreciate this hypothetical discussion but in reality you can't isolate the factors. Women have more reproductive control - it's just reality. We live in a patriarchy for the most part and men have other special powers. This is one power they don't have, and IMO this is the reason why we are having this argument: men are pissed that they don't have as much reproductive control as women. But this isn't about feminism... it's just biology.

And at the end of the day, children matter more. I know, I know, people are sick of "think about the children!" arguments, in this case it's true. The most effective way to minimize social burden here is making the man pay - and that has never been contingent upon a woman's right to choose. Child welfare is still a separate topic from abortion rights and male reproductive rights. If the kid is born then someone has to care for it. I'd rather it be the two people who made it than anyone else.

It's essentially "tit for tat" in a sense. That being that if one side has the ability to divorce themselves from repercussion of action, then all sides should have the same ability.
 
It's essentially "tit for tat" in a sense. That being that if one side has the ability to divorce themselves from repercussion of action, then all sides should have the same ability.

exactly .
 
not if she has an abortion. he doesn't have that option

Legally he can, biologically he cant, and we are talking about legal rights here, not biological ones
 
It's essentially "tit for tat" in a sense. That being that if one side has the ability to divorce themselves from repercussion of action, then all sides should have the same ability.

So to make each person have repercussions from their actions regarding pregnancy, should men be given drugs that make them sick in the morning, gain about 30 lbs or so and eventually pass a bowling ball through their penis?
 
Legally he can, biologically he cant, and we are talking about legal rights here, not biological ones

he has no legal right to prevent her from having an abortion
 
Niether parent has the individual right to not support a child once it is born, both can agree to give it up for adoption

I am not sure why you are being redundant. I have addressed this and clarified that this is not the point of the OP.
 
So to make each person have repercussions from their actions regarding pregnancy, should men be given drugs that make them sick in the morning, gain about 30 lbs or so and eventually pass a bowling ball through their penis?

disingenuous at the core. a sure sign of desperation
 
Arguments of nature and biology go both ways, you've merely taken the one which best fits your argument. Women have the kids, it could be argued that then the power of balance is shifted to the men as they have the ability to not face the repercussions of biology and hence the women are under the higher standards and strain. If they get pregnant and the guy leaves, they are still responsible for the child since they are the ones who physically carry the child. The counter argument to "You should have kept it in your pants" is "You shouldn't have opened your legs for a guy of that caliber". Wherein the blame is shifted off the man and onto the woman; just as you choose to shift blame off of the woman and place it upon the man. The other response to the question you posed to me earlier in the light of the rhetoric you use would be "Too bad, you have the child. Should have made a better choice of sexual partner".

The point being that y'all use some rather hefty double standards to impose repercussion of action against one sex while excusing it from the other. But all those arguments can go the other way and the only real reason we choose one over the is perception of how it will fit into the argument.



It's essentially "tit for tat" in a sense. That being that if one side has the ability to divorce themselves from repercussion of action, then all sides should have the same ability.

All this is great but you haven't addressed the fate of the born child at all. :shrug:

If the man doesn't have to take responsibility and the woman doesn't abort, what then?

Before child support laws, men did exactly that. The laws came into place precisely because of deadbeat dads. I'll say the statistic again... 84% of single parents are women, the rest are men. And guess what, child support laws work in reverse as well. There are single dads who have to go after deadbeat mothers for support to. The law is applied fairly.

Now, are you going to address the core issue of child welfare, or are you going to keep fiddling with gender power dynamics? Please provide an outline for how children will be cared for if men can "financially abort".
 
he has no legal right to prevent her from having an abortion

Nor does anyone else. That's between a woman and her doctor, and sometimes abortion is medically necessary.

Please let me know how the born child will be supported once the man opts out. Thanks.
 
All this is great but you haven't addressed the fate of the born child at all. :shrug:

If the man doesn't have to take responsibility and the woman doesn't abort, what then?

Before child support laws, men did exactly that. The laws came into place precisely because of deadbeat dads. I'll say the statistic again... 84% of single parents are women, the rest are men. And guess what, child support laws work in reverse as well. There are single dads who have to go after deadbeat mothers for support to. The law is applied fairly.

Now, are you going to address the core issue of child welfare, or are you going to keep fiddling with gender power dynamics? Please provide an outline for how children will be cared for if men can "financially abort".

if the core issue was "child welfare" abortion would be illegal.
 
disingenuous at the core. a sure sign of desperation

Not at all

A point was made that both people should see the repercussions of their actions. Does that not also mean the man should have similar repercussions during pregnancy. Currently he gets off scott free, no morning sickness, no weight gain, no pushing a bowling ball through their body.
 
So to make each person have repercussions from their actions regarding pregnancy, should men be given drugs that make them sick in the morning, gain about 30 lbs or so and eventually pass a bowling ball through their penis?

No. Men have to put up with women. Time served.
 
All this is great but you haven't addressed the fate of the born child at all. :shrug:

If the man doesn't have to take responsibility and the woman doesn't abort, what then?

Before child support laws, men did exactly that. The laws came into place precisely because of deadbeat dads. I'll say the statistic again... 84% of single parents are women, the rest are men. And guess what, child support laws work in reverse as well. There are single dads who have to go after deadbeat mothers for support to. The law is applied fairly.

Now, are you going to address the core issue of child welfare, or are you going to keep fiddling with gender power dynamics? Please provide an outline for how children will be cared for if men can "financially abort".

Perhaps part of those numbers for single parents is because women DON'T LET men be the single parent.
 
Not at all

A point was made that both people should see the repercussions of their actions. Does that not also mean the man should have similar repercussions during pregnancy. Currently he gets off scott free, no morning sickness, no weight gain, no pushing a bowling ball through their body.

not all women get morning sickness, not all women gain 30+ pounds, should those women be denied abortions? hmmmm


and the day a man's urethra is the same diameter as a vagina, you can squeal about pissing out a bowling ball.


your post was complete and utter tripe.
 
Perhaps part of those numbers for single parents is because women DON'T LET men be the single parent.

exactly, better to kill the fetus than allow the father to be a single parent :shrug:
 
Back
Top Bottom