• 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

If a woman chooses to keep her pregnancy and have a child against the man's wishes and she chooses to not use her legal option of birth control and have an abortion, should the man have to pay child suport for her choice. Should the man have to pay Child Support if he does not want the child and the woman decides to not opt to have an abortion as a means of contraception?

I think that he should not be legally liable if he does not want the child.

Anyone who breeds a child, should be held legally responsible, by law, for the welfare of that child; the father and the mother.
 
So you never ejaculate except for procreation right?

I'm not Catholic (in fact, I'm atheist). Sperm isn't human life. Left to its own development it won't make a human. It must combine with an egg to create human life. By what you say, the menstrual cycle should be considered abortion. And that's clearly non-sense.
 
Last edited:
The man can make the same argument. So, if he wants a kid then women can keep on aborting them and prevent him from having one. The woman only has to get pregnant once to have the kid she wants.

You can buy them on the black market, or abduct them from 3rd world countries.
 
I understand and have understood quite well. I told you before, however, that this hypothetical exists outside the realm of reality and allows for discussion and debate void the moral quandary normally associated with the problem. You in fact agreed to it. Is this becoming more clear? I think most understand the system and why it is set the way it is. In fact, if you were to set this down to reality and say "in reality, if it came to a vote to let fathers off the hook for child payments, would you vote in favor of the law" you would be seeing a different set of answers. I don't think that any pro-lifer would honestly endorse a system wherein the welfare of the child would be put in such grave danger. In reality, the pro-lifers (I should say on the whole, there's probably a non-zero number that would go the other way) go after the dead beat dad. You fathered him, you pay. We're not willing to actually let a person off the hook when a child is involved; the child must be cared for. That's the reality, and that will remain the reality.

The exercise of these sorts of hypothetical is to allow us to explore more the philosophical base. We aren't going to actually let dads get away without paying, so in the context of the hypothetical we can make arguments to the contrary based on basic philosophy and reason without worry of actually hurting a child. There is no real child. My arguments are in this light. What is fair, what is just? While the reality of the world may prevent the pure hypothetical from being realized as the rights and liberties of others must always be considered, the hypothetical frees us from that constraint. Does that make sense? In that light, I use your arguments and logic to show why the man should be given freedom to divorce himself from consequence, the same as woman have now in reality.

Okay, I can compromise. I agree that it's not fair. People should have the ability to opt out of parenthood if they aren't ready. It's why I am pro-choice. Ultimately I must concede that pro-choice must also protect the father as well. I mean, what about his choice? I'm not sure that even financial support can be considered parenthood though. A single mom could just as easily saddle up with another man who can be cooperative in helping her to care for her child, all the while the biological dad is paying support. In thinking of it this way, we can start discussing what it means to be a father. Is it merely financial support? I don't think so. Perhaps letting biological fathers choose if they want to be parents can offset the deadbeat dad phenomenon. Instead of a child always relating to their dad as someone who is never there for them, we can cut the unwilling party loose and then let a better situation take hold.

Unfortunately it seems like the majority of single mothers stay single. There are a lot of men out there who would get together with a single mom and help her to raise a kid that's not even his, but I'm skeptical that these kinds of men are greater in number than those would want nothing to do with the baggage of a kid that isn't theirs - or hell, a kid that IS theirs.

I do understand your use of logic... but I can't help but tie it back to reality. I'm not trying to swindle logic here in order to be right. I just don't see how, reproductively and biologically speaking, men and women are equal. Women cannot easily back away from parenthood because the child is attached to them from the get go. Yes, they can have the kid and give it up for adoption... but that is still her situation to deal with. The man can be in Timbuctu by then for all we know.

Even philosophically, I don't agree that a woman's right to choose looks the same as it does for a man. Men have never had to fight for personhood rights, or the right to control their bodies. Women from day one have not been equal and, until recently in history, have been the property of men. All worthwhile research points to the fact that the status of women and children affects the status of entire civilizations. It's the whole reason behind the UN mandate on bettering women and children. It's not a sexist or discriminatory policy. The fact is that we live in a patriarchy and women are easily trampled upon - maybe less so in America, but look around the world and you will see that we are the exception rather than the rule.

Female reproduction is intimately tied to the health of civilizations. They have the right to choose because they have the biological imperative. Men can sleep around if they want and until the advent of genetic testing, they could get away with it. I see child support laws as compensating for centuries of paternal neglect. A woman can't just toss her child - she will be charged with abandonment, neglect, or even attempted murder. But men have done just that for centuries and now that family courts are trying to prevent it, men are getting pissed at having their parental responsibilities thrown back in their faces. In reality, they are being shown the world that women have always had to live.

(Again, I know there are deadbeat moms out there, but I already demonstrated with statistics that it's not the norm.)
 
The law as it stands gives the woman the right to decide to have the child or not...Whether she decides to keep the child or have an abortion its still the mans child...he still fathered the child...If he didnt want the child he had the option of making sure he didnt get her pregnant....PAY DUDE , I dont want to pay for you to make piggynasty.
 
You can buy them on the black market, or abduct them from 3rd world countries.

That doesn't solve the problem if I want the kid to have my good looks and brains. :lol:
 
I'm not Catholic. Sperm isn't human life. Left to its own development it won't make a human. It must combine with an egg to create human life. By what you say, the menstrual cycle should be considered abortion. And that's clearly non-sense.

Exactly my point! It is within the woman's body where it all happens, and therefore up to her if your jism becomes a baby. If she decides not to, are you rendered incapable of having a baby with someone else? Is it a great burden for a man to impregnate a woman? What is the great loss suffered by the man who needlessly shoots his sperm in a woman that decides she doesn't want, or cannot handle, a baby?
 
Okay, I can compromise. I agree that it's not fair. People should have the ability to opt out of parenthood if they aren't ready. It's why I am pro-choice. Ultimately I must concede that pro-choice must also protect the father as well. I mean, what about his choice? I'm not sure that even financial support can be considered parenthood though. A single mom could just as easily saddle up with another man who can be cooperative in helping her to care for her child, all the while the biological dad is paying support. In thinking of it this way, we can start discussing what it means to be a father. Is it merely financial support? I don't think so. Perhaps letting biological fathers choose if they want to be parents can offset the deadbeat dad phenomenon. Instead of a child always relating to their dad as someone who is never there for them, we can cut the unwilling party loose and then let a better situation take hold.

Unfortunately it seems like the majority of single mothers stay single. There are a lot of men out there who would get together with a single mom and help her to raise a kid that's not even his, but I'm skeptical that these kinds of men are greater in number than those would want nothing to do with the baggage of a kid that isn't theirs - or hell, a kid that IS theirs.

I do understand your use of logic... but I can't help but tie it back to reality. I'm not trying to swindle logic here in order to be right. I just don't see how, reproductively and biologically speaking, men and women are equal. Women cannot easily back away from parenthood because the child is attached to them from the get go. Yes, they can have the kid and give it up for adoption... but that is still her situation to deal with. The man can be in Timbuctu by then for all we know.

Even philosophically, I don't agree that a woman's right to choose looks the same as it does for a man. Men have never had to fight for personhood rights, or the right to control their bodies. Women from day one have not been equal and, until recently in history, have been the property of men. All worthwhile research points to the fact that the status of women and children affects the status of entire civilizations. It's the whole reason behind the UN mandate on bettering women and children. It's not a sexist or discriminatory policy. The fact is that we live in a patriarchy and women are easily trampled upon - maybe less so in America, but look around the world and you will see that we are the exception rather than the rule.

Female reproduction is intimately tied to the health of civilizations. They have the right to choose because they have the biological imperative. Men can sleep around if they want and until the advent of genetic testing, they could get away with it. I see child support laws as compensating for centuries of paternal neglect. A woman can't just toss her child - she will be charged with abandonment, neglect, or even attempted murder. But men have done just that for centuries and now that family courts are trying to prevent it, men are getting pissed at having their parental responsibilities thrown back in their faces. In reality, they are being shown the world that women have always had to live.

(Again, I know there are deadbeat moms out there, but I already demonstrated with statistics that it's not the norm.)

Men and women are different, biology isn't fair. Women carry the child (except for those sucker seahorses!), men do not. However, arguments centered on that difference swing both ways. You have made earlier assumptions to make your difference arguments fit your overall argument. I've merely taken the same starting point, but the opposite assumption.

In the end, the reality is that I find abortion to be exceedingly unfortunate and selfish. Both man and woman made a choice to engage in an activity well known to cause pregnancy. If the woman gets pregnant, the ideal situation is that they are both on the line for that life. It cannot be killed for the convenience of the mother or father. Women know they can get pregnant, men know they can get women pregnant. We all know that pregnancy is the way by which our species naturally reproduces, the fetus is human life; it's functionally how we get more humans. People make the choice to have sex. Sex has a non-zero probability of producing human life. Actions have consequences. For as stupid and selfish you see these arguments of men divorcing their responsibility, many of us see it of the entire argument. To us arguing that a man should be able to get away without paying for his child is just as reckless and selfish as arguments for abortion in general.
 
The law as it stands gives the woman the right to decide to have the child or not...Whether she decides to keep the child or have an abortion its still the mans child...he still fathered the child...If he didnt want the child he had the option of making sure he didnt get her pregnant....PAY DUDE , I dont want to pay for you to make piggynasty.

This argument is true of women as well. If they didn't want to have a child, she had the option of making sure she didn't get pregnant. The woman isn't just some idle participant, she made choices too.
 
This situation is way past people being irresponsible and making a baby. Or about who should have done what. Or somebody is being mistreated or unfairly made to be responsible for making a baby that is born.
Irrelevant and off topic...
If a child is outside the womb...then and only then can "Child Support Payments" become an issue. Children are 100% dependent. Doesn't make a damn who mom and dad are. It doesn't make a damn what they believe about their role in that kids future is...or isn't.If somebody wants be a loser parent? Be one. But if I had my way. I would hunt them down like rabid dogs and they would be responsible for the well being of that child.There is a severe problem with people who condemn others for abortion who are willing to see a child born...and once it's born gripe about who the hell is responsible for it...and who has to provide support.Kids become invisible to people who can't take responsibility for their actions.
Start a new thread that deals with, "once kids are
Why don't we get drunk and screw baby. WHAT? You're pregnant? Get lost bitch - it ain't my problem! Oh Yeah? In my court it is - bitch. Deadbeat dads would quickly become Bubba's girlfriend in jail.
What a bunch of emotional garbage... she can have an abortion. That is whole point of the thread.
 
Nope, it's up to biology and timing.

Its up to her biology which includes her mind (decision). Your only contribution is some jizm, which is not depleted. Within a few hours, you are ready again and are free to have as many children as you want, as long as you are willing to be responsible for them.

As has been pointed out, we already have 21% of the children in this country not being properly cared for. Why would we want to add to that number?
 
Its up to her biology which includes her mind (decision).

I have yet to meet a woman who can will her eggs infertile.

As has been pointed out, we already have 21% of the children in this country not being properly cared for. Why would we want to add to that number?

Better dead than poor. I don't subscribe to that.
 
Okay, I can compromise. I agree that it's not fair. People should have the ability to opt out of parenthood if they aren't ready. It's why I am pro-choice. Ultimately I must concede that pro-choice must also protect the father as well. I mean, what about his choice? I'm not sure that even financial support can be considered parenthood though. A single mom could just as easily saddle up with another man who can be cooperative in helping her to care for her child, all the while the biological dad is paying support. In thinking of it this way, we can start discussing what it means to be a father. Is it merely financial support? I don't think so. Perhaps letting biological fathers choose if they want to be parents can offset the deadbeat dad phenomenon. Instead of a child always relating to their dad as someone who is never there for them, we can cut the unwilling party loose and then let a better situation take hold.

Unfortunately it seems like the majority of single mothers stay single. There are a lot of men out there who would get together with a single mom and help her to raise a kid that's not even his, but I'm skeptical that these kinds of men are greater in number than those would want nothing to do with the baggage of a kid that isn't theirs - or hell, a kid that IS theirs.

I do understand your use of logic... but I can't help but tie it back to reality. I'm not trying to swindle logic here in order to be right. I just don't see how, reproductively and biologically speaking, men and women are equal. Women cannot easily back away from parenthood because the child is attached to them from the get go. Yes, they can have the kid and give it up for adoption... but that is still her situation to deal with. The man can be in Timbuctu by then for all we know.

Even philosophically, I don't agree that a woman's right to choose looks the same as it does for a man. Men have never had to fight for personhood rights, or the right to control their bodies. Women from day one have not been equal and, until recently in history, have been the property of men. All worthwhile research points to the fact that the status of women and children affects the status of entire civilizations. It's the whole reason behind the UN mandate on bettering women and children. It's not a sexist or discriminatory policy. The fact is that we live in a patriarchy and women are easily trampled upon - maybe less so in America, but look around the world and you will see that we are the exception rather than the rule.

Female reproduction is intimately tied to the health of civilizations. They have the right to choose because they have the biological imperative. Men can sleep around if they want and until the advent of genetic testing, they could get away with it. I see child support laws as compensating for centuries of paternal neglect. A woman can't just toss her child - she will be charged with abandonment, neglect, or even attempted murder. But men have done just that for centuries and now that family courts are trying to prevent it, men are getting pissed at having their parental responsibilities thrown back in their faces. In reality, they are being shown the world that women have always had to live.

(Again, I know there are deadbeat moms out there, but I already demonstrated with statistics that it's not the norm.)

The single mothers who stay single usually do so by choice. Heck, my mother was one of them. There are enough men who are willing to be with lady who already has kids. Because my father wasn't responsible is a big reason I'm passionate about a man having rights to the unborn child.

Based on my experience, I like to differentiate mother/father from mom/dad by the former being your biological parents and the latter being who takes responsibility for you. Ideally speaking, someone should be both or neither. However, I would say I had a father but not a dad.

Since I'm a mathematician, you can understand why I obviously say that two things are either equal or they are not. Socially, you either ignore gender and consider equal rights for every individual or you don't. If you are going to apply gender differences then you must do it in every case, not just when it's convenient for your gender. The physical strength of men is one reason why men were the more dominant gender in many civilizations. Also, you don't hold history against anyone. Just like blacks shouldn't expect me to owe them for slavery since I had nothing to do with it, you shouldn't hold the history of how women were treated against the men of today.

I'll say one more time, since we have genetic testing, I'm in favor of both parents having the right to deny abortion and holding both parents financially responsible. Understand that I don't envision many men insisting on the child birth unless they want to be a responsible single father.
 
What? ****, I had that backwards.

That's why females are naturally attracted to the alpha males. They want that quality seed :mrgreen:
 
Anyone who breeds a child, should be held legally responsible, by law, for the welfare of that child; the father and the mother.

How come most people with this argument ignore the fact that the woman is chooing to have the child against the man's wish? Also, why do poeple ignore that she can simply have an abortion if she doesn't want to support the child on her own?

It's like ZOOOOOOOOOOM!

...right over their heads. :roll:
 
How come most people with this argument ignore the fact that the woman is chooing to have the child against the man's wish? Also, why do poeple ignore that she can simply have an abortion if she doesn't want to support the child on her own?

It's like ZOOOOOOOOOOM!

...right over their heads. :roll:

What part of, "father and mother", didn't you understand.

IOW, if a woman chooses to have a child, she is legally responsible for that child's well-being; i.e. getting on welfare isn't an option for her.
 
This argument is true of women as well. If they didn't want to have a child, she had the option of making sure she didn't get pregnant. The woman isn't just some idle participant, she made choices too.

No argument from me on that...but the point remains is when two people couple and a pregnancy results...the woman has the choice not the man...along with that the coupling takes two....pay dude...I dont want to pay for you or your ladies mistakes
 
How come most people with this argument ignore the fact that the woman is chooing to have the child against the man's wish? Also, why do poeple ignore that she can simply have an abortion if she doesn't want to support the child on her own?

It's like ZOOOOOOOOOOM!

...right over their heads. :roll:


because that wouldnt be living in reality and would hurt their unrealistic bias arguments. Its about twisting it into other things ignoring your point because it really cant be argued against.
If they cant win they attempt to change the game ;)

Its called moving the goal post
 
Back
Top Bottom