• 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!

Should Woman's Choice Trump the Man's??

Should the woman's choice dictate that the man has to pay child support?


  • Total voters
    32
Because the child still needs to be supported. You seem to be viewing child support as a form of punishment that men have to pay to women, when in actuality it's just part of the cost of raising a child who had nothing to do with the choices that either parent made.

The child needs to be supported, but the woman made the choice to keep it; not the man. Thus she should bear responsibility for that decision; not the man. Whether or not a child is born has no bearing on the desires or wishes of the man; it's 100% the woman. Thus she should be 100% responsible for the consequences.
 
My stances on this issue are:

The woman should have sole control over the choice to terminate or continue the pregnancy because it is her body. It's unfair to a father who wishes to keep the child, but if they should have been aware of their sexual partners views prior to having sex with them. People forget that there is also the decision to sleep with a specific person involved here, not simply th echoice ot have sex. If you want to prevent a child of yours form ever being aborted, simply make teh choice not to sleep with any woman who would abort your child.

As far as parental responsibility goes, I believe that both parents should have the option of relinquishing any and all parental responsibility, but only if done in a timely fashion once paternity/maternity of that child is established. for the woman, this would be shortly after birth. For the man, this would be shortly after he learns of the birth of his child. this means a woman can go through with a pregnancy, perhaps because the father wanted to keep the child, and absolve herself of parental rights and responsibilities in orderto give the child to the father if she wishes. And vice versa.

However, if the person consents to retaining parental responsibility at that time, the only way that they should be allowed to relinquish that responsibility in the future is if both parents consent to place the child up for adoption. Neither should be allowed to skip out on the child and their other parent.
 
Unfortunately there is very little the state can do to make people be more responsible parents (aside from cases of abuse/neglect). All the government can do is make them pay up, if they have money.

But in some case they should not have to pay, thats the point of the OP.
Also most times the government sucks at making them pay, unless of course again they want to pay and want to be real parents.
 
The money goes to support the child. The government is merely the conduit through which this transaction occurs, and hardly qualifies as "taxation" any moreso than paying for your own child who lives with you qualifies as taxation.

Well it's not like a direct tax from the government, but it's analogous.

He input his power cord into a woman's socket. Otherwise it wouldn't be an issue in the first place.

This argument cuts both ways and is actually an argument against abortion in general. They BOTH made the choice for sex. That choice can result in pregnancy; but at that point the man is done. There is a new choice and that is to bring to term or kill the baby. That choice belongs 100% to the woman and overrides any "input" the man previously had. Now she chooses to have the kid, that's her choice and one she should be solely responsible for.

This abortion analogy is a red herring. If a woman has an abortion, then there is no child that needs to be supported. If she doesn't, then there is. So given that there is a child (i.e. there was no abortion), both parents are held responsible for it under common law. If both agree, the child could be put up for adoption, thus absolving them of responsibility. But if one wants to raise it, the other can and should be required to pay child support.

But the man has no method by which he can independently remove responsibility; that is not true of the woman.

It is his child and it needs to be supported, whether or not he wants the child. The child does not deserve to be financially punished because one or both of its parents made irresponsible choices.

A child doesn't deserve to be killed for the convenience of one of the parents either; but we make common practice of it. What's one more thing?
 
The child needs to be supported, but the woman made the choice to keep it; not the man.

They were both responsible for creating the child. Abortion (or lack thereof) does not change that reality.

Thus she should bear responsibility for that decision; not the man.

Once again no thought is given to the actual interests of the CHILD, it's all about what stupid bitches women are for not having abortions. :roll:

Whether or not a child is born has no bearing on the desires or wishes of the man; it's 100% the woman. Thus she should be 100% responsible for the consequences.

This solution would instantly create millions of deadbeat dads disowning their children for their own financial gain, and contribute to the wealth disparity that already exists between men and women.
 
Last edited:
My stances on this issue are:

The woman should have sole control over the choice to terminate or continue the pregnancy because it is her body. It's unfair to a father who wishes to keep the child, but if they should have been aware of their sexual partners views prior to having sex with them. People forget that there is also the decision to sleep with a specific person involved here, not simply th echoice ot have sex. If you want to prevent a child of yours form ever being aborted, simply make teh choice not to sleep with any woman who would abort your child.

As far as parental responsibility goes, I believe that both parents should have the option of relinquishing any and all parental responsibility, but only if done in a timely fashion once paternity/maternity of that child is established. for the woman, this would be shortly after birth. For the man, this would be shortly after he learns of the birth of his child. this means a woman can go through with a pregnancy, perhaps because the father wanted to keep the child, and absolve herself of parental rights and responsibilities in orderto give the child to the father if she wishes. And vice versa.

However, if the person consents to retaining parental responsibility at that time, the only way that they should be allowed to relinquish that responsibility in the future is if both parents consent to place the child up for adoption. Neither should be allowed to skip out on the child and their other parent.

if only I could like this a 1000000 times.
this type of rational reality based common sense will go ignored by some
 
They were both responsible for creating the child. Abortion (or lack thereof) does not change that reality.

No, but it changes dynamics. If one, why not the other? I mean, hell it's not even as bad as the other. If the man abdicates at worst the kid is poor. If the woman abdicates, the kid is dead.

Once again no thought is given to the actual interests of the CHILD, it's all about what stupid bitches women are for not having abortions. :roll:

No thought is given to the actual interests of the CHILD in the abortion debate anyway. I'm not doing anything new. I'm just using the same logic.

This solution would instantly create millions of deadbeat dads disowning their children for their own financial gain.

So? We already kill how many for the parents own financial gain? Abortion is killing for convenience, how is this anything worse?
 
They were both responsible for creating the child. Abortion (or lack thereof) does not change that reality.



Once again no thought is given to the actual interests of the CHILD, it's all about what stupid bitches women are for not having abortions. :roll:



This solution would instantly create millions of deadbeat dads disowning their children for their own financial gain, and contribute to the wealth disparity that already exists between men and women.

Actually the impact would be nil
and nobody wants the option to be open at any given time, people want the option in the beginning.

Remind me how many dead beat dads there are NOW with the laws? lol
When a person WANTS to be a parent they will PERIOD, making them pay money doesnt STOP them from being a dead beat dad nor will allowing them not to.
 
Last edited:
Also to be clear on my stance:

Im am 100% FOR making the laws more fair and removing the discrimination.

Im also still 100% for pro-choice this is NOT an argument against abortion in any way what so ever for me.
 
My stances on this issue are:

The woman should have sole control over the choice to terminate or continue the pregnancy because it is her body. It's unfair to a father who wishes to keep the child, but if they should have been aware of their sexual partners views prior to having sex with them. People forget that there is also the decision to sleep with a specific person involved here, not simply th echoice ot have sex. If you want to prevent a child of yours form ever being aborted, simply make teh choice not to sleep with any woman who would abort your child.

As far as parental responsibility goes, I believe that both parents should have the option of relinquishing any and all parental responsibility, but only if done in a timely fashion once paternity/maternity of that child is established. for the woman, this would be shortly after birth. For the man, this would be shortly after he learns of the birth of his child. this means a woman can go through with a pregnancy, perhaps because the father wanted to keep the child, and absolve herself of parental rights and responsibilities in orderto give the child to the father if she wishes. And vice versa.

However, if the person consents to retaining parental responsibility at that time, the only way that they should be allowed to relinquish that responsibility in the future is if both parents consent to place the child up for adoption. Neither should be allowed to skip out on the child and their other parent.

I think that pretty much sums it up. Well put.
 
No, but it changes dynamics. If one, why not the other? I mean, hell it's not even as bad as the other. If the man abdicates at worst the kid is poor. If the woman abdicates, the kid is dead.



No thought is given to the actual interests of the CHILD in the abortion debate anyway. I'm not doing anything new. I'm just using the same logic.



So? We already kill how many for the parents own financial gain? Abortion is killing for convenience, how is this anything worse?

Since this entire post assumes that everyone agrees with your premise that abortion is murder - which you know perfectly well is the very issue in dispute in abortion debates - I'm not going to bother to respond to any of these points.
 
No, but it changes dynamics. If one, why not the other? I mean, hell it's not even as bad as the other. If the man abdicates at worst the kid is poor. If the woman abdicates, the kid is dead.



No thought is given to the actual interests of the CHILD in the abortion debate anyway. I'm not doing anything new. I'm just using the same logic.



So? We already kill how many for the parents own financial gain? Abortion is killing for convenience, how is this anything worse?

Since this entire post assumes that everyone agrees with your premise that abortion is murder - which you know perfectly well is the very issue in dispute in abortion debates - I'm not going to bother to respond to any of these points.
 
Since this entire post assumes that everyone agrees with your premise that abortion is murder - which you know perfectly well is the very issue in dispute in abortion debates - I'm not going to bother to respond to any of these points.

I didn't say murder, I said killing. You are extinguishing human life with abortion. But you've hit on the premise of these threads. You've made an initial assumption to support your debate and refuse to acknowledge anything counter to it. But there is no doubt that abortion stops the child from being born, it wipes them out. That's just a fact of abortion. You can not acknowledge it all you want, but reproductive biology is well understood at this point.
 
do much in reality to support the child if the mother/father dont want to be REAL parents.
well child support is the only means of legally forcing parents to support the child in some manner and in many cases, it does, in fact, get the kid things that he or she needs so i'll take it.
 
I didn't say murder, I said killing. You are extinguishing human life with abortion.

:roll:

But you've hit on the premise of these threads.

Actually there appear to be several people earnestly arguing that this would be the best policy; you just don't happen to be one of them.

You've made an initial assumption to support your debate and refuse to acknowledge anything counter to it. But there is no doubt that abortion stops the child from being born, it wipes them out. That's just a fact of abortion. You can not acknowledge it all you want, but reproductive biology is well understood at this point.

Cool. I'm going to debate the actual subject at hand, rather than the morality of abortion.
 
well child support is the only means of legally forcing parents to support the child in some manner and in many cases, it does, in fact, get the kid things that he or she needs so i'll take it.

its very little support if any when the people do NOT want to be parents.

the fact really is it does little to nothing in the majority of cases where the parent wants no responsibility.

Money is not a replacement for parents and in reality it does little because most times WHEN PEOPLE DONT WANT TO BE PARENTS its not much money or they simple dont pay.

thats the point, in reality it does very little in the cases where parents dont want responsibility which is what we are talking about.
 
.....One truth: this fairly tale fantasy 'past' that you're envisioning never existed.

Then humanity has no value and should be wiped off the face of the planet like we have tried to do to every other form of vermin and rodent.
 
Is this a sarcastic quote or are you being serious?

I don't believe in humor or satire as appropriate forms of communication.


I propose that we stop feeding the obvious troll here.

I propose that you're the next member of the Ignore List, and probably should have been a while ago.
 
Then humanity has no value and should be wiped off the face of the planet like we have tried to do to every other form of vermin and rodent.

It just never had your values like you wish it did. Your values seem to be the idealized and fantasize sculpted enforced white european catholic part of history. Which, btw, even the enforcers and writers of which couldn't adhere to.

Never mind that it makes up just a tiny sliver of human history altogether. . . but go on and try to convert back to the Middle Ages if you'd like. You can slum it with the Hohenzollerns if you wish.
 
Last edited:
It just never had your values like you wish it did. Your values seem to be the idealized and fantasize sculpted enforced white european catholic part of history. Which, btw, even the enforcers and writers of which couldn't adhere to.

My values are something like that. They don't utilize religion as any part of their basis, substituting Morality instead, but I'm not sure you can comprehend the difference there. Again, assuming that the ideals I seek never have existed and cannot in the human race, then we are no better than the Bubonic Plague and deserve nothing more than total extermination, like any other virus on this planet.


Never mind that it makes up just a tiny sliver of human history altogether. . . but go on and try to convert back to the Middle Ages if you'd like.

It would be a damn sight better than what I deal with in society today.
 
its very little support if any when the people do NOT want to be parents.

the fact really is it does little to nothing in the majority of cases where the parent wants no responsibility.

Money is not a replacement for parents and in reality it does little because most times WHEN PEOPLE DONT WANT TO BE PARENTS its not much money or they simple dont pay.

thats the point, in reality it does very little in the cases where parents dont want responsibility which is what we are talking about.
none of this changes the fact that demanding child support is one of the only things government can do to hold parents accountable to some extent. it also doesn't change the fact that in some cases, it does help the child. it doesn't matter if it "does little" most of the time because sometimes it does a lot or at least more than without it. i'm also not in support of getting rid of child support laws just because some people don't want to be parents. if that lack of desire makes them not pay up, then the law should just be enforced better not eliminated.
 
none of this changes the fact that demanding child support is one of the only things government can do to hold parents accountable to some extent. it also doesn't change the fact that in some cases, it does help the child. it doesn't matter if it "does little" most of the time because sometimes it does a lot or at least more than without it. i'm also not in support of getting rid of child support laws just because some people don't want to be parents. if that lack of desire makes them not pay up, then the law should just be enforced better not eliminated.

yes its a fact government can TRY and make you pay, so what, thats meaningless in reality or to this deabte

the fact is if the parent doesnt want to be a parent it helps very little if at all in the vast majority of cases, you see that every day, making the laws fair isnt going to impact this, THATS THE REAL POINT.

The case where the money helps probably wont change one bit.

there should be an option not to do so in the beginning. Read post 52, that is the most sound and logical way to start to set things up, to make it fair and bring in equality to the situation. I hope one day it happens.
 
yes its a fact government can TRY and make you pay, so what, thats meaningless in reality or to this deabte

the fact is if the parent doesnt want to be a parent it helps very little if at all in the vast majority of cases, you see that every day, making the laws fair isnt going to impact this, THATS THE REAL POINT.

The case where the money helps probably wont change one bit.

there should be an option not to do so in the beginning. Read post 52, that is the most sound and logical way to start to set things up, to make it fair and bring in equality to the situation. I hope one day it happens.
Okay, I read your post, I read #52 and I still disagree with you. When you create something, you're responsible for it. And if it helps some kids, then it's worth keeping in my opinion. People should be able to forfeit responsibility just because they don't feel like taking it. If anything, the law should be enforced harder.
 
Okay, I read your post, I read #52 and I still disagree with you. When you create something, you're responsible for it. And if it helps some kids, then it's worth keeping in my opinion. People should be able to forfeit responsibility just because they don't feel like taking it. If anything, the law should be enforced harder.

your allowed to disagree but the fact remains that it does little to nothing currently for the people who do not want the responsibility. So making the law fair isnt going to have a real impact. Those few, if they even exist, WILL get taken care of anyway IF they have a parent who cares by social programs that already exist.

Enforcing the law harder wont have any real impact either because it will still only a monetary thing something minor in the overall picture.

there is no reason to continue the discrimination against those people when these kids will get cared for equally or better anyway.

For example and this is JUST my case but I choose to negate/forfeit the mothers rights to my daughter.

It was BETTER not to get her money then be FORCED to have her in our lives. Me and my daughter are better with out her money and having to deal with her.

Now of course my situation isnt everyones but its an example of how changing the laws to be fair will not have any real world impact except to right an unfairness. Child welfare will not be impacted.
 
My values are something like that. They don't utilize religion as any part of their basis, substituting Morality instead, but I'm not sure you can comprehend the difference there. Again, assuming that the ideals I seek never have existed and cannot in the human race, then we are no better than the Bubonic Plague and deserve nothing more than total extermination, like any other virus on this planet.




It would be a damn sight better than what I deal with in society today.

Per the morality in lieu of religion - we see eye to eye on that thing. I'm not religious but adhere to a moral living. . .I don't see that morality can and only does rely on religious beliefs.

Per what your views rooted in European history have netted the world: all those views ever led to was expanding empires and overpowering all others who were 'in the way' of resources and riches - look at the history of WWI and WWII - it all started with their desire to expand and extort resources. Look at the situations that unfolded in African due to European infiltration - Slavery was a direct stem of this desire.

So, no, what has accompanied your view throughout history has been toxic - at best - to everyone else that is deemed to be 'in the way'

Which is evident even in your views you've stated here in this thread: those who hold views that are different than yours are immoral and wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom