• 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

Personally, I want birth control, abortion procedures, and child support for every child to be nationalized. That way all men and all women have to pay for all abortions and all children. Everybody has responsibility on both ends of the issue that way.


forced temporary infertility for everyone until the age of 21. you need a license to drive a car for pity's sake, why not one to produce a child? make the standards incredibly low...say, I don't know, maybe having a job?
 
And she can deal with the child then, right?

BTW, no woman is ever "forced into" pregnancy against her will barring instances of rape.

You and others are missing the point, continuously. I have repeated myself several times in this thread, and in past threads about this.

BOTH people "should have" been responsible. The man should have kept it in his pants and the woman should have kept her legs closed. Ok? I admit that.

The issue here is that one gender bears more of the responsibility than the other, and that is the woman, because she has to carry the fetus. It is she who has to decide if she wants an abortion or she wants to have it because all the risk: financially, physically, emotionally, medically, socially, is ultimately her's. The man's situation is far more flexible.

If the woman decides to have the baby, then that baby requires support. Who else do we turn to if the man gets to run away? The State, and that means public dollars. If the woman has to bear the burden of raising the baby, then the man must also contribute. This is about CHILD WELFARE and nothing else.

People are removing the child aspect from their minds and only thinking about what is fair to the man. This is not about what is fair to the man OR woman, but the born child that needs support.

Is this sinking in yet? I hope so, because I am tired of repeating myself to the deaf.
 
forced temporary infertility for everyone until the age of 21. you need a license to drive a car for pity's sake, why not one to produce a child? make the standards incredibly low...say, I don't know, maybe having a job?

We already tried giving the government control over reproduction... it was the Eugenics era. It was a miserable failure and a social disaster.

The government has no place controlling people's reproductive systems, and even if they could, I cannot think of any method that can be safely employed to stop people from reproducing that has no side effects. Even the birth control pill if used long-term can really mess up your hormone system and permanently affect your reproductive abilities.
 
I would be pro choice if men were allowed the option to refuse to pay child support. you seem to want to give women all the choice and men all the responsibility.

So you don't have any ethical opposition to abortions, its only if men have to share in the expense of them that it becomes a problem to you? Women already have the responsibility for carrying a child for nine months, how do you propose men compensate for that responsibility that is solely the female's. After that, both parents have the responsibility of caring for the child until adulthood. How is that unfair to men?
 
You and others are missing the point, continuously. I have repeated myself several times in this thread, and in past threads about this.BOTH people "should have" been responsible. The man should have kept it in his pants and the woman should have kept her legs closed. Ok? I admit that.The issue here is that one gender bears more of the responsibility than the other, and that is the woman, because she has to carry the fetus. It is she who has to decide if she wants an abortion or she wants to have it because all the risk: financially, physically, emotionally, medically, socially, is ultimately her's. The man's situation is far more flexible. If the woman decides to have the baby, then that baby requires support. Who else do we turn to if the man gets to run away? The State, and that means public dollars. If the woman has to bear the burden of raising the baby, then the man must also contribute. This is about CHILD WELFARE and nothing else. People are removing the child aspect from their minds and only thinking about what is fair to the man. This is not about what is fair to the man OR woman, but the born child that needs support.Is this sinking in yet? I hope so, because I am tired of repeating myself to the deaf.
OMG the risk, the risk, it is a miracle the human race has survived for all these thousands of years, since our reproduction is so horribly risky and dangerous. :roll:
 
So you don't have any ethical opposition to abortions, its only if men have to share in the expense of them that it becomes a problem to you? Women already have the responsibility for carrying a child for nine months, how do you propose men compensate for that responsibility that is solely the female's. After that, both parents have the responsibility of caring for the child until adulthood. How is that unfair to men?
9 months versus 18 years. you do the math
 
as has been cited a variety of times in this thread, it's NOT about the father or the mom
it's about the kid
don't plan to support one, then make sure you do what is necessary to keep from having one
whether you are man or woman


and to the OP: man up!

But it's obviously NOT about the kid. It's about power. If it were about the kid, then abortion wouldn't be an option as abortion is the death of that kid.
 
OMG the risk, the risk, it is a miracle the human race has survived for all these thousands of years, since our reproduction is so horribly risky and dangerous. :roll:

Um excuse me... my child's entry into the world involved a high risk pregnancy. Ever heard of pre-eclampsia? Try having a late-term pregnancy on top of blood pressure that threatens to send you into renal or cardiac failure, and then get try getting back to me with your unclever sarcasm. I can't imagine going through that against one's will. After that, I can totally respect the desire to have an abortion, if one chooses. The man should never get a legal say in the woman's pregnancy - that is between her and her doctor.

And FYI, the U.S. has the highest infant/mother mortality rate in the western world, mostly because our health care system is expensive and inadequate.
 
But it's obviously NOT about the kid. It's about power. If it were about the kid, then abortion wouldn't be an option as abortion is the death of that kid.

This is disingenuous and you know it. Just because you believe that abortion is murder does not mean that it's a given. We're talking about born children here, in which there is no controversy about the preservation of life. If you want to start an abortion debate, create another thread.
 
Um excuse me... my child's entry into the world involved a high risk pregnancy. Ever heard of pre-eclampsia? Try having a late-term pregnancy on top of blood pressure that threatens to send you into renal or cardiac failure, and then get try getting back to me with your unclever sarcasm. I can't imagine going through that against one's will. After that, I can totally respect the desire to have an abortion, if one chooses. The man should never get a legal say in the woman's pregnancy - that is between her and her doctor.

And FYI, the U.S. has the highest infant/mother mortality rate in the western world, mostly because our health care system is expensive and inadequate.

a single tear rolls down my cheek. as Ikari said, it's not about the kid, it's about power. you and yours want the women to have all the power...as long as the man has to pay for it.
 
I'll reiterate, what grows inside her uterus is NOT just a part of her. Explain to me how that is not the father's child, as well as the mother's, in development. I'm all for holding the deadbeat dads to pay support IF men are given a say in abortions. Furthermore, while we argue about this, I have another point to make. Statistically speaking, if only one parent wants the child born then more often it is the mother and not the father. So, if we hold the parent who doesn't want the kid financially responsible to an extent then the women are going to be the ones winning anyways.

A fetus is completely dependent on the mother after fertilization. The male plays no biological role after fertilization. The father's only role after that is to help the mother provide support for the child after it is born.

No one is forcing men to produce babies without their consent.
 
People are removing the child aspect from their minds and only thinking about what is fair to the man.

So? The entire abortion issue is this line of though. People removed the child aspect from their minds and only thought about what is "fair" to the woman. It's the same logic. You just make your definitions so that it fits your argument is all. It's nothing different. I don't see why you'd endorse a logic in one case, but change gender and all of a sudden your against the same logic.
 
a single tear rolls down my cheek. as Ikari said, it's not about the kid, it's about power. you and yours want the women to have all the power...as long as the man has to pay for it.

In terms of my perception - that's not true. Please see the other posts I've made in this thread. If all you desire is to make this debate personal instead of addressing my actual posts and arguments, then I have no further need to respond to you.

I do agree that this is about power, but it has nothing to do with women absorbing all the power. They have more choice because they have the greater reproductive burden. The MEN in this thread are trying to equalize a perceived discrimination by giving men more abortion rights, but men don't carry children so it's a silly argument.

If you want to financially abort then that is possible at present. Approach the woman and if she agrees you two can enter into contract to disavow responsibility. If she doesn't agree, then tough luck. She definitely has more power, but it's not because we live in a pro-female system; it's because women have more reproductive power in general.

Throughout history this has always been the case. Women have been the child bearers and the symbols of family. It's for a reason: their nature grants them these abilities. Men have more freedom of detachment, which is why child support laws exist... to drag them back to their responsibilities.

84% of single parents are mothers; just 16% are fathers. This demonstrates the disparity pretty well. Men, by their nature, are able to spread their genes over a wider range, involving many partners. In the modern world there are more resource burdens and men MUST be involved otherwise social systems have to take over.

I'm not paying for your child's upbringing because you want to shirk responsibility.
 
forced temporary infertility for everyone until the age of 21. you need a license to drive a car for pity's sake, why not one to produce a child? make the standards incredibly low...say, I don't know, maybe having a job?

I'll see your forced temporary infertility but I'll raise you so that in order for the mandatory birth control to be suspended you have to get a 2-year college degree in parenting instead.
 
9 months versus 18 years. you do the math

18 years as primary care giver, and 9 mos of carrying the baby and childbirth by the mom vs 18 years by the dad. Sounds like a hell of deal for the dad to me! :sun
 
A fetus is completely dependent on the mother after fertilization. The male plays no biological role after fertilization. The father's only role after that is to help the mother provide support for the child after it is born.

No one is forcing men to produce babies without their consent.

and no one is forcing women to produce babies without their consent. :ssst:

damn that double standard, it just keeps popping up
 
18 years as primary care giver, and 9 mos of carrying the baby and childbirth by the mom vs 18 years by the dad. Sounds like a hell of deal for the dad to me! :sun

which would be fine, as long as daddy could opt to be the primary care giver and raise the kid when mom decided it was too inconvenient or GASP "risky" to go through with the pregnancy.
 
So? The entire abortion issue is this line of though. People removed the child aspect from their minds and only thought about what is "fair" to the woman. It's the same logic. You just make your definitions so that it fits your argument is all. It's nothing different. I don't see why you'd endorse a logic in one case, but change gender and all of a sudden your against the same logic.

I disagree... there are clear differences in the two matters. One is about bodily control, the other is about finances. If a woman aborts then the economic burden to society is nil; if she has the child, the system tends to require the father to give support. Now let's look at the proposed male side... let the man decide if he wants to financially abort or not.

If you're pro-life and supporting this legal ability of men to shirk responsibility, then you are double-screwing the woman. She has to have the kid AND she has no help because the father gets to opt out. How the hell is that remotely fair, to the child OR the woman?

I don't believe that abortion is the most equitable solution. If anything it's a necessarily evil. But trying to equalize that by letting fathers arbitrarily decide if they will help out or not is outrageous. Look at the statistic I posted above.

AND you're libertarian on top of it, which I'm going to assume means you are in favor of restrictions to social welfare?

So tell me, what is your proposed solution to single mothers, in this case? Now that she can't abort, AND the father is legally out of the picture. Please answer this question, since you and everyone has avoided it.

You may live in fantasy land where abortions are universally considered murder, but that's not reality. Right now we are talking about born children. You can twist that into a women's power thing all you want, I could care less. I care more about children and the burden to society. If you gave up your sperm to impregnate someone, then you aren't free of responsibility - to suggest otherwise is delusional.
 
Last edited:
We already tried giving the government control over reproduction... it was the Eugenics era. It was a miserable failure and a social disaster.

The government has no place controlling people's reproductive systems, and even if they could, I cannot think of any method that can be safely employed to stop people from reproducing that has no side effects. Even the birth control pill if used long-term can really mess up your hormone system and permanently affect your reproductive abilities.

Eugenics =/= Mandatory Birth Control

Eugenics is a pro-active program in order to breed certain traits that the nation deems desirable. Mandatory birth control is done to help ensure that only those who have the responsibility and capability to take care of a child are allowed to have children.

Those are two totally different things.
 
A fetus is completely dependent on the mother after fertilization. The male plays no biological role after fertilization. The father's only role after that is to help the mother provide support for the child after it is born.

No one is forcing men to produce babies without their consent.

...and unless she is dumber than a box of rocks, the mother knew this before she screwed!

A man who wants the kid, like I would, will likely help take care of the woman DURING her pregnancy. I remember my stepfather running to Hardees to get my mother a hot ham and cheese on demand when she was pregnant.
 
I disagree... there are clear differences in the two matters. One is about bodily control, the other is about finances. If a woman aborts then the economic burden to society is nil; if she has the child, the system tends to require the father to give support. Now let's look at the proposed male side... let the man decide if he wants to financially abort or not.

If you're pro-life and supporting this legal ability of men to shirk responsibility, then you are double-screwing the woman. She has to have the kid AND she has no help because the father gets to opt out. How the hell is that remotely fair, to the child OR the woman?

I don't believe that abortion is the most equitable solution. If anything it's a necessarily evil. But trying to equalize that by letting fathers arbitrarily decide if they will help out or not is outrageous. Look at the statistic I posted above.

AND you're libertarian on top of it, which I'm going to assume means you are in favor of restrictions to social welfare?

So tell me, what is your proposed solution to single mothers, in this case? Now that she can't abort, AND the father is legally out of the picture.

No, what I believe and what I'll argue for the case of this hypothetical are two different things. In reality, abortion is legal and women have the privilege to opt that child out of life. But if they don't, then the kid is still there and the man has to pay up. That's reality and that's not going to change. So the purpose of these sorts of threads are purely hypothetical and we're released from any real world moral quandary.

In that light, I use your arguments because your arguments reverse side heavily depending on gender. No woman is forced (outside of rape) to become pregnant, there was always a choice and it takes two. People keep saying "well the man should have kept it in his pants", but that essentially assumes that the woman is a non-contributor to the initial sex act. But she had a choice as well. There was always a choice. The choice has probability of creating life and in the case of abortion/child support that probability is realized. In the purely theoretical context of divorce from responsibility, if one side is given it (and regardless of how you want to define life or whatever so that people can feel better in the real world about what they are doing, abortion is the extinguishing of life for the current convenience of the one involved) then both sides are given it. If the woman can abort and chooses not to, she cannot force the man to support HER decision.

In a real world application as it would relate to your final statement; if abortion were not legal such that the woman could not abort; then there would be no circumstance other than mutual agreement/contract under which the man could shirk his financial responsibility to the child.
 
Last edited:
Eugenics =/= Mandatory Birth Control

Eugenics is a pro-active program in order to breed certain traits that the nation deems desirable. Mandatory birth control is done to help ensure that only those who have the responsibility and capability to take care of a child are allowed to have children.

Those are two totally different things.

You can split hairs all you want. Forcing young boys and girls to go to the doctor to get implants or be drugged is eugenic and unethical. The rich would buy their way out of this obligation as they do in places like China.

A system like that can never be fully implemented without huge cost, and its impact would ultimately be unequal. Education and family planning are far more effective in increasing social wellness. Think about it. We still have abstinence-only beliefs out there, but for the most part the education system teaches responsible choices and preventative measures. All data shows this is working.

We don't need anymore expansion of government power into reproduction.
 
So? The entire abortion issue is this line of though. People removed the child aspect from their minds and only thought about what is "fair" to the woman. It's the same logic. You just make your definitions so that it fits your argument is all. It's nothing different. I don't see why you'd endorse a logic in one case, but change gender and all of a sudden your against the same logic.

damn, there is that pesky double standard thing again. it's all fine and good to remove the child aspect from the debate.....as long as we are talking about the woman's choice.
 
You can split hairs all you want. Forcing young boys and girls to go to the doctor to get implants or be drugged is eugenic and unethical. The rich would buy their way out of this obligation as they do in places like China.

A system like that can never be fully implemented without huge cost, and its impact would ultimately be unequal. Education and family planning are far more effective in increasing social wellness. Think about it. We still have abstinence-only beliefs out there, but for the most part the education system teaches responsible choices and preventative measures. All data shows this is working.

We don't need anymore expansion of government power into reproduction.

obviously you have no clue what Eugenics is.
 
funny though, the same people who are crying that they don't want the govt telling them they can't have babies are the same people crying that a woman should be able to abort as many babies as she wants. just goes to show you that it isn't about the kid, it's about power. plain and simple.
 
Back
Top Bottom