• 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!

Should Woman's Choice Trump the Man's??

Should the woman's choice dictate that the man has to pay child support?

  • Should the woman be responsible for her own choice to not abort?

    Votes: 11 34.4%

  • Should the man be forced to pay child support due to the choice of the woman?

    Votes: 10 31.3%

  • Other option?

    Votes: 11 34.4%
  • Total voters
    32
Coming from a child who has lived on child support, I will just say a few words on this subject. Nothing makes a child feel unwanted than to know they are percentage of an ex-parents paycheck. You feel like your just a bill for them to pay, (which sometimes they skip a payment from time to time). Whether or not it is up to the woman to carry the child for the man to raise it, or a woman decides to keep a child and the man wants nothing to do with the situation. Plus a few other variations of custody and abortion. I would have to say it would depend on the individual situation in which this child was created. I would also like to end on a sad note. Some women feel bad later on in life after the abortion.
 
stsburns said:
Coming from a child who has lived on child support, I will just say a few words on this subject. Nothing makes a child feel unwanted than to know they are percentage of an ex-parents paycheck. You feel like your just a bill for them to pay, (which sometimes they skip a payment from time to time). Whether or not it is up to the woman to carry the child for the man to raise it, or a woman decides to keep a child and the man wants nothing to do with the situation. Plus a few other variations of custody and abortion. I would have to say it would depend on the individual situation in which this child was created. I would also like to end on a sad note. Some women feel bad later on in life after the abortion.
Click to expand...

Would you have felt better as child if you didn't have enough to eat or sufficient clothing to wear? Some women and men feel bad later on in life after having children. It is human nature to wonder how life would have been had you taken the other path.
 
Catawba said:
You are confusion biology with law.
Click to expand...

Not really... they are linked in this argument. The laws are based off of biology, yes. There is nothing biological about a father having to care for the child though, that is the unequal aspect that many seem to gloss over or ignore completely.

Originally Posted by Kandahar
At a certain point it's just a waste of time to continue trying to reason with idiots who just ignore any points. It's like wrestling with a pig: You both get dirty, and the pig enjoys it.
Click to expand...

Cordial as usual. :lol:

I just nailed you on a point and you completely ignored it... contradictory to the core. Well done...

Originally Posted by SheWolf
Bodhisattva, seriously... why do you keep asking this question over and over again?
Click to expand...

It is the theme of my day! It is a good argument and nobody can seem to refute it. Many people create Straw Men or use Ad Homs, but nobody has really actually addressed teh argument and pointed out that it is not about her choice. Just interesting...
 
Bodhisattva said:
Cordial as usual. :lol:

I just nailed you on a point and you completely ignored it... contradictory to the core. Well done...
Click to expand...

I'd hardly calling it "nailing me on a point" to re-post the same talking points you've posted in this entire thread. In your mind it's still always about the adults, and who gives a **** about the child. The ho should've kept her legs closed and/or committed an act she might regard as tantamount to murder (or at least some lesser immoral act). If she doesn't, well, then both the dumb bitch and the child deserve to be punished by making her pay the full cost of raising the kid she was only 50% responsible for creating.

But yeah, I think I'm done with this thread entirely unless someone posts something new and/or insightful. Just reading these posts is making me mad, and I don't really need it. :2wave:
 
Last edited:
Ive really been thinking about this...whats the right answer and to be honest im not sure...I cant take a side set in stone...what I do know is that no matter what any of you think or like about it....the law says the guy pays.
If the guy didnt have to pay....we all pay for him taking part in creating a child.
 
Kandahar said:
I'd hardly calling it "nailing me on a point" to re-post the same talking points you've posted in this entire thread.
Click to expand...

Ok

In your mind it's still always about the adults, and who gives a **** about the child.
Click to expand...

This is just another Appeal to Emotion and doesn't address any points that I am making about Child Support, which are logically based.

The ho should've kept her legs closed and/or committed an act she might regard as tantamount to murder (or at least some lesser immoral act).
Click to expand...

As to the first? I have not once uttered anything as callous as that.
As to the second? I addressed this and said that I seriously doubt that any person that thinks that abortion is murder is having casual sex with people outside of a serious relationship. You simply keep ignoring that part...

If she doesn't, well, then both the dumb bitch and the child deserve to be punished by making her pay the full cost of raising the kid she was only 50% responsible for creating.
Click to expand...

Dang, you are showing FAR more disrespect towards women than I ever have.
I understand you are trying to encapsulate my argument, but all you are doing is showing that you LITERALLY have no idea what my argument is.

But yeah, I think I'm done with this thread entirely unless someone posts something new and/or insightful. Just reading these posts is making me mad, and I don't really need it. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Fine... but in a competitive debate capacity, you have lost. Bye.
 
There is a way to arrive at a position of compromise which honors everyone's values.

The woman gets to exercise her choice but she is ultimately responsible for that choice.
The welfare of the minor child is not harmed by the actions of either of its parents.
The man get to exercise his choice and EVENTUALLY he will have no net burden.
All taxpayers EVENTUALLY become fiscally neutral in this personal issue between one man and one woman.

-The pregnant women who violates her agreement to abortion has two choices upon giving birth, keep the baby or give it up for adoption. The man either agrees to adoption or not and if not then he's putting himself on the hook for future care.
-The woman who decides to keep her baby either cares for it herself or she requires the man's assistance.
-If she requires the man's assistance, then this starts a new process.

-The man can ask the court to order this women to be placed on long-term birth control so that her future financial resources are not diverted towards future children. Her future financial resources must be dedicated towards caring for this child and relieving the man of his compulsory contribution to a choice he rejected. Her debt to this man must be wiped clean before she can have another child and she must satisfy the court that she will not face foreseeable financial troubles and therefore have to once again compel this man to pay for a child he didn't consent to.

- If the man is unable to pay then the state has to kick in and provide welfare. If the man can pay then he has to step up before we involve the state, for if there is a balancing of justice, the State is more innocent than the man for the man actually played a part in conceiving the child.

-After the child turns 18, all of the child support that the man was forced to pay against his will and all of the welfare that state was forced to pay, is billed to the mother and she is now held accountable for her decision 18 years prior. She went back on her word and had a child against her promise to abort. The court grants a judgement against the women and she has to pay her debts to the man and to the State until the debts are paid off.

In the end:

-The welfare of the child is protected while the child is growing up.
-The woman is held responsible for her decisions.
-The man is eventually made whole by repayment of principal and interest for child support payments that were forced on him against his will.
-The taxpayers are eventually made whole by repayment of principal and interest for welfare payments that were forced on then against their will.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Not really... they are linked in this argument. The laws are based off of biology, yes. There is nothing biological about a father having to care for the child though, that is the unequal aspect that many seem to gloss over or ignore completely.
Click to expand...

What is unequal about both parents having to care for their child?
 
RStringfield said:
No. I am not going to search the thread for where you think you refuted these points. You have not. If a parent abandons their child it will effect the child. There is no disputing that.
Click to expand...

Did somebody argue that parents abandoning a child has no effect?
nope

LMAO
 
GreenvilleGrows said:
What if the woman forces the man to have sex with her? Then, can he choose abortion over her will?

I find it interesting that many of the supporters for the woman's choice in the discussion feel like the man made his decision and took the responsibility when he chose to have sex. I agree (use a condom, dummy). But, what is it that makes people think the man should be accountable for his actions/decision in taking care of the conceived child, but not the woman? Why shouldn't the woman be equally responsible for her decision to have sex (use the pill/diaphragm, dummy) in taking care of the conceived child. Why does she get to say "kill it" but he doesn't get equal say?

If the right to choose is going to be legal, I think either party should have the right to defend the life of the child if they want to keep it and the other party should pay to support it, too. If one of them wants to kill it, I go back to "too bad", you should have thought of that earlier. Killing for convenience doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...

2 things

1.) I would NEVER say anybody has the right to force a women to give birth, ever. There is no rational I can defend to support that. I agree it probably has happened and sucks for the guy who wants the baby and the girl doesnt and gets an abortion but theres nothing law wise I feel would ever be rational or logical.

2.) "Killing for convenience" is just what your opinion of it is, many disagree.
 
RiverDad said:
There is a way to arrive at a position of compromise which honors everyone's values.

The woman gets to exercise her choice but she is ultimately responsible for that choice.
The welfare of the minor child is not harmed by the actions of either of its parents.
The man get to exercise his choice and EVENTUALLY he will have no net burden.
All taxpayers EVENTUALLY become fiscally neutral in this personal issue between one man and one woman.

-The pregnant women who violates her agreement to abortion has two choices upon giving birth, keep the baby or give it up for adoption. The man either agrees to adoption or not and if not then he's putting himself on the hook for future care.
-The woman who decides to keep her baby either cares for it herself or she requires the man's assistance.
-If she requires the man's assistance, then this starts a new process.

-The man can ask the court to order this women to be placed on long-term birth control so that her future financial resources are not diverted towards future children. Her future financial resources must be dedicated towards caring for this child and relieving the man of his compulsory contribution to a choice he rejected. Her debt to this man must be wiped clean before she can have another child and she must satisfy the court that she will not face foreseeable financial troubles and therefore have to once again compel this man to pay for a child he didn't consent to.

- If the man is unable to pay then the state has to kick in and provide welfare. If the man can pay then he has to step up before we involve the state, for if there is a balancing of justice, the State is more innocent than the man for the man actually played a part in conceiving the child.

-After the child turns 18, all of the child support that the man was forced to pay against his will and all of the welfare that state was forced to pay, is billed to the mother and she is now held accountable for her decision 18 years prior. She went back on her word and had a child against her promise to abort. The court grants a judgement against the women and she has to pay her debts to the man and to the State until the debts are paid off.

In the end:

-The welfare of the child is protected while the child is growing up.
-The woman is held responsible for her decisions.
-The man is eventually made whole by repayment of principal and interest for child support payments that were forced on him against his will.
-The taxpayers are eventually made whole by repayment of principal and interest for welfare payments that were forced on then against their will.
Click to expand...

Sorry but that still gives the woman too much responsibility and the man too little

The only real way to make it a level playing field is to insist on male contraception - if the man was not using contraception then he has to pay simple as that

PS personally I think the answer would be to create a reversible vasectomy and sterilise all young men before the age of about 14 - that way there would BE no "unwanted pregnancies"
 
bowerbird said:
Sorry but that still gives the woman too much responsibility and the man too little
Click to expand...

That's because it is the woman who is breaking the understanding. Implicit to my scenario is that there was an agreement between the man and the woman that if a pregnancy developed that the woman would get an abortion. When the women changes her mind after the fact, that's when the problems start. In any other situation there is no problem - if the man and the woman both agreed to go through with the pregnancy from the outset and the man changes his mind after the fact, then tough luck for him.

PS personally I think the answer would be to create a reversible vasectomy and sterilise all young men before the age of about 14 - that way there would BE no "unwanted pregnancies"
Click to expand...

Get back to me when this procedure is perfected.
 
Catawba said:
What is unequal about both parents having to care for their child?
Click to expand...

Wait, you just said that this was about biology. Now you are talking about laws. Which is it?
 
bowerbird said:
Sorry but that still gives the woman too much responsibility and the man too little

The only real way to make it a level playing field is to insist on male contraception - if the man was not using contraception then he has to pay simple as that

PS personally I think the answer would be to create a reversible vasectomy and sterilise all young men before the age of about 14 - that way there would BE no "unwanted pregnancies"
Click to expand...

So the woman gets all the power just because a couple of solutions offer the man perhaps more than 50% or the power? Is that right?
 
Bodhisattva said:
So the woman gets all the power just because a couple of solutions offer the man perhaps more than 50% or the power? Is that right?
Click to expand...


I kind of think of it like a guy throwing a bomb into a store. Once he chooses to throw it, whatever happens next is out of his hands, as it's now the people inside the store that must decide whether or not they will disarm the bomb or let it explode.

I have no sympathy for a guy who chooses to pass along his semen to a female, then whines when she gets pregnant and decides not to have an abortion.

No sympathy.

Men - if you don't want kids, don't give your semen to females.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Wait, you just said that this was about biology. Now you are talking about laws. Which is it?
Click to expand...

What I said was that you are confusing biology and the law.
 
David D. said:
I kind of think of it like a guy throwing a bomb into a store. Once he chooses to throw it, whatever happens next is out of his hands, as it's now the people inside the store that must decide whether or not they will disarm the bomb or let it explode.

I have no sympathy for a guy who chooses to pass along his semen to a female, then whines when she gets pregnant and decides not to have an abortion.

No sympathy.

Men - if you don't want kids, don't give your semen to females.
Click to expand...

That is the basic scenario, yes. What of the other times though... when the woman tricks her partner or gets a guy purposely drunk or pricks wholes in the condom? What then? Screw him?
 
Catawba said:
What I said was that you are confusing biology and the law.
Click to expand...

I understand that. I explained how I am not confusing biology with the law.

Regarding what you just said though... what is unequal is that everything, including his wallet, hinges on HER "choice". Biology has nothing to do with a law that forces him to pay for her choice. Nobody seems to be able to adequately address that either... i just keep getting bomb analogies.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I understand that. I explained how I am not confusing biology with the law.

Regarding what you just said though... what is unequal is that everything, including his wallet, hinges on HER "choice". Biology has nothing to do with a law that forces him to pay for her choice. Nobody seems to be able to adequately address that either... i just keep getting bomb analogies.
Click to expand...

And your solution is what? I get that you object to men being subjected to a woman's veto on this issue, that we put our balls on the chopping block and she gets to decide our fate, but what is the alternative?
 
Bodhisattva said:
That is the basic scenario, yes. What of the other times though... when the woman tricks her partner or gets a guy purposely drunk or pricks wholes in the condom? What then? Screw him?
Click to expand...

Who are all these crazy condom-pricking females anyways? Easy solution is for the man to simply buy his own condoms. I say it is his job to make sure what he's putting on is not defective, as it's his semen that needs to be blocked, right?

Also, regarding the alcohol, I'd say the guy is 100% in charge of himself and should have said no to the booze. If the guy gets in a drunk driving accident afterwards is it still the woman's fault?

Maybe if the woman drugs the man, ties him up in her basement, and then proceeds to have sex with him against his will and conceives, I will consider your 50/50 scenario with the child support.

But until that happens, I don't think the man should have a choice once he gives away his semen away...
 
Last edited:
Bodhisattva said:
I understand that. I explained how I am not confusing biology with the law.

Regarding what you just said though... what is unequal is that everything, including his wallet, hinges on HER "choice". Biology has nothing to do with a law that forces him to pay for her choice. Nobody seems to be able to adequately address that either... i just keep getting bomb analogies.
Click to expand...

She forced the guy to stick his penis in her????? You are completely ignoring that he made the choice to do that himself, and then you seek to absolve him of the responsibility of that choice.
 
RiverDad said:
And your solution is what? I get that you object to men being subjected to a woman's veto on this issue, that we put our balls on the chopping block and she gets to decide our fate, but what is the alternative?
Click to expand...

That if she makes the choice to not use birth control and have an abortion when he is told and if he wants her to have an abortion, that she is making the choice to care for and support the child on her own. No child, no need for support. This is all about her choice. All that matters is that the baby be supported. If she can not do it, nor find support from family, then she should respoonsibly abort.
 
Catawba said:
She forced the guy to stick his penis in her????? You are completely ignoring that he made the choice to do that himself, and then you seek to absolve him of the responsibility of that choice.
Click to expand...

Am I? Really? As a man who has had some sex and a father of two, I didn't know that at all since I WAS forced. Thanks though, at least not all men were forced into sex like I was!

She has the ultimate choice. Why do you keep ignoring that and go back in time and try to make it 50/50? Why do you keep talking about biology when it is law that is the issue? Why why why? :lol:
 
Bodhisattva said:
That if she makes the choice to not use birth control and have an abortion when he is told and if he wants her to have an abortion, that she is making the choice to care for and support the child on her own. No child, no need for support. This is all about her choice. All that matters is that the baby be supported. If she can not do it, nor find support from family, then she should respoonsibly abort.
Click to expand...

What if she honestly believes that she can support the child but this turns out to be an unrealistic belief that becomes plainly evident months after the child is born. Now what?
 
David D. said:
Who are all these crazy condom-pricking females anyways? Easy solution is for the man to simply buy his own condoms. I say it is his job to make sure what he's putting on is not defective, as it's his semen that needs to be blocked, right?
Click to expand...

It's not an epidemic yet, that is for sure. I knew of two women that did this and others who employed other measures to get pregnant, though almost all were in relationships. Most people don't find this stuff out. One got a guy drunk, played lovey with him, slept with him, pricked the condom that he bought and two months later hit him up for support and then she got him for child support even though she wanted nothing to do with him. She planned the whole thing.

Another was a women who seduced her husband in the middle of the night and "oops, I forgot to take the pill lately honey!"

This type of horse**** goes on all the time. Women get pregnant to keep a man, to have a baby from a man they don't want, to save a marraige, because her biological clock is ticking... you have seriously never heard of anything like this? Wow.

Also, regarding the alcohol, I'd say the guy is 100% in charge of himself and should have said no to the booze. If the guy gets in a drunk driving accident afterwards is it still the woman's fault?
Click to expand...

You equate a devious and intentional plan of getting a guy drunk for a night and getting pregnant with an unintentional non-plan of getting in a car and getting in an accident? How can a car be deceptive and manipulative? You give far too much credit to the car, IMO.

Maybe if the woman drugs the man, ties him up in her basement, and then proceeds to have sex with him against his will and conceives, I will consider your 50/50 scenario with the child support.

But until that happens, I don't think the man should have a choice once he gives away his semen away...
Click to expand...

Don't consider it then... it is only a fair and equitable plan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom