• 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

LMAO sorry if repeating facts confuses you. LMAO

LMAO

LMAO

LMAO you can't even tell reality from the fiction in your mind. LMAO

LMAO

LMAO

what you think welfare is, that's YOUR opinion. But LMAO you can't ignore reality LMAO

LMAO you made the claim it's purely subjective and that I'm wrong when I state that death is an absolute. LMAO

So, LMAO, what you are saying is that one can hold positive welfare when dead. LMAO I want to know HOW one can hold positive welfare when dead LMAO

LMAO

You can tell me that gods exist too LMAO, but I won't believe it till there is proof. LMAO

You say "opinion", I say when there is no being, you can not have well being. You claim the opposite. Mine is true by intuition, yours you made up because you don't want to admit that there are absolutes to welfare. So I'm asking you to back up your claims, LMOA. Prove that without being, one can have well being; LMAO. Should be easy right? I mean, you claim that I can not answer the question that's why it's subjective, yet you AVOID THE QUESTIONS TO YOU. Therefore, you can not answer the question, that's why death is an absolute. LMAO

You are simply wrong, LMAO. Thanks for playing. LMAO LMAO LMAO ;) ;) ;)

so you still can't prove that welfare is NOT subjective?
Got, but I knew that about 100 posts ago. Let me know when you can :D
 
So is there ever a case where a single father receives child support?

I could get child support from my ex, but I have not had her salary assessed since she makes so little, perhaps 1/10th what I make a year.
 
Shooting out some jizm hardly gives you rights over a woman's body. If you want a kid, go shoot your jizm in another woman that wants your baby. Its not like you can only do it once.

This has literally nothing to do with my argument...
 
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:

Pretty much that... I have no problem with child support payments in any instance where a couple willingly has children, or is in a committed relationahip and has children. The child should and must be "taken care of" (not Mafia style). I do have a problem with men having to pay child support solely because a woman does not want to have an abortion. That is her right. Her body, her choice. As unfair as it can be, a man should have no say even if that means that she aborts his "child" and he is heartbroken for life. That sucks, but that is just how it is.

I DO HAVE A PROBLEM with a woman getting pregnant, wanting the child against the man's wishes (all good so far) and then having the state force the man to pay money to support her choice. He is not paying to support the child, since she can have an abortion. This is the disconnect that many people siimply don't get or that they refuse to acknowledge. If she does not want to support the child on her own, she can have an abortion, as is her deserved right.

People that don't like this argue illogically that he gave up all control once he "jizzed". Ridiculous. Child support payments have nothing to do with biology. They are a legal construct that revolve completely around the woman's "choice".
 
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

... there should be a change to the laws so that the man should not incur financial liabilities...
 
... there should be a change to the laws so that the man should not incur financial liabilities...

why?
he was responsible for the child being brought into this world
he should not be able to walk away from that
for the child's sake ... as well as the taxpayers'
 
why?
he was responsible for the child being brought into this world
he should not be able to walk away from that
for the child's sake ... as well as the taxpayers'

Her choice her responsiblity.
This is all about her choice, not about a child.
This is all about her choice, not the minor role a man played in an hour or two of sex.

She will have no "choice" if he is not "FORCED" to pay for her "choice". That is the mindset that we have now. This mindset is based off of an error in logic. She is responsible for bringing the child into this world, not him. She can birth control and there will be no child or she can choose to carry the child to term. She wants all the power over her body and if she will abort or not, and that is fine By doing this she has just also volunteered all responsiblity. Can't have it both ways.

Seriously. She wants the power of life and death over the developing human. All her choice. All her responsiblity. But the moment she decides to keep the child, and especially if it is against what he wants, then all of a sudden he has an equal responsiblity. The hypocrisy of this mind set is literally astounding. the more I debate this the more shocked I am that so many people can't see how simple it really is.

For the child's sake, if she can't support the child she should use birth control and save everybody time and money.
 
Her choice her responsiblity.
This is all about her choice, not about a child.
This is all about her choice, not the minor role a man played in an hour or two of sex.

She will have no "choice" if he is not "FORCED" to pay for her "choice". That is the mindset that we have now. This mindset is based off of an error in logic. She is responsible for bringing the child into this world, not him. She can birth control and there will be no child or she can choose to carry the child to term. She wants all the power over her body and if she will abort or not, and that is fine By doing this she has just also volunteered all responsiblity. Can't have it both ways.

Seriously. She wants the power of life and death over the developing human. All her choice. All her responsiblity. But the moment she decides to keep the child, and especially if it is against what he wants, then all of a sudden he has an equal responsiblity. The hypocrisy of this mind set is literally astounding. the more I debate this the more shocked I am that so many people can't see how simple it really is.

For the child's sake, if she can't support the child she should use birth control and save everybody time and money.

Women just want to control their own bodies.
 
he was responsible for the child being brought into this world

Not according to what people are saying here. The choice to bring a child into the world is 100% the choice and decision of the woman; the man gets no input. He was partially responsible for the conception of the child; not the child being brought into the world. That decision and responsibility is 100% the mother's.
 
so you still can't prove that welfare is NOT subjective?
Got, but I knew that about 100 posts ago. Let me know when you can :D

I've proven an absolute nature to welfare. Wefare, necessitating concerns about well being, requires being. One has no being when dead, and thus cannot have well being.

So you still can't prove that death is NOT absolute

Got it, but I knew that about 100 posts ago. Let me know when you can :2razz:
 
Originally Posted by OKgrannie
Women just want to control their own bodies.
And immunity from the consequences of biology.

Thanks to medical technology, all of us have some immunity from the consequences of biology. Nowadays, we have immunizations for many diseases, treatment for others, and treatment for accidents as well. Why do you think pregnancy should be any different?
 
Thanks to medical technology, all of us have some immunity from the consequences of biology. Nowadays, we have immunizations for many diseases, treatment for others, and treatment for accidents as well. Why do you think pregnancy should be any different?

We sure do, medical science is quite impressive. Pregnancy is different from disease in that pregnancy is normal human reproduction. Surprised you didn't know that.
 
We sure do, medical science is quite impressive. Pregnancy is different from disease in that pregnancy is normal human reproduction. Surprised you didn't know that.

Disease is normal too. Dying from disease is also normal. Heart attacks are normal. Strokes are normal. Bleeding from cuts is normal. Medical science can improve on normal, as with birth control. Giving women the option of spacing their pregnancies farther apart and ending reproduction after several children has improved the health and longevity of women. And also resulted in healthier children. Giving women control of their bodies means giving them control of their lives, hurrah for medical science.
 
Disease is normal too. Dying from disease is also normal. Heart attacks are normal. Strokes are normal. Bleeding from cuts is normal. Medical science can improve on normal, as with birth control. Giving women the option of spacing their pregnancies farther apart and ending reproduction after several children has improved the health and longevity of women. And also resulted in healthier children. Giving women control of their bodies means giving them control of their lives, hurrah for medical science.

Quite a bit of improvement. Though pregnancy is still different than influenza or the mumps. Pregnancy is the creation of additional human life and the normal way by which our species reproduces. It's not disease, it's result of choice. We've come a long way in making pregnancies safer, but the way in which it is initiated has not changed. It's not just the woman's body at that point which requires consideration, but also the life of the human created through her choice.
 
Her choice her responsiblity.

And therein lies the problem. Most people who are pro-choice favor CHOICE. Once you turn abortion into an obligation or a duty or a responsibility, then it's no longer truly a choice even if another option exists.

this is all about her choice, not about a child.

And therein lies another problem. That's the entirely wrong way to frame a discussion about child support, which SHOULD be about the child.

She will have no "choice" if he is not "FORCED" to pay for her "choice". That is the mindset that we have now. This mindset is based off of an error in logic. She is responsible for bringing the child into this world, not him. She can birth control and there will be no child or she can choose to carry the child to term. She wants all the power over her body and if she will abort or not, and that is fine By doing this she has just also volunteered all responsiblity. Can't have it both ways.

When a baby is conceived, the parents are both legally responsible for the child from that point forward. The man cannot sign a piece of paper disavowing responsibility and sticking the woman with the full cost for raising the child, any more than the woman can do that to the man. Neither has any special rights in that regard; they are BOTH responsible for financially supporting that child until age 18, except under unusual circumstances (e.g. both parents agree to put the child up for adoption).

Now, if something happens so that it never reaches age 18 (e.g. it's aborted, or it dies in childhood), then of course there isn't going to be any child support because there is no child to support. This has nothing to do with whose "fault" it was that the child never reached age 18; the obligation is simply removed because the reason for it no longer exists.

Seriously. She wants the power of life and death over the developing human. All her choice. All her responsiblity. But the moment she decides to keep the child, and especially if it is against what he wants, then all of a sudden he has an equal responsiblity. The hypocrisy of this mind set is literally astounding. the more I debate this the more shocked I am that so many people can't see how simple it really is.

Both parents have equal rights to unilaterally disown their child and stick the other parent with the full cost of raising it (i.e. they can't do it). And both parents have equal rights to abort any children they happen to be pregnant with (i.e. they can).

For the child's sake, if she can't support the child she should use birth control and save everybody time and money.

That's pretty sexist. If the dude can't support the child then he should have worn a rubber and saved everybody time and money.
 
Last edited:
I've proven an absolute nature to welfare. Wefare, necessitating concerns about well being, requires being. One has no being when dead, and thus cannot have well being.

So you still can't prove that death is NOT absolute

Got it, but I knew that about 100 posts ago. Let me know when you can :2razz:

could you be any more dishonest?
This seems to be the rout you often take when you can't make somebody agree with your opinion.

You have no "proven" an absolute by any stretch of the imagination you have given me an opinion of what you THINK one is :shrug:

You keep saying "well being", then extracting the word being to dishonestly draw a conclusion that it matters to welfare what we are actually talking about but in reality it does not.

here YOUR definition that YOU posted:

WELFARE
1
: the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity <must look out for your own welfare>
2
a : aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need b : an agency or program through which such aid is distributed

see how there an "OR" after well being. See how English works is that OR means it could be ANY or ALL of that stuff. Its subjective. SO a bum living in the streets addicted to crack who has cancer may have the opinion that his state of doing well or to achieve his happiness he wants to be dead.

Its his choice and his welfare, you don't get to pick LMAO

Somebody else might want just a roof and a meal a day, somebody else might want to be able to spend 1000$ a day until they die for their well being, prosperity.

Sorry but you have in fact prove nothing only helped me prove the facts. Welfare is subjective and you can't control it for others.

Also in you last lie, I never claimed I believe death is NOT absolute, what I said that it has no impact on some peoples welfare.

Another failed attempt to move the goal posts but Ill just stick to the facts.
Welfare is subjective and all the poof any honest person needs for that is all in this thread and your definition.

I again challenge you to tell me what MY welfare is? you can't because its subjective and even if dead before I died I my have decided that's whats best for me.

So now play more words games and try to desperately use my sayings against you but you will only fail yet again in trying to falsely claim welfare is NOT subjective.
 
could you be any more dishonest?
This seems to be the rout you often take when you can't make somebody agree with your opinion.

Could you be any more dishonest?
This seems to be the route you often taken when you can't make somebody agree with your opinion.

You have no "proven" an absolute by any stretch of the imagination you have given me an opinion of what you THINK one is :shrug:

You keep saying "well being", then extracting the word being to dishonestly draw a conclusion that it matters to welfare what we are actually talking about but in reality it does not.

Welfare is define thorough well being. I put the definition up there for ya. You have not proven that one can have well being wihtout being. Please do so and then the fully subjective nature of Welfare" can be discussed to your liking. Till then, welfare only has meaning to those whom are alive. Those whom are dead can have no welfare.

Good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity only have meaning to the living. The dead cannot have them. So I guess what that mans is that there is an absolute to welfare which includes being alive. I can't believe you'd be so dishonest as to contest that point.
 
Could you be any more dishonest?
This seems to be the route you often taken when you can't make somebody agree with your opinion.



Welfare is define thorough well being. I put the definition up there for ya. You have not proven that one can have well being wihtout being. Please do so and then the fully subjective nature of Welfare" can be discussed to your liking. Till then, welfare only has meaning to those whom are alive. Those whom are dead can have no welfare.

Good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity only have meaning to the living. The dead cannot have them. So I guess what that mans is that there is an absolute to welfare which includes being alive. I can't believe you'd be so dishonest as to contest that point.

thats what I thought you did exactly what I said you would LMAO thanks for making it obvious to all.Also your FIRST twist doesn't make sense because im not stating my opinion, I'm stating a fact you seem to not understand. You are arguing against your own definition that YOU posted which is hilarious.

You seem to not understand English or the definition YOU posted and how the word OR works LOL

the bolded above is your OPINION :shrug:

the homeless junkie with cancer disagreed so he took his own life.
There are even some that believe that they will have happiness in some after life :shrug:

again it is subjective and you don't get to pick, how do you explain to that homeless junkie that YOUR opinion on his welfare is more important than his own opinion to his welfare LMAO
 
Last edited:
thats what I thought you did exactly what I said you would LMAO thanks for making it obvious to all.

You seem to not understand English or the definition YOU posted and how the word OR works LOL

the bolded above is your OPINION :shrug:

the homeless junkie with cancer disagreed so he took his own life.
There are even some that believe that they will have happiness in some after life :shrug:

again it is subjective and you don't get to pick, how do you explain to that homeless junkie that YOUR opinion on his welfare is more important than his own opinion to his welfare LMAO

LMAO

LMAO

LMAO

Look, I can be a jackass too.

Regardless. A homeless junkie may think being dead is better, but that's not a consideration of welfare, as you must give up welfare to obtain death.

This is really easy. Demonstrate how the dead can have good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity. That's all you got to do. You keep saying "that's your opinion", but that's only because you seemingly like be difficult and won't admit when you're wrong. Demonstrate the dead can have any of those things, and I will admit to the subjective nature of "welfare" to extend to the dead.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Tone it down, knock off the personal crap, and get this thread on track.
 
LMAO

LMAO

LMAO

Look, I can be a jackass too.

Regardless. A homeless junkie may think being dead is better, but that's not a consideration of welfare, as you must give up welfare to obtain death.

This is really easy. Demonstrate how the dead can have good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity. That's all you got to do. You keep saying "that's your opinion", but that's only because you seemingly like be difficult and won't admit when you're wrong. Demonstrate the dead can have any of those things, and I will admit to the subjective nature of "welfare" to extend to the dead.

again you confuse opinion with fact.
The homeless junkie KNOWS whats best for his WELFARE because its HIS, some how you seem to think its yours which is why you are incorrect.

You are right it is easy to prove and I have already but Ill do it again just for you.
The homeless junkie feels it would be in his good fortune to die. DONE!! lol that was easy.

Its his choice not yours.

Now admit or don't admit welfare is subjective but it wont change the facts you are arguing against.
 
again you confuse opinion with fact.
The homeless junkie KNOWS whats best for his WELFARE because its HIS, some how you seem to think its yours which is why you are incorrect.

You are right it is easy to prove and I have already but Ill do it again just for you.
The homeless junkie feels it would be in his good fortune to die. DONE!! lol that was easy.

Its his choice not yours.

Now admit or don't admit welfare is subjective but it wont change the facts you are arguing against.

The homeless guy cannot feel anything when dead. What he perceived as an "increase" (we'll go with the assumption of your argument) in welfare is an abdication of welfare. He can't be happier when dead as he cannot be happy when dead. I am with the "facts" on this one. All the measured data that can be accumulated.

This aside, let's take your opinion built on flights of fancy of being able to feel when dead and apply it to the situation at hand. The homeless guy makes HIS choice, yes? When considering the welfare of the unborn child, like you claim is part of abortion, does anyone ask the child for its "opinion"? It's clear cut with the homeless man, he made a choice. But the kid does not. He doesn't sit there and say "well upon review of the information, my mother is essentially an irresponsible slut and my father is deadbeat...**** it, let's just abort me and get it over with". There is no query there, indeed none to be had. So you can't be going off the "welfare" of the child at that point. The child's happiness and prosperity is not considered. In the case of abortion, it is infact taken away and the child is rendered dead before it can even live. Wherein he can no longer attain welfare, for he is dead and welfare has only meaning to the living.

What people feel and think can indeed be subjective, but to feel and think you must be alive. A guy on drugs may feel like he's flying; but that doesn't make gravity subjective.
 
The homeless guy cannot feel anything when dead. What he perceived as an "increase" (we'll go with the assumption of your argument) in welfare is an abdication of welfare. He can't be happier when dead as he cannot be happy when dead. I am with the "facts" on this one. All the measured data that can be accumulated.

This aside, let's take your opinion built on flights of fancy of being able to feel when dead and apply it to the situation at hand. The homeless guy makes HIS choice, yes? When considering the welfare of the unborn child, like you claim is part of abortion, does anyone ask the child for its "opinion"? It's clear cut with the homeless man, he made a choice. But the kid does not. He doesn't sit there and say "well upon review of the information, my mother is essentially an irresponsible slut and my father is deadbeat...**** it, let's just abort me and get it over with". There is no query there, indeed none to be had. So you can't be going off the "welfare" of the child at that point. The child's happiness and prosperity is not considered. In the case of abortion, it is infact taken away and the child is rendered dead before it can even live. Wherein he can no longer attain welfare, for he is dead and welfare has only meaning to the living.

What people feel and think can indeed be subjective, but to feel and think you must be alive. A guy on drugs may feel like he's flying; but that doesn't make gravity subjective.

nope you are still equating welfare to life and all welfare is by definition is one's own subjective view on what they view is best for them.

The homeless guy chose death. He felt its a better for his welfare to die just because I used the word felt or feeling doesnt mean Im saying he has feelings when he is dead, please stay on topic.

Now your argument is basically we cant ask him if he is now happier after his death and thats true but the facts is it doesnt matter if we can ask him, he made is decision and chose his welfare :shrug:

the rest of your post has no meaning on the facts or my points. Nor have I expressed the opinion you can feel when you are dead LOL its more of off topic randomness, appeals to emotion and word games that I will not play.
Post 349 Welfare = subjective
 
nope you are still equating welfare to life and all welfare is by definition is one's own subjective view on what they view is best for them.

The homeless guy chose death. He felt its a better for his welfare to die just because I used the word felt or feeling doesnt mean Im saying he has feelings when he is dead, please stay on topic.

Now your argument is basically we cant ask him if he is now happier after his death and thats true but the facts is it doesnt matter if we can ask him, he made is decision and chose his welfare :shrug:

the rest of your post has no meaning on the facts or my points. Nor have I expressed the opinion you can feel when you are dead LOL its more of off topic randomness, appeals to emotion and word games that I will not play.
Post 349 Welfare = subjective

Nothing I did was appeal to emotion. Please try to be honest. Your initial post, to which spawned this whole thing, was your claim that the welfare of the child is considered in abortion. I responded by saying that's obviously not the case because the child ends up dead in abortion and that doesn't uphold the welfare of the child. You eventually came back with this "subjective" argument and then top it with the homeless guy choosing to die. He feels it's better for his "welfare" (not necessarily true, they could feel so hopeless that they're better off with no welfare (i.e. death) than trying to improve the current conditions). Now the subjective nature of welfare (I never stated it wasn't subjective; I merely claimed an absolute floor of requiring life) may be up to one's own subjective views on what they view is best for them; but you can only have a subjective view if you are alive. You can hold no views or truths or feelings or property or any of it when you are dead.

The homeless man who chooses to die CANNOT BE HAPPIER IN DEATH. You cannot feel happiness when you are dead. That seems to be a point you are contesting, to which I asked for proof and got none. You instead claim that it wasn't your point, which is a lie because it follows logically from what you are trying to say. So either you do not comprehend fully what you are trying to say or you are lying about your point. The choice is yours. You claim welfare has meaning when dead and that when dead one could have achieved an increase in welfare. But nothing in welfare is valid when dead, welfare has no meaning to the dead. I cannot believe you would try to contend that point. Welfare is a term for the living.

The rest of my post had every meaning on facts and your points. The fact you refuse to address them only further demonstrates your dishonest arguments on this topic.
 
Back
Top Bottom