Child Support Payments

Mathematician said:

Have you forgotten that I'm complaining about the case when the father wants the child?

Click to expand...

Then I suggest you choose a woman who wants the same thing, unless you have figured out how to make your own baby!

Catawba said:

I can't help it if it is a dip**** thread. Its her body! When you start having babies then your opinion will matter on whether you decide to carry it to term or not.

Click to expand...

You just don't seem to understand the point of the thread. Pass if off as anything you like though...

OscarB63 said:

at least there you are somewhat honest. you couldn't give two squirrel farts about the child...as long as the woman gets to keep her precious choice.

Click to expand...

If a woman makes a choice to have an abortion during pregnancy, there is no child. We have 21% of the children living in poverty in this country that conservatives don't feel are their responsibility, so don't lecture me on not caring about children.

Mathematician said:

Here's an offer. Even though she gains weight gradually, I'll let you strap a damn 25lb weight to my back from the start. What else do you want in return for the kid?

Click to expand...

How hard is it for a man to make a kid??? Make another one for pete's sake, look at all the kids you are wasting every time you ejaculate. You act like it is some near unbearable chore for a man to shoot out his seed.

"CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS"! Nothing hard to understand about what that term is.

This situation is way past people being irresponsible and making a baby. Or about who should have done what. Or somebody is being mistreated or unfairly made to be responsible for making a baby that is born.

If a child is outside the womb...then and only then can "Child Support Payments" become an issue. Children are 100% dependent. Doesn't make a damn who mom and dad are. It doesn't make a damn what they believe about their role in that kids future is...or isn't.

If somebody wants be a loser parent? Be one. But if I had my way. I would hunt them down like rabid dogs and they would be responsible for the well being of that child.

There is a severe problem with people who condemn others for abortion who are willing to see a child born...and once it's born gripe about who the hell is responsible for it...and who has to provide support.

Kids become invisible to people who can't take responsibility for their actions.

Why don't we get drunk and screw baby. WHAT? You're pregnant? Get lost bitch - it ain't my problem! Oh Yeah? In my court it is - bitch. Deadbeat dads would quickly become Bubba's girlfriend in jail.

Bodhisattva said:

You just don't seem to understand the point of the thread. Pass if off as anything you like though...

Click to expand...

I understand the purpose of the thread alright, to propagate the sexist view that it is the man's right to tell a woman what to do with her body.

Catawba said:

Then I suggest you choose a woman who wants the same thing, unless you have figured out how to make your own baby!

Click to expand...

And vice-versa, right? I mean the woman should make sure that the man she sleeps with won't abdicate responsibility and take off should she get pregnant and make the choice to keep it.

Catawba said:

If a woman makes a choice to have an abortion during pregnancy, there is no child. We have 21% of the children living in poverty in this country that conservatives don't feel are their responsibility, so don't lecture me on not caring about children.

Click to expand...

So better dead than poor?

Catawba said:

I understand the purpose of the thread alright, to propagate the sexist view that it is the man's right to tell a woman what to do with her body.

Click to expand...

And further more...feel free to read post #180. If this thread named "Child Support Payments" isn't about that. Then maybe it's about not being responsible people having sex who doesn't want to be responsible for the consequences of having sex that leads to pregnancy.

Ikari said:

So better dead than poor?

Click to expand...

I think you're living in ideology land more than reality. Children have to be cared for and the system is setup to do this in the best way possible. Statistics prove that most single parents are women; statistics also prove that men tend to take off disproportionately more than women. Women are stuck with the consequences of their choices with pregnancy: that is what they have to live with. Men have to pay up, it's in the best interest of children, and that is the bottom line no matter what way you slice it.

Nature designed men and women differently. It sucks but that's reality. Better that men be forced to pay than children ending up on welfare, or worse, the streets. Men can't abort financially in today's world because someone else will have to foot the bill.

Ikari said:

And vice-versa, right? I mean the woman should make sure that the man she sleeps with won't abdicate responsibility and take off should she get pregnant and make the choice to keep it.

Click to expand...

Correct, now here's the subtle clincher which you aren't getting. Of the two, the woman has to bear the pregnancy and the child, which is why the law more often than not defaults against the man. It's not fair, but it's a natural consequence.

The woman can't take off. The man can. Hence child support laws.

Is this becoming more clear yet?

Ikari said:

And vice-versa, right? I mean the woman should make sure that the man she sleeps with won't abdicate responsibility and take off should she get pregnant and make the choice to keep it.

Click to expand...

Yes, ideally. But since a man has no function regarding pregnancy or delivery he does not get to call the shots for the woman. If a woman decides not to have a baby, he is out one load of jizm, that's it, and there is plenty more where that came from.

Temporal said:

Correct, now here's the subtle clincher which you aren't getting. Of the two, the woman has to bear the pregnancy and the child, which is why the law more often than not defaults against the man. It's not fair, but it's a natural consequence.

The woman can't take off. The man can. Hence child support laws.

Is this becoming more clear yet?

Click to expand...

I don't think your getting it through your thick skull that this is a double standard. If she doesn't want the financial responsibility of the child then, the way things are set now, she can have an abortion. We can either meet half way or argue all day. Either split the call on abortions or take the rights to choice along with responsibility.

Ikari said:

So better dead than poor?

Click to expand...

I place higher value on children already born than I do a single load of jizm, if that is what you mean.

Ikari said:

And vice-versa, right? I mean the woman should make sure that the man she sleeps with won't abdicate responsibility and take off should she get pregnant and make the choice to keep it.

Click to expand...

You can never be that sure of another person.

Catawba said:

I place higher value on children already born than I do a single load of jizm, if that is what you mean.

Click to expand...

I'm glad you see what's growing in the uterus as just a load of jizm...

Mathematician said:

I don't think your getting it through your thick skull that this is a double standard. If she doesn't want the financial responsibility of the child then, the way things are set now, she can have an abortion. We can either meet half way or argue all day. Either split the call on abortions or take the rights to choice along with responsibility.

Click to expand...

what choice does the man not legally have?

Either party can decide to engage in sex, either party can choose to have an abortion if they are the one that is pregnant, either party can sue for custody of the child if it is born and force the other to pay child support, both parties are required to give it up for adoption

OKgrannie said:

You can never be that sure of another person.

Click to expand...

The man can make the same argument. So, if he wants a kid then women can keep on aborting them and prevent him from having one. The woman only has to get pregnant once to have the kid she wants.

Lord Tammerlain said:

what choice does the man not legally have?

Either party can decide to engage in sex, either party can choose to have an abortion if they are the one that is pregnant, either party can sue for custody of the child if it is born and force the other to pay child support, both parties are required to give it up for adoption

Click to expand...

a man cannot legally abort his unwanted fetus, a woman can. since it takes both to make the fetus, it is as much his as it is hers.

Temporal said:

Correct, now here's the subtle clincher which you aren't getting. Of the two, the woman has to bear the pregnancy and the child, which is why the law more often than not defaults against the man. It's not fair, but it's a natural consequence.

The woman can't take off. The man can. Hence child support laws.

Is this becoming more clear yet?

Click to expand...

The woman "can't take off", but she can certainly have the child killed.

More to the point, I understand and have understood quite well. I told you before, however, that this hypothetical exists outside the realm of reality and allows for discussion and debate void the moral quandary normally associated with the problem. You in fact agreed to it. Is this becoming more clear? I think most understand the system and why it is set the way it is. In fact, if you were to set this down to reality and say "in reality, if it came to a vote to let fathers off the hook for child payments, would you vote in favor of the law" you would be seeing a different set of answers. I don't think that any pro-lifer would honestly endorse a system wherein the welfare of the child would be put in such grave danger. In reality, the pro-lifers (I should say on the whole, there's probably a non-zero number that would go the other way) go after the dead beat dad. You fathered him, you pay. We're not willing to actually let a person off the hook when a child is involved; the child must be cared for. That's the reality, and that will remain the reality.

The exercise of these sorts of hypothetical is to allow us to explore more the philosophical base. We aren't going to actually let dads get away without paying, so in the context of the hypothetical we can make arguments to the contrary based on basic philosophy and reason without worry of actually hurting a child. There is no real child. My arguments are in this light. What is fair, what is just? While the reality of the world may prevent the pure hypothetical from being realized as the rights and liberties of others must always be considered, the hypothetical frees us from that constraint. Does that make sense? In that light, I use your arguments and logic to show why the man should be given freedom to divorce himself from consequence, the same as woman have now in reality.

OKgrannie said:

You can never be that sure of another person.

Click to expand...

Guess you're best keeping your legs closed or buying some batteries then, eh?

Mathematician said:

I'm glad you see what's growing in the uterus as just a load of jizm...

Click to expand...

Are you saying your jizm is too precious of a commodity to ever waste???

Catawba said:

I place higher value on children already born than I do a single load of jizm, if that is what you mean.

Click to expand...

I place higher value on human life than the conveniences of some.

Lord Tammerlain said:

what choice does the man not legally have?

Either party can decide to engage in sex, either party can choose to have an abortion if they are the one that is pregnant, either party can sue for custody of the child if it is born and force the other to pay child support, both parties are required to give it up for adoption

Click to expand...

I like your profile pic. This argument almost makes me feel pro-pain in regards to giving child birth.

Ikari said:

I place higher value on human life than the conveniences of some.

Click to expand...

So you never ejaculate except for procreation right?