• 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

Bodi

Bodi

Just waiting for my set...
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
123,700
Reaction score
27,999
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Men need to be able to opt out of Child Support if they do not want to be a father (legally). The woman can use her legal Constitutiinal right to birth control if she does not want to or can not support the child on her own. (Of course there are some exceptions)

Discuss.
 
Agreed. Anyone that supports the legalization of abortions and doesn't support this is a hypocrite.
 
As long as it is done early enough in the pregnancy I agree.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Men need to be able to opt out of Child Support if they do not want to be a father (legally). The woman can use her legal Constitutiinal right to birth control if she does not want to or can not support the child on her own. (Of course there are some exceptions)

Discuss.
Click to expand...

If a man does not want to be the father of a child he should:
Not have sex.
Get fixed.
Use birth control.
Problem solved.
If he is the father of a child he shall support that child until the mother marries someone else or he/she reaches 18 years of age. That is how it works.
Excluding rape, having sex is completely voluntary and the man is every bit as responsible as the woman in the creation of a child.
He can, of course, ask her to have an abortion right after he is castrated.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Men need to be able to opt out of Child Support if they do not want to be a father (legally). The woman can use her legal Constitutiinal right to birth control if she does not want to or can not support the child on her own. (Of course there are some exceptions)

Discuss.
Click to expand...

There is a certain logic to that. On the other hand, the responsibility had been engaged earlier, the life been given. Actually, that's a little late.
 
trblmkr said:
If a man does not want to be the father of a child he should:
Not have sex.
Get fixed.
Use birth control.
Problem solved.
If he is the father of a child he shall support that child until the mother marries someone else or he/she reaches 18 years of age. That is how it works.
Excluding rape, having sex is completely voluntary and the man is every bit as responsible as the woman in the creation of a child.
He can, of course, ask her to have an abortion right after he is castrated.
Click to expand...

Why are you ignoring the option I provided?
 
ajn678 said:
Agreed. Anyone that supports the legalization of abortions and doesn't support this is a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

100% accurate
 
BrewerBob said:
As long as it is done early enough in the pregnancy I agree.
Click to expand...

100%.

Must be done early.

Women not telling the man for a few months would automatically disolve his responsibility too...
 
joG said:
There is a certain logic to that. On the other hand, the responsibility had been engaged earlier, the life been given. Actually, that's a little late.
Click to expand...

I am only discussing the logical legal optins.
 
ajn678 said:
Agreed. Anyone that supports the legalization of abortions and doesn't support this is a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

I dnot think that's necessarily true. In one scenario there's a child that needs support and in the other their isn't. Seems like a legitimate point of distinction.

Not taking a stand either way, I just don't think opposing this and supporting abortions necessitates hypocrisy.
 
Anagram said:
I dnot think that's necessarily true. In one scenario there's a child that needs support and in the other their isn't. Seems like a legitimate point of distinction.

Not taking a stand either way, I just don't think opposing this and supporting abortions necessitates hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

By forcing a man to give up his property(money) his rights are being violated in the same way that Roe v Wade was implemented in the legalization of abortions.
 
The old "men should be able to opt out of child support" threads are basically nothing more than deadbeat dad detectors.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
The old "men should be able to opt out of child support" threads are basically nothing more than deadbeat dad detectors.
Click to expand...

What a great and meaningful post. Thanks for the contribution!
 
Bodhisattva said:
Men need to be able to opt out of Child Support if they do not want to be a father (legally). The woman can use her legal Constitutiinal right to birth control if she does not want to or can not support the child on her own. (Of course there are some exceptions)

Discuss.
Click to expand...

If men don't want to be fathers, they need to snip or dress. It's SO easy. ;)
 
When Trump picks his anti-abortion Supreme Court Justice and Roe v Wade and most like Planned Parenthood is overturned - many, many, many times more men will be subject to pay child support because pro-life and Trump will push government begin to shut down social services that are used for CPS, and other forms of support for unwanted children.

The first place state governments are going to...are men... who are co-conceivers of unwanted pregnancies.

There are gonna be unwanted children out the wahzoo.

So men better start wearing condoms even when married and make damn sure that their sex partner is taking birth control. Oh, and by the way, birth control can fail.

An anti-abortion government is men's worst nightmare.
 
ajn678 said:
What a great and meaningful post. Thanks for the contribution!
Click to expand...

Just making an observation. We call the fathers of children that don't want to pay for the children they father, "deadbeat dads". We consider them so loathsome, that we actually jail them for refusing to do so. Of course, most deadbeat dads have all sorts of excuses as to why they should not pay their part to support the children they father.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
The old "men should be able to opt out of child support" threads are basically nothing more than deadbeat dad detectors.
Click to expand...

Oh please. I'm in favor of what the OP proposes and not only am I a good father to my biological son, I adopted my step-son so my parental rights and responsibilities would endure even in the event my marriage with his mom doesn't.
 
Removable Mind said:
When Trump picks his anti-abortion Supreme Court Justice and Roe v Wade and most like Planned Parenthood is overturned - many, many, many times more men will be subject to pay child support because pro-life and Trump will push government begin to shut down social services that are used for CPS, and other forms of support for unwanted children.

There are gonna be unwanted children out the wahzoo.

So men better start wearing condoms even when married and make damn sure that their sex partner is taking birth control. Oh, and by the way, birth control can fail.

An anti-abortion government is men's worst nightmare.
Click to expand...

Snip or dress. It's not difficult. There is no way to make sure your partner is taking birth control. It's your responsibility. Man up.
 
BrewerBob said:
Oh please. I'm in favor of what the OP proposes and not only am I a good father to my biological son, I adopted my step-son so my parental rights and responsibilities would endure even in the event my marriage with his mom doesn't.
Click to expand...

So you are in favor of a man impregnating a woman, when frankly its very easy to avoid doing so, and then saying "well I don't want the kid, so I am not on the line to support it", and thus the mother then gets to raise the kid with no financial help from the man who fathered the child. Sorry, but I don't think you will ever get anywhere near a majority of Americans to ever agree with that one.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Men need to be able to opt out of Child Support if they do not want to be a father (legally). The woman can use her legal Constitutiinal right to birth control if she does not want to or can not support the child on her own. (Of course there are some exceptions)

Discuss.
Click to expand...

It has already been discussed ad nauseam.

you and other still don't seem to understand that if you father a child then you are responsible for that child.
the rest of society should not have to bear the burden of you getting a women pregnant.

that is the whole entire point of child support.

Yes you can use your constitutional right to birth control as well.
If you don't want to have a kid. if you exercise your right not to then well
you get to live with the results.
 
MaggieD said:
Snip or dress. It's not difficult. There is no way to make sure your partner is taking birth control. It's your responsibility. Man up.
Click to expand...

So true, Maggie.

There are a number of DP members who believe that men have zero responsibility with regard to birth control. They believe that a woman who consents to sex is simultaneously making a legal statement that says that they accept all risks and outcomes personally - and that the man has no obligations thereafter. If the sexual experience produces an unwanted pregnancy...it's all on women. They should know better than having sex with a man who doesn't have a vasectomy or wear a condom...despite her taking birth control.
 
ajn678 said:
By forcing a man to give up his property(money) his rights are being violated in the same way that Roe v Wade was implemented in the legalization of abortions.
Click to expand...

He willingly agreed when he slept with her.
don't want a kid?

don't have sex
use birth control
or get fixed.

you have plenty of options.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
So you are in favor of a man impregnating a woman, when frankly its very easy to avoid doing so, and then saying "well I don't want the kid, so I am not on the line to support it", and thus the mother then gets to raise the kid with no financial help from the man who fathered the child. Sorry, but I don't think you will ever get anywhere near a majority of Americans to ever agree with that one.
Click to expand...

If the notification is made early enough in the pregnancy? Absolutely. The woman can decide whether or not she wants to raise a child at that point and so can the man. Both have to come to a legal decision at that point.

If one puts their child up for adoption the adopted parents take full legal responsibility. We don't expect the biological parent to continue providing financial support as well. A legal agreement of rights and responsibilities was drafted. Nobody forced the adoptive parents to take on those responsibilities and most people don't blame the parents for placing the child for adoption.

What the OP suggests is no different in my eyes except these hard decisions are made before the child even exists. Perhaps a better comparison is the legal arrangement made when surrogacy is involved.
 
ajn678 said:
By forcing a man to give up his property(money) his rights are being violated in the same way that Roe v Wade was implemented in the legalization of abortions.
Click to expand...

If Trump has his way...and especially Paul Ryan, they are on a quest to make abortion illegal - nothing you're saying will have any value whatsoever in a court of law. The state will go to whatever lengths to make men pay up for 18 years, and in some cases longer.

Overturning Roe v Wade...and probably Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992, will cause a significant surge in unwanted pregnancies. Men who don't want the liability would fair out better by buying sex with a sex worker and not worry about co-conceiving and wind up in family court being ordered to pay child support.

Every state has a Constitutional obligation to safeguard the taxpayers as much as possible. So they can trim down on all social services cost to the taxpayer and the new daddies will start paying like never before.
 
Removable Mind said:
If Trump has his way...and especially Paul Ryan, they are on a quest to make abortion illegal - nothing you're saying will have any value whatsoever in a court of law. The state will go to whatever lengths to make men pay up for 18 years, and in some cases longer.

Overturning Roe v Wade...and probably Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992, will cause a significant surge in unwanted pregnancies. Men who don't want the liability would fair out better by buying sex with a sex worker and not worry about co-conceiving and wind up in family court being ordered to pay child support.

Every state has a Constitutional obligation to safeguard the taxpayers as much as possible. So they can trim down on all social services cost to the taxpayer and the new daddies will start paying like never before.
Click to expand...

Why the hell are you telling this to me? I don't support getting rid of abortions. The man should simply be able to perform his own "abortion" by removing his responsibility of the child, just like a women does when she gets an abortion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom