• 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

Mathematician said:
I said something about forcing women to carry if the father wants the child.
Click to expand...
well they only quoted me and only quoted a PART of my thread so obviously she was talking to me and if not she was still wrong ;)
 
I really wish I had that kind of control I could try to exert over someone else - it seems like so much fun to have the ability to make or break someone's life in such a way. The divine seed of untouchable infallibility - no sprout spawned can be wrong.
 
Centrist77 said:
really?
funny theres law suits and people getting convicted of crimes every day over trusting technology and or people :shrug:

whats your point?
Click to expand...

That contraceptive failure is not a viable excuse for a child being conceived. I've known that to happen even when both the pill and the condom were being utilized.

Even if the woman tricked him, I would say, be wary of the character of the women you sleep with.

The issue here is not the rights of the woman, anyway, or the rights of the father. It is the well-being the child. Since our society is legally obligated to support children who can't survive on their own, there's no particular reason to let the father be free of responsibility for any reason at all, no matter how good.
 
Last edited:
Morality Games said:
That contraceptive failure is not a viable excuse for a child being conceived. I've known that to happen even when both the pill and the condom were being utilized.

Even if the woman tricked him, I would say, be wary of the character of the women you sleep with.
Click to expand...

Not a viable excuse?

It's not an excuse: it's just a reason . . a means in which nature was permitted to do what nature does.

I had 3 kids that way.
 
Bodhisattva said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yes, he should have to pay.

The reason why children need the financial support of both parents is because children can't take care of themselves, and it's rarely that one parent is able to be financially supportive of a child. It's not the child's fault that s/he is born. Once s/he is, then they should be supported by both biological parents.

Does this make things unequal between the sexes. Maybe. But, then again, biology isn't designed to be equal. After all, the reason why men have evolved to be the more aggressive and violent and likely to wage wars is because men are more expendable while women are more important for the perpetuation of the species. A few men with many women can more easily repopulate than a few women with many men. Because of these reasons, men and women are not biologically the same. Which is why women have more power over their reproductive rights than men do, especially when it comes to conceiving.

Now, we could try to implement more equality through the law and government policy. But I would say that rather than having the equalizer be to allow men to prevent abortions that women undergo instead we should have socialized programs to provide for all children, regardless of who their mother and father is. So instead of a father being forced to be financially supportive of his biological children he doesn't want, all men and all women should be financially supportive of all children.

This way, instead of focusing on the issue of abortion the focus goes on what's more important - making sure children are being taken cared of. Especially since the abortion issue totally ignores who takes care of children whose parents die or are unable to financially support them whether those children are wanted or not.
 
giggle

I like your little rendition, there, on why we're different and why gender inequality was so rampant for such a long time.

Maybe it had to do with a dainty pedestal and the many things you can get away with if you ply to a man's mastered arm enough - men tend to jump through hoops and fight to the death for some *****. Believe it or not - this ability to capture such passion and attention can be like a drug. I loved toying with boys and getting them all worked up and bothered by eachother - little games, oh the power.

You know - I can go into a crowded room and get every man's attention by letting out a few orgasmic shrieks. . . you know - that sounds like fun. . . I think I'll do that and report back with a scientific breakdown of the responses.
 
Morality Games said:
That contraceptive failure is not a viable excuse for a child being conceived. I've known that to happen even when both the pill and the condom were being utilized.

Even if the woman tricked him, I would say, be wary of the character of the women you sleep with.

The issue here is not the rights of the woman, anyway, or the rights of the father. It is the well-being the child. Since our society is legally obligated to support children who can't survive on their own, there's no particular reason to let the father be free of responsible for any reason at all, no matter how good.
Click to expand...

you are welcome to that opinion and I totally disagree
I also have known it to fail with BOTH being used to :shrug: thats why both men and women should have the rights to do what they want. Currently only the woman can and Im fine with her choices she has but the man should get them too.

I care about the child also but making the dad give money doesn't guarantee that child **** in reality :shrug: just saying. It really has little to no bearing at all on the child's welfare so that point is moot. The reason is fairness and not discriminating.
 
Last edited:
Centrist77 said:
you are welcome to that opinion and I totally disagree
I also know it to fail with BOTH being used to :shrug: thats why both men and women should have the rights to do what they want. Currently only the woman can and Im fine with her choices she has but the man should get them too.

I care about the child also but making the dad give money doesn't guarantee that child **** in reality :shrug" just saying. It really has little to no bearing at all on the child's welfare so that point is moot. The reason is fairness and not discriminating.
Click to expand...

Do you mean that the money he gives is misused by the mother? Possibly, but the answer to that is increased supervision by the state, not letting the father off free.

Resources have to be devoted to raising children, and if the mother can't provide them all, those resources have to come from somewhere; we can't let children starve to death. Aside from being terrible in and of itself, that kind of inhumanity risks developing the sort of moral and political culture that gives rise to dystopian societies. While all of the society has to chip into welfare funds to prevent that from happening, it can hardly be fair for them to pay the lord's share for something they got no recreational benefit out of (that is, the father at least got sex out of it, whereas the tax payers did not).
 
Last edited:
Centrist77 said:
you are welcome to that opinion and I totally disagree
I also know it to fail with BOTH being used to :shrug: thats why both men and women should have the rights to do what they want. Currently only the woman can and Im fine with her choices she has but the man should get them too.

I care about the child also but making the dad give money doesn't guarantee that child **** in reality :shrug" just saying. It really has little to no bearing at all on the child's welfare so that point is moot. The reason is fairness and not discriminating.
Click to expand...

I love how one minute women are fighting for equal treatment of the sexes and the next minute they are fighting against it. Please make your choice and stick with it.
 
Mathematician said:
I love how one minute women are fighting for equal treatment of the sexes and the next minute they are fighting against it. Please make your choice and stick with it.
Click to expand...

Supporting children has nothing to do with equal treatment of the sexes. Whether or not men deserve legal input on abortion is separate from whether parents ought to support their children. Even if men are being denied a right that should belong to them, children deserve that support.
 
Last edited:
Morality Games said:
Do you mean that the money he gives is misused by the mother? Possibly, but the answer to that is increased supervision by the state, not letting the father off free.

Resources have to be devoted to raising children, and if the mother can't provide them all, those resources have to come from somewhere; we can't let children starve to death. Aside from being terrible in and of itself, that kind of inhumanity risks developing the sort of moral and political culture that gives rise to dystopian societies. While all of the society has to chip into welfare funds to prevent that from happening, it can hardly be fair for them to pay the lord's share for something they got no recreational benefit out of (that is, the father at least got sex out of it, whereas the tax payers did not).
Click to expand...

thats part of it but I mean his money really doesnt mean ****.
There are kids that have TWO very wealthy parents and still get abused, neglected, poor educations etc etc etc

The money is pretty meaningless in reality.

Its nice to appeal to emotion but nobody is talking about "children starving to death" which happens NOW by the way with the dads forced to pay money.

Sorry but theres nothing logical IM buying yet, its all be emotional rhetoric IMO and nothing reality based.

These things you talk of happen now, nothing would really change and making the laws more equal would worsen the problem IMO.

Now that doesnt mean we cant IMPROVE the issues you are talking about but IMO its a totally different debate.
 
Mathematician said:
I love how one minute women are fighting for equal treatment of the sexes and the next minute they are fighting against it. Please make your choice and stick with it.
Click to expand...

yes it is pretty funny but you should definitely put the word SOME women because ALL are certainly not like that.
 
Mathematician said:
Will you quit this crap about the "you should have thought about that before you gave a woman your sperm"? I could just as easily say that if she didn't want to get pregnant then she shouldn't have spread her legs! I'm arguing that if either biological parent wants the child then the kid should be born. Ideally, I think abortion should only be done if both parents consent. Otherwise, the child is born and both parents should be responsible for the child. However, if women are going to insist on having all the rights then you can deal with the deadbeat dads.

Just for the record, I was raised strictly by my mother because my father didn't take responsibility. Hence, I have more passion about being a dad.
Click to expand...

Morality Games said:
Supporting children has nothing to do with equal treatment of the sexes. Whether or not men deserve legal input on abortion is separate from whether parents ought to support their children. Even if men are being denied a right that should belong to them, children deserve that support.
Click to expand...

You can check my post and see that I agree. The only thing leading to me arguing against it is women wanting full rights to decide the unborn child's fate. Sorry this thread has been slightly diverted, but it's hard two separate these two issues.
 
thats part of it but I mean his money really doesnt mean ****.
There are kids that have TWO very wealthy parents and still get abused, neglected, poor educations etc etc etc

The money is pretty meaningless in reality.

Its nice to appeal to emotion but nobody is talking about "children starving to death" which happens NOW by the way with the dads forced to pay money.

Sorry but theres nothing logical IM buying yet, its all be emotional rhetoric IMO and nothing reality based.

These things you talk of happen now, nothing would really change and making the laws more equal would worsen the problem IMO.

Now that doesnt mean we cant IMPROVE the issues you are talking about but IMO its a totally different debate.
Click to expand...

That's just bizarre to me. Having substantially less money doesn't affect the child's life at all?

In a way it seems as though you are bordering on a 'spiritually enlightened' critique of materialism, as in, material things won't make a profound difference in a child's life when spiritual things are lacking. While love and attention are more important than material things, children still need clothing, food, medical attention, and tools for the occupations appropriate to their age. If the mother can't afford them, somebody else has to. Should the tax payers cover all the difference, or should the biological father pay some as well?

You can check my post and see that I agree. The only thing leading to me arguing against it is women wanting full rights to decide the unborn child's fate. Sorry this thread has been slightly diverted, but it's hard two separate these two issues.
Click to expand...

On that issue, I'm neutral; I think either policy is ethically problematic. Pregnancy is a major biochemical event, one of the primary impetuses for women seeking abortions. Compelling them to go through it to satisfy the parental prerogative of the father seems fair in some senses, but morally and practically difficult in others.

However, even if the policy comes down in favor of women, allowing father to bow out of childcare is not a legitimate way of compensating them for the loss of rights, because you are taking rights from a powerless entity not involved in the antagonism between adults of the two sexes.
 
Last edited:
Morality Games said:
That's just bizarre to me. Having substantially less money doesn't affect the child's life at all?

In a way it seems as though you are bordering on a 'spiritually enlightened' critique of materialism, as in, material things won't make a profound difference in a child's life when spiritual things are lacking. While love and attention are more important than material things, children still need clothing, food, medical attention, and tools for the occupations appropriate to their age. If the mother can't afford them, somebody else has to. Should the tax payers cover all the difference, or should the biological father pay some as well?



On that issue, I'm neutral; I think either policy is ethically problematic. Pregnancy is a major biochemical event, one of the primary impetuses for women seeking abortions. Compelling them to go through it to satisfy the parental prerogative of the father seems fair in some senses, but morally and practically difficult in others.

However, even if the policy comes down in favor of women, allowing father to bow out of childcare is not a legitimate way of compensating them for the loss of rights, because you are taking rights from a powerless entity not involved in the antagonism between adults of the two sexes.
Click to expand...

"substantially less" according to who?
what does that even mean? what is substantial?
Please stop using emotional arguments and use real life ones

whats substainal? $100, $300 $500 $1000 a month?
how many kids actually get that?
How many parents use that money properly?
can $300 a month replace a parent that actually does their job?

sorry but the money doesnt matter MUCH it is a PIECE of the puzzle that will not be effected much at all


also society ALREADY pays and I dont think that would change much at all
 
Removable Mind said:
What a crock of bull****. The woman did or didn't do this or that. The man doesn't have to this or he should do that.

What in the hell is the matter with everybody? Once a child is born its no longer about what the woman or man wants!

A kid is 100% dependent on adults....PERIOD! Stop ****ing over the kids' welfare. Grow the **** up people.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand the point and all this emotional blathering doesn't help. I said nothing of when the child was born. This issue is discussing prior to birt hand when abortion is still a viable means of birth control.

Anything else then?
 
1Perry said:
More importantly, so do the courts.



Which IMO she is doing when she takes you to court.
Click to expand...

The courts have addressed this specific issue? When? What case specifically argued that her choice to not use birth control means that he is liable for child support? I am sure that they are close, but not specific.

Even if there are some, Courts screw up or make immoral or unfair decisions all the time. Women were not allowed to vote. Separate but Equal was held up as Constitutional by SCOTUS. All we are seeing here is sexism at it's finest.

It will probably never reverse either. That would anger the female vote or those that don't understand the subtlty of the issue as well.
 
Temporal said:
Deciding to have the child IS taking responsibility for her choice, just like having an abortion would be. Either choice is "taking care of it". Child support laws are about CHILDREN. What part of that is not sinking in here?
Click to expand...

Your understanding of the OP is what is NOT sinking in here. :roll:

Her "takinig responsibility" is in regards to her being responsible FOR HER DECISION.

If she decides to have the child and the man has to pay, then she is not being responsible FOR HER DECISION.

Having the child is responsible and to be commended. Forcing him to pay FOR HER DECISION to NOT USE BIRTH CONTROL is EXTREMELY IRRESPONSIBLE.

And if the man can opt out? What then? The child has one less support factor and the mother is just as likely to apply for social welfare, in which case we ALL pay. I would rather the man pay for his act than me pay for his desire to disconnect.
Click to expand...

If the man can opt out... get ready for it, THE WOMAN CAN OPT FOR AN ABORTION. Making sense yet?

Rule of thumb: don't have unprotected sex with a woman who is not a suitable candidate to have your child and/or you are not ready to have a child. It's just that simple.
Click to expand...

Only because of sexist laws the dictate that the woman has all the power and child support is not about the child. Get real.

A woman can abort. Men have no such option. That's reality and it's not going to change.
Click to expand...

You so sure about that?

If the child is born then the man must pay.
Click to expand...

IF

IF the child is born. You are starting to get it now.

It's in the best interest of society for him to do so, and the courts agree. Sorry that it's a hard pill for you to swallow.
Click to expand...

Two logical fallacies in one sentence. Well Done!

Appeal to Popularity and Appeal to Authority. Not seen every day... thank you.
Ahh... the old "it's in the best interest of society" logical fallacy.
 
DiAnna said:
This again, Bodhi? This has become a recurring theme for you. Something you'd like to share with us? :mrgreen:

Anyway, I'll play. Again. But this is the last time!

In my view, if an unmarried woman gets pregant, and she plans to carry the child to term, she is ethically bound to inform the father of her choice. If he does not want to be a part of that child's life, she should have him sign a legally-binding waiver of all parental rights and agreeing to stay out of the child's life, and she agrees not to put his name on the birth certificate or reveal that he is the child's parent. Once that is done, she has the option of either giving the child up for adoption ... the father now has no say in this... or raising the child herself... again, the father has no say in this.

If she chooses to raise the child herself, she has the responsibility of supporting that child on her own. If she marries down the road, her husband may legally adopt the child. The biological father goes on about his life unfettered. The only way the biological father would ever see the inside of a courtroom and be forced to pay child support is if one of the two violates their legal agreement. Then all bets are off.

Obviously, this was not done in whatever occurred to make you feel so adament and victimized, and I'm truly sorry. However, sexual intercourse comes with all kinds of potential price tags attached, as has been pointed out repeatedly in the Abortion forum, so when having sex with an individual one does not wish to have tied to the rest of one's life, it might be a better option to pass... or hire a pro. Just sayin'. ;)
Click to expand...

I can't multi task or multi debate! It is my charm.

No. This is nothing personal. I have this stick up my butt and I am running with it, and on three other forums as well.

I was married and sine divorced, and we planned and had our two beautiful daughters. I don't regret a thing. :)

As to the rest. Thank you and I agree.
 
Temporal said:
Yeah... like forcing the woman to abort OR carry the child, all according to the man's whim. News flash: women are persons now and men do not own them. Maybe you need to join the 21st century.
Click to expand...

I don't think that is what he is saying in the slightest.
 
Morality Games said:
I didn't answer properly?

In the man's case, I mean 'dysfunctionality' as in unwilling to reconcile himself to the reality that he has produced a child. If the woman had aborted, that would have let him off the hook, but if the child is a future event, the law must compel him to respond to it.

That women abort or don't abort their pregnancies is a separate issue from whether parents have to support their children. Women have the freedom to abort their pregnancies for a reason, parents of both sexes are compelled to support the child for a different reason.
Click to expand...

Yeah... didn't answer properly according to the OP. The woman can abort or not, that is not the issue, so most of the last part is irrelevant. the law must not compel him to do anything. The law must compel that the child is supported. That need not be one or the other parent. It can be either or none. That is why it is legal to put kids up for adoption. Since adoption is an option, the state obviously must not compel him to do anything. He doesn't pay the new parents. She doesn't pay the new parents. There might only be one parent adopting. ALL THAT MATTERS IS THAT THE CHILD IS SUPPORTED.

If the woman can't do that on her own, she should abort. THAT is the matter at hand here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom