• 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

Kandahar said:
Well, the same applies for unemployed fathers. Ultimately there isn't much the state can do to force the deadbeat parent to pay up, if they don't have any money.
Click to expand...

Except, send them to jail.
 
unless the mother/father is:

unemployed
gets paid under the table
beats the system
is already receiving some assistance
or has never worked and still doesnt and has a new mate that supports them like you did

etc etc etc

like I said making a woman/man pay doesnt by any stretch of the imagination make them a MOTHER/FATHER in the real sense and it does just about **** for the child
 
0123456789
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Except, send them to jail.
Click to expand...

which rarely happens and doesnt get the mother/father the money the court order says they are due or make them a REAL parent

It some cases judges SUSPEND the child support and dont even make the back pay accumulate or take the little they earn while in prison.

again not say you apst but all those pretending this is some how bad for the kids make me laugh.
 
Kandahar said:
Yes, if he is raising the child and the mother is not.
Click to expand...

I was just making sure. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the women had an excuse to get out of it.
 
apdst said:
Nor does it entitle her to live off my tax money. She needs to make sure she can come up with the cash to take care of that kid, or keep her ***** shut.
Click to expand...

If you are not prepared to be responsible, you need to be more careful where you pick your stecker!
 
Catawba said:
If you are not prepared to be responsible, you need to be more careful where you pick your stecker!
Click to expand...

And a woman should be more careful when she lets someone poke fun at her, too.

It's a two way street.
 
apdst said:
And a woman should be more careful when she lets someone poke fun at her, too.

It's a two way street.
Click to expand...

No one is suggesting she doesn't, but ultimately it is her body and her decision. You have no right to determine what decisions she makes with her body.
Shooting out your jizm gives you no rights.
 
apdst said:
And a woman should be more careful when she lets someone poke fun at her, too.

It's a two way street.
Click to expand...

what does this have to do with child support payments?
 
Mathematician said:
That doesn't solve the problem if I want the kid to have my good looks and brains. :lol:
Click to expand...

But with your charming personality (and you have money too, right?), I'm sure you can convince a woman to bear a child for you.
 
Catawba said:
Many women have been impregnated without a male present. All men need to do is put some jizm in a cup. Not a huge responsibility by any stretch of the imagination.
Click to expand...

Did I dispute that? Please show me where I said it wasn't possible. What I said (just read please) was that I have yet to meet a woman who can will her eggs infertile

Catawba said:
I don't subscribe to the notion that aborting a fetus is murder, just as I don't subscribe to the notion that having sex with contraception is murder. I am more concerned with 21% of the children living in this country that are already not being properly cared for.
Click to expand...

Did I say murder? No, I said your opinion is essentially "Better dead than poor". Because you think it's best for that kid to just not exist in the first place than it is to be born into that 21%.
 
Catawba said:
No one is suggesting she doesn't, but ultimately it is her body and her decision. You have no right to determine what decisions she makes with her body.
Shooting out your jizm gives you no rights.
Click to expand...

Her body, her decision. It's all on her to keep the baby or kill it. So she should have the right to force the man to pay for HER decision. That was her choice at that point. Keep or destroy, all hers. At that point the man is out, he just contributed jizm, right? So why do you suggest he be held responsible for HER decision?
 
If i now correctly understand Bod's intended premise of his OP, it isn't funamentally about child support payments per se, but rather inequalities in men's choices based primarily around a woman's right to, at her discretion, have an abortion OR use a "surprise pregnancy" to unfairly manipulate the "system" to her advantage, which can usurp men's choices and unjustly force a long- term financial involvement in the form of child support.

And I truly hope that I've got it. If my "newest" perception of the topic is on track THEN:

This scenario has been an ongoing complaint by men for many, many decades. I would bet that very few men have not been exposed to media reports, articiles, and even televised episodes about the topic that discuss on delineate the various claims of inequalities. There are "Father's Rights Groups organized across the country.

That said...the above would be virtually impossible for men NOT TO KNOW PRIOR to having sex...that if an "untentional" pregnancy occurs", there will be a real possibility that he will be required by law to participate in the support of the child if the woman "chooses" to have the child.

MY BET IS IF ABORTION WAS ILLEGAL - MANY men who claim to be PRO-LIFE, and didn't want the soon to be unintended child, they would searching desperately for ways to circumvent or abandon responsiblity for paying support for the child that they co-created.

if abortion was illegal, the birth of 1 million additional kids born each year, they would become victims of tens of thousands of pro-life men who would STILL be decrying social and legal inequities and fight to avoid being financially responsible, which would substantially jeopodize the long-term welfare of all of those "Unintentional or Unwantred" children.
 
Removable Mind said:
If i now correctly understand Bod's intended premise of his OP, it isn't funamentally about child support payments per se, but rather inequalities in men's choices based primarily around a woman's right to, at her discretion, have an abortion OR use a "surprise pregnancy" to unfairly manipulate the "system" to her advantage, which can usurp men's choices and unjustly force a long- term financial involvement in the form of child support.

And I truly hope that I've got it. If my "newest" perception of the topic is on track THEN:

This scenario has been an ongoing complaint by men for many, many decades. I would bet that very few men have not been exposed to media reports, articiles, and even televised episodes about the topic that discuss on delineate the various claims of inequalities. There are "Father's Rights Groups organized across the country.

That said...the above would be virtually impossible for men NOT TO KNOW PRIOR to having sex...that if an "untentional" pregnancy occurs", there will be a real possibility that he will be required by law to participate in the support of the child if the woman "chooses" to have the child.

MY BET IS IF ABORTION WAS ILLEGAL - MANY men who claim to be PRO-LIFE, and didn't want the soon to be unintended child, they would searching desperately for ways to circumvent or abandon responsiblity for paying support for the child that they co-created.

if abortion was illegal, the birth of 1 million additional kids born each year, they would become victims of tens of thousands of pro-life men who would STILL be decrying social and legal inequities and fight to avoid being financially responsible, which would substantially jeopodize the long-term welfare of all of those "Unintentional or Unwantred" children.
Click to expand...

so basically you still have no answer to the OP, admitted it is unfair, offered a "help group" and then still made your post about a different topic? got it
 
Removable Mind said:
If i now correctly understand Bod's intended premise of his OP, it isn't funamentally about child support payments per se, but rather inequalities in men's choices based primarily around a woman's right to, at her discretion, have an abortion OR use a "surprise pregnancy" to unfairly manipulate the "system" to her advantage, which can usurp men's choices and unjustly force a long- term financial involvement in the form of child support.

And I truly hope that I've got it. If my "newest" perception of the topic is on track THEN:

This scenario has been an ongoing complaint by men for many, many decades. I would bet that very few men have not been exposed to media reports, articiles, and even televised episodes about the topic that discuss on delineate the various claims of inequalities. There are "Father's Rights Groups organized across the country.

That said...the above would be virtually impossible for men NOT TO KNOW PRIOR to having sex...that if an "untentional" pregnancy occurs", there will be a real possibility that he will be required by law to participate in the support of the child if the woman "chooses" to have the child.

MY BET IS IF ABORTION WAS ILLEGAL - MANY men who claim to be PRO-LIFE, and didn't want the soon to be unintended child, they would searching desperately for ways to circumvent or abandon responsiblity for paying support for the child that they co-created.

if abortion was illegal, the birth of 1 million additional kids born each year, they would become victims of tens of thousands of pro-life men who would STILL be decrying social and legal inequities and fight to avoid being financially responsible, which would substantially jeopodize the long-term welfare of all of those "Unintentional or Unwantred" children.
Click to expand...

So your response is just a smear run against the other side?

Men AND woman know PRIOR to having sex that they can get pregnant. Being pregnant is a probability when engaging in sex, it's how our species reproduces. But you allow women to escape consequence while forcing the man to face the slings and arrows of the woman's whims. Not necessarily fair.
 
Ikari said:
So your response is just a smear run against the other side?

Men AND woman know PRIOR to having sex that they can get pregnant. Being pregnant is a probability when engaging in sex, it's how our species reproduces. But you allow women to escape consequence while forcing the man to face the slings and arrows of the woman's whims. Not necessarily fair.
Click to expand...

if the man were ignorant of the potential for incurring a financial liability
then your argument would have merit
but since the guy plants his seed with full knowledge of the potential consequences
your argument has no legitimacy
both parents know the potential consequences and both are responsible for any result of their sexual activity
 
justabubba said:
if the man were ignorant of the potential for incurring a financial liability
then your argument would have merit
but since the guy plants his seed with full knowledge of the potential consequences
your argument has no legitimacy
both parents know the potential consequences and both are responsible for any result of their sexual activity
Click to expand...

No, they are not both responsible. The woman can kill the child and remove responsibility; the man has no such option.
 
justabubba said:
if the man were ignorant of the potential for incurring a financial liability
then your argument would have merit
but since the guy plants his seed with full knowledge of the potential consequences
your argument has no legitimacy
both parents know the potential consequences and both are responsible for any result of their sexual activity
Click to expand...

So abortion is wrong, right? Is that not getting out of potential consequences?
 
Henrin said:
So abortion is wrong, right? Is that not getting out of potential consequences?
Click to expand...

i have no problem with the woman choosing to abort if that is her personal decision
just as i have no problem with the guy getting clipped so that he only shoots blanks

and if they fail to take adequate precautions to avoid a child coming into this world, then care for that child becomes their responsibility
 
Ikari said:
No, they are not both responsible. The woman can kill the child and remove responsibility; the man has no such option.
Click to expand...

If the woman "removes responsibility" in the way you described, then there is no child that needs to be supported. If the man "removes responsibility" by disowning his child, then there is still a child that needs to be supported.
 
justabubba said:
i have no problem with the woman choosing to abort if that is her personal decision
just as i have no problem with the guy getting clipped so that he only shoots blanks
Click to expand...

So for the one you support choice but the other support them getting fixed? Wow, that speaks volumes.

and if they fail to take adequate precautions to avoid a child coming into this world, then care for that child becomes their responsibility
Click to expand...

So again the woman can decide to not care but the man is dragged for the ride. Seems fair..
 
Kandahar said:
If the woman "removes responsibility" in the way you described, then there is no child that needs to be supported. If the man "removes responsibility" by disowning his child, then there is still a child that needs to be supported.
Click to expand...

Well at least in that case the kid is just poor instead of dead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom