• 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

Bodhisattva said:
Irrelevant and off topic...Start a new thread that deals with, "once kids are What a bunch of emotional garbage... she can have an abortion. That is whole point of the thread.
Click to expand...

Bod, what is relevant is that when a man has sex with a woman, it's always a calculated risk FOR BOTH parties under common situations.

In my humble opinion - you mislabeled your thread. It's about responsibility biases, rights inequalities, and completely circumventing the true issue, which is how people will stand responsible to a kid should one be born as a result of poor judgment and behaviors in sexual relationships. I don't see anything about direct issues surrounding "child support payments" other than men are unfairly and unjustly abused by the system because women have the right to choose abortion OR NOT and they don't have any choices at all. If the woman keeps the kid because she want to, then woe on the man because he's been name as a party to creating a baby, which he didn't want. And if he wants to have the kid in his life - then be a man about it and take responsibility.

If a man has a relationship and the woman hoodwinks a him by getting pregnant - too bad for the guy. Having sex is part of human nature, but it also can have consequences of all kinds. The only REAL VICTIM is a kid that is a bi-product of irresponsible sexual acts.

In all of your arguments - you leave out the kid. The kids welfare is totally shunned and they are invisible in your rant. The kid becomes the reason for conflicts. The kid becomes the object and reason for it's loser parents who can't accept responsibility to waste time and resources blaming each other...blaming the laws for being bias.

I'd suggest to all men and women - don't have sex with somebody you don't want to marry.

And if you plan on marrying someone - BEFORE getting married - check out the local "child support laws". If one feels like the laws are way too biased one way or another, then do a pre-marriage contract on what each person's responsibilities will be in case of children and a divorce happens. It can be used in the divorce hearings. If the other person doesn't want to do a pre-marriage contract -then a serious decision needs to be made about NOT having kids.

Most people who go into business with partners will surely do a partnership contract. Since men and women are apparently too stupid and ignorant about the consequences of having sex - maybe the law should require people to sign a sex contract prior to having sex, which defines what rights and responsibilities each will have if a pregnancy occurs. That sure will mess up that 1st spontaneous encounter, but prevent a whole lot of future bull**** and leave children the victims of irresponsible parents.
 
Removable Mind said:
Bod, what is relevant is that when a man has sex with a woman, it's always a calculated risk FOR BOTH parties under common situations.

In my humble opinion - you mislabeled your thread. It's about responsibility biases, rights inequalities, and completely circumventing the true issue, which is how people will stand responsible to a kid should one be born as a result of poor judgment and behaviors in sexual relationships. I don't see anything about direct issues surrounding "child support payments" other than men are unfairly and unjustly abused by the system because women have the right to choose abortion OR NOT and they don't have any choices at all. If the woman keeps the kid because she want to, then woe on the man because he's been name as a party to creating a baby, which he didn't want. And if he wants to have the kid in his life - then be a man about it and take responsibility.

If a man has a relationship and the woman hoodwinks a him by getting pregnant - too bad for the guy. Having sex is part of human nature, but it also can have consequences of all kinds. The only REAL VICTIM is a kid that is a bi-product of irresponsible sexual acts.

In all of your arguments - you leave out the kid. The kids welfare is totally shunned and they are invisible in your rant. The kid becomes the reason for conflicts. The kid becomes the object and reason for it's loser parents who can't accept responsibility to waste time and resources blaming each other...blaming the laws for being bias.

I'd suggest to all men and women - don't have sex with somebody you don't want to marry.

And if you plan on marrying someone - BEFORE getting married - check out the local "child support laws". If one feels like the laws are way too biased one way or another, then do a pre-marriage contract on what each person's responsibilities will be in case of children and a divorce happens. It can be used in the divorce hearings. If the other person doesn't want to do a pre-marriage contract -then a serious decision needs to be made about NOT having kids.

Most people who go into business with partners will surely do a partnership contract. Since men and women are apparently too stupid and ignorant about the consequences of having sex - maybe the law should require people to sign a sex contract prior to having sex, which defines what rights and responsibilities each will have if a pregnancy occurs. That sure will mess up that 1st spontaneous encounter, but prevent a whole lot of future bull**** and leave children the victims of irresponsible parents.
Click to expand...


Sorry I have nothing else to say besides what a load of crap
nobody is leaving out the kid, you just want to turn it into the kid because the other way cant be argued.

Forcing money on a mom or dad IN REALITY wont do **** for the kid LMAO
Forcing people to be parents that DONT WANT TO BE wont do **** for the kid LMAO

only people who want to be REAL parents can be and changing the laws to make it more fair and nondiscriminative will not effect that ONE SINGLE BIT

people that WANT to be parent s still will :shrug:

save the fantasy stuff and appeals to emotions for others because they arent real world solutions.
It be GREAT if they were but that are not.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
What part of, "father and mother", didn't you understand.

IOW, if a woman chooses to have a child, she is legally responsible for that child's well-being; i.e. getting on welfare isn't an option for her.
Click to expand...

What part of, "if she doesn't want to support the child on her own she should have an abortion" meaning that their is no child and hence no mother and father do you not understand? :lol:
 
Bodhisattva said:
What part of, "if she doesn't want to support the child on her own she should have an abortion" meaning that their is no child and hence no mother and father do you not understand? :lol:
Click to expand...

What part of, "you can't legally force a woman to abort a child, but you can damn-well force a woman to get off her lazy **** and support that child", don't you understand?
 
Removable Mind said:
Bod, what is relevant is that when a man has sex with a woman, it's always a calculated risk FOR BOTH parties under common situations.

In my humble opinion - you mislabeled your thread. It's about responsibility biases, rights inequalities, and completely circumventing the true issue, which is how people will stand responsible to a kid should one be born as a result of poor judgment and behaviors in sexual relationships. I don't see anything about direct issues surrounding "child support payments" other than men are unfairly and unjustly abused by the system because women have the right to choose abortion OR NOT and they don't have any choices at all. If the woman keeps the kid because she want to, then woe on the man because he's been name as a party to creating a baby, which he didn't want. And if he wants to have the kid in his life - then be a man about it and take responsibility.

If a man has a relationship and the woman hoodwinks a him by getting pregnant - too bad for the guy. Having sex is part of human nature, but it also can have consequences of all kinds. The only REAL VICTIM is a kid that is a bi-product of irresponsible sexual acts.

In all of your arguments - you leave out the kid. The kids welfare is totally shunned and they are invisible in your rant. The kid becomes the reason for conflicts. The kid becomes the object and reason for it's loser parents who can't accept responsibility to waste time and resources blaming each other...blaming the laws for being bias.

I'd suggest to all men and women - don't have sex with somebody you don't want to marry.

And if you plan on marrying someone - BEFORE getting married - check out the local "child support laws". If one feels like the laws are way too biased one way or another, then do a pre-marriage contract on what each person's responsibilities will be in case of children and a divorce happens. It can be used in the divorce hearings. If the other person doesn't want to do a pre-marriage contract -then a serious decision needs to be made about NOT having kids.

Most people who go into business with partners will surely do a partnership contract. Since men and women are apparently too stupid and ignorant about the consequences of having sex - maybe the law should require people to sign a sex contract prior to having sex, which defines what rights and responsibilities each will have if a pregnancy occurs. That sure will mess up that 1st spontaneous encounter, but prevent a whole lot of future bull**** and leave children the victims of irresponsible parents.
Click to expand...

I understand everything you are saying, but one thing negates it all... she can have an abortion if she does not want to raise and support the child on her own. That way, there is no child being neglected or needing of support. If she hoodwinks him, he should have the legal option of saying "thanks but not thanks, I want nothing to do with it" and then she can simply have an abortion, or raise the child on her own. If she chooses the latter and cannot suppor the child, then the state should deal with that. Forcing the man to pay for her decision absolves her of an irresponsible choice and this is anything but American. It is ridiculous beyond all common sense.

The issue is that society has had this issue shoved down our throats for decades now. To challenge this sexist and irresponsible laws is to be a mysoginist or against woman's rights or not caring for the child. Well, the women backed themsleves into a corner but shout at anybody that mentions it. They got the right to have control over their own bodies, which is good. But the right to have an abortion means that if they don't want the child, they abort.

Well, that also means that if they don't want to support the child on their own since the man doesn't want to help, she can have an abortion. It is an out for both and and out for a woman that does not want to support the child on her own. It is truly win/win. But no. Women's rights groups and femiNazis have brainwashed everybody into this mantra: Once a man ejaculates all his rights are over and all his opinions are meaningless. What is worse is that the courts have been turned into political correctness machines that have ignored the very issue that I am bringing up.
 
apdst said:
What part of, "you can't legally force a woman to abort a child, but you can damn-well force a woman to get off her lazy **** and support that child", don't you understand?
Click to expand...

I am sure you will have no problem finding a quote of me stating that a woman can be legally forced to have an abortion then... right? No? Didn't think so.

Anything else or was a Straw Man your best argument?
 
Bodhisattva said:
How come most people with this argument ignore the fact that the woman is chooing to have the child against the man's wish?
Click to expand...
the father made his choice when he agreed to plant the seed

Also, why do poeple ignore that she can simply have an abortion if she doesn't want to support the child on her own?
Click to expand...
she may have a religious belief which prevents her from exercising that option. it's her body, her decision, for whatever reason

and she is responsible for supporting the child - just as is the father who contributed the seed

It's like ZOOOOOOOOOOM!
Click to expand...

nope, it's more like get out your check book and stroke that for a change

time to man up and assume your responsibilities as a father. and please, do not foist them off on the taxpayer

...right over their heads. :roll:
Click to expand...
just write the check
18 years will go by quickly
 
OscarB63 said:
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.
Click to expand...
If he is carring it he can.
 
OscarB63 said:
because it's not about the baby. it's about the power. that is the 600 pound gorilla in the room of abortion debate.
Click to expand...

And there we have it. Power. Women have power over their own reproductive process. Women... have... power... That's the crux of the matter right there. The testosterone stench in this thread is overwhelming. Men want power... they want ALL the power... and when it comes to the one thing they cannot control, a woman's right to choose, their masculine rage is uncontrollable. Imagine a mere female, chattel, has power over a man! A man! Unthinkable. They must wretch back control by force, if necessary, forcing a woman to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term, and then forcing her to either be tied to the child's father forever or support the child on her own... and men must have the POWER to make that choice for her.

It's so clear to me now. It's not about the rights of the father. It's not even about the ethics of abortion or the money. It's all about power... and those men who can't stand that there is any situation in which a woman would have power, and they don't.

I think we've pretty much summed up the OP and nailed it.

/thread
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
I'm not Catholic (in fact, I'm atheist). Sperm isn't human life. Left to its own development it won't make a human. It must combine with an egg to create human life. By what you say, the menstrual cycle should be considered abortion. And that's clearly non-sense.
Click to expand...

Of course neither will a fertilized egg.

It requires (currently) a host body to allow it to develop. Generally a host body is required to a minumum of 5 months before it has a chance surviving without the host body

( yes I know you know that already
 
justabubba said:
the father made his choice when he agreed to plant the seed


she may have a religious belief which prevents her from exercising that option. it's her body, her decision, for whatever reason

and she is responsible for supporting the child - just as is the father who contributed the seed


nope, it's more like get out your check book and stroke that for a change

time to man up and assume your responsibilities as a father. and please, do not foist them off on the taxpayer


just write the check
18 years will go by quickly
Click to expand...

So your argument is, just pay? The law is unequal and should be challenged and overturned as illegal... but, just pay?

Okee Dokee...
 
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?

I think that he should not be legally liable if he does not want the child.

The woman has all the choice and can not only keep the baby and make him pay, but she can keep the baby, not tell him about the baby and then hit him up 18 years later for back Child Support.This thread is not about a woman's right to choose. That is legal and fine and all that.

This thread is about a woman's choice subjegating a man to the role of a wallet for 18 years due to the whim of a woman's choice to keep a child against his wishes. Before we hear the whole, he shoulda kept it in his pants and now he has no choice in the matter.

That is understood. That is the law. The issue is, is the law fair?

As far as I am aware, there is no case law that deals with him being forced due to her choice. There is law about her having a choice, but none about why he should have to pay for her choice. That being said, this thread is not about the law, but about what is right. This is also not about exceptions: ie, she found out 5 months into her pregnancy due to irregular cycles, etc.

This is about the woman that gets pregnant when the man wants to leave the marriage, or the woman that pricks the condom when having sex with a guy that she just met so that she gets pregnant and wants nothing to do with him or the times that a one-nighter turns into an 18 year nightmare simply because she wanted the child more and the state backs her decision out of sexism.Are women not responsible?

Can she not be held liable for her own decisions?If she wants the baby, that is fine. She should have the baby and the man should be able to be out of the picture, should he so choose. If she doesn not want to raise the child on her own with no support, then she should abort.

Easy as that. That is her right. That is the law.

Hopefull I have explained all of this well enough. Yes, this is about abortion and threads like this exist in the Abortion Forum, but this is also a poll. I would like to know what people think outside the abortion debating crowd.Be nice please and just stick to the poll.

If tangents occur please make a thread in the Abortion Forum as would be appropriate.

Thanks...
Click to expand...

No. Child support payments are not a punishment for having a kid; they're used to pay for the child's expenses. It isn't the child's fault if his father doesn't want him. This is not the same situation as a woman having an abortion; if she has an abortion, then there is no kid that requires child support payments. If the father disowns his child, then there is still a child who needs to be taken care of.
 
Kandahar said:
No. Child support payments are not a punishment for having a kid; they're used to pay for the child's expenses. It isn't the child's fault if his father doesn't want him. This is not the same situation as a woman having an abortion; if she has an abortion, then there is no kid that requires child support payments. If the father disowns his child, then there is still a child who needs to be taken care of.
Click to expand...

agreed but in REALITY making him pay child support will do very little to fill this need :shrug:
 
Last edited:
So is there ever a case where a single father receives child support?
 
Mathematician said:
So is there ever a case where a single father receives child support?
Click to expand...

yep I did for a while then I finally just had all her parental rights negated/surrender.

it was BETTER for her to have NOTHING to do with my daughter than have her pay me money and us be forced to have her in our lives.

But some how the people in fantasy world think its better to just make everyone pay.
 
Ikari said:
I have yet to meet a woman who can will her eggs infertile.
Click to expand...

Many women have been impregnated without a male present. All men need to do is put some jizm in a cup. Not a huge responsibility by any stretch of the imagination.



Better dead than poor. I don't subscribe to that.
Click to expand...

I don't subscribe to the notion that aborting a fetus is murder, just as I don't subscribe to the notion that having sex with contraception is murder. I am more concerned with 21% of the children living in this country that are already not being properly cared for.
 
Catawba said:
Many women have been impregnated without a male present. All men need to do is put some jizm in a cup. Not a huge responsibility by any stretch of the imagination.





I don't subscribe to the notion that aborting a fetus is murder, just as I don't subscribe to the notion that having sex with contraception is murder. I am more concerned with 21% of the children living in this country that are already not being properly cared for.
Click to expand...

thats a good thing since it isnt :shrug:
 
Whoa, there's a Mathematician on this thread? We need to talk. (Please tell me know how to do probability/statistics and combine with financial nonsense?)
 
Bodhisattva said:
How come most people with this argument ignore the fact that the woman is chooing to have the child against the man's wish?
Click to expand...

Shooting out some jizm hardly gives you rights over a woman's body. If you want a kid, go shoot your jizm in another woman that wants your baby. Its not like you can only do it once.
 
Catawba said:
Shooting out some jizm hardly gives you rights over a woman's body. If you want a kid, go shoot your jizm in another woman that wants your baby. Its not like you can only do it once.
Click to expand...

Nor does it entitle her to live off my tax money. She needs to make sure she can come up with the cash to take care of that kid, or keep her ***** shut.
 
apdst said:
Unless the mother is unemployed.

Never dealt with step kids, eh?
Click to expand...

Well, the same applies for unemployed fathers. Ultimately there isn't much the state can do to force the deadbeat parent to pay up, if they don't have any money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom