|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 02 2015 03:43 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 03:39 Sbrubbles wrote:On April 02 2015 03:26 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 03:12 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 03:09 Acrofales wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 03:01 Jormundr wrote:
The only reason a man should have to pay child support is if there was a prior contract stating that he would do so. Putting your dick in someone shouldn't necessitate that you own her vagina or she owns your wallet. she doesn't though. You pay child support for the child, not for her... Not in the US. Custodian generally gets the money. I'm going out on a limb here to say that if the mother than takes the money and uses it to buy new clothes (or worse, meth) for herself (while neglecting the child), she loses custody and might even face criminal charges? Its almost like we have all seen this argument before over and over. Its like the last 4 pages have all been leading up to this point where the thread would degrade down to this tired discussion again. On April 02 2015 03:11 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 03:07 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 03:01 Jormundr wrote:
The only reason a man should have to pay child support is if there was a prior contract stating that he would do so. Putting your dick in someone shouldn't necessitate that you own her vagina or she owns your wallet. she doesn't though. You pay child support for the child, not for her... Not in the US. Custodian generally gets the money. Yes, that is how raising kids works. Also children can't enter contracts without parental approval. If you don't want to pay child support, avoid having children. You are the master of your penis and the law fully accepts that as a natural right and responsibility. Nice double standard. Women can get out of an unwanted pregnancy scot-free if they just get an abortion, but men are stuck with one no matter what. "If you don't want to a pregnancy, avoid having children. You are the master of your vagina and the law fully accepts that as a natural right and responsibility." Life is hard, get a condom if you don't want to pay child support. If you don't like that women get to choose to get an abortion, just know that the same rights will be provided to men when since gets there. Just not now. You said it yourself earlier that birth control doesn't always work. Women can have all the care-free sex they want, since they can just get an abortion. But men have no recourse. Either they don't have sex, or they risk paying child support for 18 years. While I wouldn't call that fair by any stretch, imho it's better than the alternatives. Not requiring child support to be paid is worse (you end up with some situations of the parent having trouble taking care of the child financially). Allowing the man to have a veto on abortion is worse (violate the woman's right to her body). Not allowing abortions period is worse (from the perspective of someone favorable to abortion). Lets break this down. 1) The woman can get a job. She knew what she was getting into when she kept the kid. Remember, adoption is an option too. 2) The fetus is not the woman's body. It does not have her DNA. 3) That's subjective, as you admit.
1) Maybe she can and maybe the child will turn out alright, but I'd rather have a system in place where the child has a better guarantee of financial support and the woman (or parent in general) more leeway to devote time to the child instead of a job. Maybe there's an alternate system somewhere in which the government steps in instead of the father, but I've never seen any that I consider better.
2) As I understand, abortion is an invasive procedure, and thus carries a host of surgery-related risks. It isn't taking a pill with no side-effects. Heck, it is more invasive than forcing people to donate blood, and even that's considered unacceptable!
|
On April 02 2015 03:56 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 03:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 03:48 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 03:42 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 03:32 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 03:24 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:20 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 03:18 Jormundr wrote:
[quote]
Men also don't have a chance of getting custody, or getting a nickel of support on the off chance that some judge actually rules in their favor. That is a valid complain that has nothing to do with abortion. It is a completely separate issue. Incorrect. Women are far more likely to go through with a pregnancy when they 99% know that they will get to keep the child and get a check from the father for the next 18 years, who will most likely not be allowed to see the child at a proportional rate to the money he spends on it. wow somebody has a chip on their shoulder. Somebody has run out of arguments  whats there to argue against? you make blanket statements that are clearly insane and have no factual support as if they were the law. also, i dont really consider making arguments against you worthwhile since you have both feet clearly planted in la la land. do this, put some factual support for your arguments on the table and then we can have a discussion. You're the lawyer, aren't you? Put forth some evidence suggesting that I'm wrong, and that the majority of custody and child support cases don't rule in favor of women. i dont disagree with that statement. i do find it ironic that this is a sexist system put in place by men though, which kind of takes the wind out of your sails. i do disagree with everything else you put in your post. Women are far more likely to go through with a pregnancy when they 99% know that they will get to keep the child and get a check from the father for the next 18 years smells like bullshit. who will most likely not be allowed to see the child at a proportional rate to the money he spends on it. the law does not allow this. if you are saying its being applied this way, prove it. Why? The rest of the justice system is pretty heavily biased in favor of women. Compare incarceration rates. Men are imprisoned far more often than women.
he is complaining the family courts are discriminating against men, but the laws that allow for this discrimination were created by a male dominated legal system (i.e., the presumption that children have a better upbringing if they live primarily with the mother). thats not ironic? i find it fucking hilarious.
|
On April 02 2015 03:57 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 03:49 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 03:47 Paljas wrote:On April 02 2015 03:43 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 03:39 Sbrubbles wrote:On April 02 2015 03:26 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 03:12 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 03:09 Acrofales wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Toadesstern wrote:
[quote]
she doesn't though. You pay child support for the child, not for her... Not in the US. Custodian generally gets the money. I'm going out on a limb here to say that if the mother than takes the money and uses it to buy new clothes (or worse, meth) for herself (while neglecting the child), she loses custody and might even face criminal charges? Its almost like we have all seen this argument before over and over. Its like the last 4 pages have all been leading up to this point where the thread would degrade down to this tired discussion again. On April 02 2015 03:11 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 03:07 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Jormundr wrote:
[quote]
Not in the US. Custodian generally gets the money. Yes, that is how raising kids works. Also children can't enter contracts without parental approval. If you don't want to pay child support, avoid having children. You are the master of your penis and the law fully accepts that as a natural right and responsibility. Nice double standard. Women can get out of an unwanted pregnancy scot-free if they just get an abortion, but men are stuck with one no matter what. "If you don't want to a pregnancy, avoid having children. You are the master of your vagina and the law fully accepts that as a natural right and responsibility." Life is hard, get a condom if you don't want to pay child support. If you don't like that women get to choose to get an abortion, just know that the same rights will be provided to men when since gets there. Just not now. You said it yourself earlier that birth control doesn't always work. Women can have all the care-free sex they want, since they can just get an abortion. But men have no recourse. Either they don't have sex, or they risk paying child support for 18 years. While I wouldn't call that fair by any stretch, imho it's better than the alternatives. Not requiring child support to be paid is worse (you end up with some situations of the parent having trouble taking care of the child financially). Allowing the man to have a veto on abortion is worse (violate the woman's right to her body). Not allowing abortions period is worse (from the perspective of someone favorable to abortion). Lets break this down. 1) The woman can get a job. She knew what she was getting into when she kept the kid. Remember, adoption is an option too. 2) The fetus is not the woman's body. It does not have her DNA. 3) That's subjective, as you admit. missing 2/3 points, please try again Nice post that adds nothing. Maybe you could clarify what I'm missing? Otherwise I'll just declare "3/3 I win". 1) its not about the woman and her ability to find a job/ "knowing what she was getting into", but the child's right to be taken care of. it shouldnt suprise you that a single low paid job often isnt enough to get enough money for the child. 2) the fetus is in the woman body. the dna of the fetus is irrelevant
1) Adoption exists.
2) Her lunch is in the woman's body too. Does that make it part of her body?
On April 02 2015 03:59 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 03:56 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 03:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 03:48 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 03:42 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 03:32 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 03:24 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:20 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
That is a valid complain that has nothing to do with abortion. It is a completely separate issue. Incorrect. Women are far more likely to go through with a pregnancy when they 99% know that they will get to keep the child and get a check from the father for the next 18 years, who will most likely not be allowed to see the child at a proportional rate to the money he spends on it. wow somebody has a chip on their shoulder. Somebody has run out of arguments whats there to argue against? you make blanket statements that are clearly insane and have no factual support as if they were the law. also, i dont really consider making arguments against you worthwhile since you have both feet clearly planted in la la land. do this, put some factual support for your arguments on the table and then we can have a discussion. You're the lawyer, aren't you? Put forth some evidence suggesting that I'm wrong, and that the majority of custody and child support cases don't rule in favor of women. i dont disagree with that statement. i do find it ironic that this is a sexist system put in place by men though, which kind of takes the wind out of your sails. i do disagree with everything else you put in your post. Women are far more likely to go through with a pregnancy when they 99% know that they will get to keep the child and get a check from the father for the next 18 years smells like bullshit. who will most likely not be allowed to see the child at a proportional rate to the money he spends on it. the law does not allow this. if you are saying its being applied this way, prove it. Why? The rest of the justice system is pretty heavily biased in favor of women. Compare incarceration rates. Men are imprisoned far more often than women. he is complaining the family courts are discriminating against men, but the laws that allow for this discrimination were created by a male dominated legal system (i.e., the presumption that children have a better upbringing if they live primarily with the mother). thats not ironic? i find it fucking hilarious.
Like I said, compare the incarceration rates and try to tell me the courts aren't biased in favor of women.
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/genderinc.html
|
On April 02 2015 03:26 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 03:12 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 03:09 Acrofales wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 03:01 Jormundr wrote:
The only reason a man should have to pay child support is if there was a prior contract stating that he would do so. Putting your dick in someone shouldn't necessitate that you own her vagina or she owns your wallet. she doesn't though. You pay child support for the child, not for her... Not in the US. Custodian generally gets the money. I'm going out on a limb here to say that if the mother than takes the money and uses it to buy new clothes (or worse, meth) for herself (while neglecting the child), she loses custody and might even face criminal charges? Its almost like we have all seen this argument before over and over. Its like the last 4 pages have all been leading up to this point where the thread would degrade down to this tired discussion again. On April 02 2015 03:11 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 03:07 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 03:01 Jormundr wrote:
The only reason a man should have to pay child support is if there was a prior contract stating that he would do so. Putting your dick in someone shouldn't necessitate that you own her vagina or she owns your wallet. she doesn't though. You pay child support for the child, not for her... Not in the US. Custodian generally gets the money. Yes, that is how raising kids works. Also children can't enter contracts without parental approval. If you don't want to pay child support, avoid having children. You are the master of your penis and the law fully accepts that as a natural right and responsibility. Nice double standard. Women can get out of an unwanted pregnancy scot-free if they just get an abortion, but men are stuck with one no matter what. "If you don't want to a pregnancy, avoid having children. You are the master of your vagina and the law fully accepts that as a natural right and responsibility." Life is hard, get a condom if you don't want to pay child support. If you don't like that women get to choose to get an abortion, just know that the same rights will be provided to men when since gets there. Just not now. You said it yourself earlier that birth control doesn't always work. Women can have all the care-free sex they want, since they can just get an abortion. But men have no recourse. Either they don't have sex, or they risk paying child support for 18 years.
Holy shit.
1. You downplay the emotional and physical risks of both pregnancy AND abortion. An abortion is considered a surgical procedure, and has real risks. It is, by all accounts, also a traumatic experience. If you call that care-free, you are completely disconnected from reality.
2. The argument has somehow moved from whether abortion should be allowed, to some kind of man's rights issue. So you conceded the point that abortion should be legal, but are now only arguing about whether it is ALSO okay for a man to force his girlfriend/wife/babymomma to have an abortion. Weren't you a libertarian?
|
On April 02 2015 03:59 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 03:57 Paljas wrote:On April 02 2015 03:49 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 03:47 Paljas wrote:On April 02 2015 03:43 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 03:39 Sbrubbles wrote:On April 02 2015 03:26 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 03:12 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 03:09 Acrofales wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Jormundr wrote:
[quote]
Not in the US. Custodian generally gets the money. I'm going out on a limb here to say that if the mother than takes the money and uses it to buy new clothes (or worse, meth) for herself (while neglecting the child), she loses custody and might even face criminal charges? Its almost like we have all seen this argument before over and over. Its like the last 4 pages have all been leading up to this point where the thread would degrade down to this tired discussion again. On April 02 2015 03:11 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 03:07 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Yes, that is how raising kids works. Also children can't enter contracts without parental approval. If you don't want to pay child support, avoid having children. You are the master of your penis and the law fully accepts that as a natural right and responsibility. Nice double standard. Women can get out of an unwanted pregnancy scot-free if they just get an abortion, but men are stuck with one no matter what. "If you don't want to a pregnancy, avoid having children. You are the master of your vagina and the law fully accepts that as a natural right and responsibility." Life is hard, get a condom if you don't want to pay child support. If you don't like that women get to choose to get an abortion, just know that the same rights will be provided to men when since gets there. Just not now. You said it yourself earlier that birth control doesn't always work. Women can have all the care-free sex they want, since they can just get an abortion. But men have no recourse. Either they don't have sex, or they risk paying child support for 18 years. While I wouldn't call that fair by any stretch, imho it's better than the alternatives. Not requiring child support to be paid is worse (you end up with some situations of the parent having trouble taking care of the child financially). Allowing the man to have a veto on abortion is worse (violate the woman's right to her body). Not allowing abortions period is worse (from the perspective of someone favorable to abortion). Lets break this down. 1) The woman can get a job. She knew what she was getting into when she kept the kid. Remember, adoption is an option too. 2) The fetus is not the woman's body. It does not have her DNA. 3) That's subjective, as you admit. missing 2/3 points, please try again Nice post that adds nothing. Maybe you could clarify what I'm missing? Otherwise I'll just declare "3/3 I win". 1) its not about the woman and her ability to find a job/ "knowing what she was getting into", but the child's right to be taken care of. it shouldnt suprise you that a single low paid job often isnt enough to get enough money for the child. 2) the fetus is in the woman body. the dna of the fetus is irrelevant 1) Adoption exists. 2) Her lunch is in the woman's body too. Does that make it part of her body?
1) Adoption is after child birth and does not factor in.
2) Yes. No one could legal force her to vomit up her lunch.(god this argument is stupid)
|
On April 02 2015 03:59 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 03:57 Paljas wrote:On April 02 2015 03:49 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 03:47 Paljas wrote:On April 02 2015 03:43 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 03:39 Sbrubbles wrote:On April 02 2015 03:26 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 03:12 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 03:09 Acrofales wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Jormundr wrote:
[quote]
Not in the US. Custodian generally gets the money. I'm going out on a limb here to say that if the mother than takes the money and uses it to buy new clothes (or worse, meth) for herself (while neglecting the child), she loses custody and might even face criminal charges? Its almost like we have all seen this argument before over and over. Its like the last 4 pages have all been leading up to this point where the thread would degrade down to this tired discussion again. On April 02 2015 03:11 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 03:07 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Yes, that is how raising kids works. Also children can't enter contracts without parental approval. If you don't want to pay child support, avoid having children. You are the master of your penis and the law fully accepts that as a natural right and responsibility. Nice double standard. Women can get out of an unwanted pregnancy scot-free if they just get an abortion, but men are stuck with one no matter what. "If you don't want to a pregnancy, avoid having children. You are the master of your vagina and the law fully accepts that as a natural right and responsibility." Life is hard, get a condom if you don't want to pay child support. If you don't like that women get to choose to get an abortion, just know that the same rights will be provided to men when since gets there. Just not now. You said it yourself earlier that birth control doesn't always work. Women can have all the care-free sex they want, since they can just get an abortion. But men have no recourse. Either they don't have sex, or they risk paying child support for 18 years. While I wouldn't call that fair by any stretch, imho it's better than the alternatives. Not requiring child support to be paid is worse (you end up with some situations of the parent having trouble taking care of the child financially). Allowing the man to have a veto on abortion is worse (violate the woman's right to her body). Not allowing abortions period is worse (from the perspective of someone favorable to abortion). Lets break this down. 1) The woman can get a job. She knew what she was getting into when she kept the kid. Remember, adoption is an option too. 2) The fetus is not the woman's body. It does not have her DNA. 3) That's subjective, as you admit. missing 2/3 points, please try again Nice post that adds nothing. Maybe you could clarify what I'm missing? Otherwise I'll just declare "3/3 I win". 1) its not about the woman and her ability to find a job/ "knowing what she was getting into", but the child's right to be taken care of. it shouldnt suprise you that a single low paid job often isnt enough to get enough money for the child. 2) the fetus is in the woman body. the dna of the fetus is irrelevant 1) Adoption exists. 2) Her lunch is in the woman's body too. Does that make it part of her body? Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 03:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 03:56 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 03:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 03:48 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 03:42 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 03:32 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 03:24 Jormundr wrote:
[quote]
Incorrect. Women are far more likely to go through with a pregnancy when they 99% know that they will get to keep the child and get a check from the father for the next 18 years, who will most likely not be allowed to see the child at a proportional rate to the money he spends on it. wow somebody has a chip on their shoulder. Somebody has run out of arguments whats there to argue against? you make blanket statements that are clearly insane and have no factual support as if they were the law. also, i dont really consider making arguments against you worthwhile since you have both feet clearly planted in la la land. do this, put some factual support for your arguments on the table and then we can have a discussion. You're the lawyer, aren't you? Put forth some evidence suggesting that I'm wrong, and that the majority of custody and child support cases don't rule in favor of women. i dont disagree with that statement. i do find it ironic that this is a sexist system put in place by men though, which kind of takes the wind out of your sails. i do disagree with everything else you put in your post. Women are far more likely to go through with a pregnancy when they 99% know that they will get to keep the child and get a check from the father for the next 18 years smells like bullshit. who will most likely not be allowed to see the child at a proportional rate to the money he spends on it. the law does not allow this. if you are saying its being applied this way, prove it. Why? The rest of the justice system is pretty heavily biased in favor of women. Compare incarceration rates. Men are imprisoned far more often than women. he is complaining the family courts are discriminating against men, but the laws that allow for this discrimination were created by a male dominated legal system (i.e., the presumption that children have a better upbringing if they live primarily with the mother). thats not ironic? i find it fucking hilarious. Like I said, compare the incarceration rates and try to tell me the courts aren't biased in favor of women. http://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/genderinc.html
Bad example. If she decides she doesn't want the lunch in her body, she has the right to vomit it out whenever she is able to.
|
On April 02 2015 03:54 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 03:48 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 03:42 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 03:32 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 03:24 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:20 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 03:18 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:15 Toadesstern wrote:
[quote]
Men don't have pregnancies though... Men also don't have a chance of getting custody, or getting a nickel of support on the off chance that some judge actually rules in their favor. That is a valid complain that has nothing to do with abortion. It is a completely separate issue. Incorrect. Women are far more likely to go through with a pregnancy when they 99% know that they will get to keep the child and get a check from the father for the next 18 years, who will most likely not be allowed to see the child at a proportional rate to the money he spends on it. wow somebody has a chip on their shoulder. Somebody has run out of arguments whats there to argue against? you make blanket statements that are clearly insane and have no factual support as if they were the law. also, i dont really consider making arguments against you worthwhile since you have both feet clearly planted in la la land. do this, put some factual support for your arguments on the table and then we can have a discussion. You're the lawyer, aren't you? Put forth some evidence suggesting that I'm wrong, and that the majority of custody and child support cases don't rule in favor of women. i dont disagree with that statement. i do find it ironic that this is a sexist system put in place by men though, which kind of takes the wind out of your sails. i do disagree with everything else you put in your post. Show nested quote +Women are far more likely to go through with a pregnancy when they 99% know that they will get to keep the child and get a check from the father for the next 18 years smells like bullshit. Show nested quote +who will most likely not be allowed to see the child at a proportional rate to the money he spends on it. the law does not allow this. if you are saying its being applied this way, prove it.
How does that smell like bullshit? Are you saying that women are literally financially retarded? Because if they aren't then that statement is only logical. Am I saying that most women have children to receive child support? No. Am I saying that knowing they will get it if they need it factors heavily into their decision making? Yes.
Towards the last bit
If 90% of the people with equal custody pay their child support on time and 68% of people who pay child support don't pay it on time.....
|
On April 02 2015 03:59 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 03:57 Paljas wrote:On April 02 2015 03:49 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 03:47 Paljas wrote:On April 02 2015 03:43 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 03:39 Sbrubbles wrote:On April 02 2015 03:26 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 03:12 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 03:09 Acrofales wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Jormundr wrote:
[quote]
Not in the US. Custodian generally gets the money. I'm going out on a limb here to say that if the mother than takes the money and uses it to buy new clothes (or worse, meth) for herself (while neglecting the child), she loses custody and might even face criminal charges? Its almost like we have all seen this argument before over and over. Its like the last 4 pages have all been leading up to this point where the thread would degrade down to this tired discussion again. On April 02 2015 03:11 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 03:07 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Yes, that is how raising kids works. Also children can't enter contracts without parental approval. If you don't want to pay child support, avoid having children. You are the master of your penis and the law fully accepts that as a natural right and responsibility. Nice double standard. Women can get out of an unwanted pregnancy scot-free if they just get an abortion, but men are stuck with one no matter what. "If you don't want to a pregnancy, avoid having children. You are the master of your vagina and the law fully accepts that as a natural right and responsibility." Life is hard, get a condom if you don't want to pay child support. If you don't like that women get to choose to get an abortion, just know that the same rights will be provided to men when since gets there. Just not now. You said it yourself earlier that birth control doesn't always work. Women can have all the care-free sex they want, since they can just get an abortion. But men have no recourse. Either they don't have sex, or they risk paying child support for 18 years. While I wouldn't call that fair by any stretch, imho it's better than the alternatives. Not requiring child support to be paid is worse (you end up with some situations of the parent having trouble taking care of the child financially). Allowing the man to have a veto on abortion is worse (violate the woman's right to her body). Not allowing abortions period is worse (from the perspective of someone favorable to abortion). Lets break this down. 1) The woman can get a job. She knew what she was getting into when she kept the kid. Remember, adoption is an option too. 2) The fetus is not the woman's body. It does not have her DNA. 3) That's subjective, as you admit. missing 2/3 points, please try again Nice post that adds nothing. Maybe you could clarify what I'm missing? Otherwise I'll just declare "3/3 I win". 1) its not about the woman and her ability to find a job/ "knowing what she was getting into", but the child's right to be taken care of. it shouldnt suprise you that a single low paid job often isnt enough to get enough money for the child. 2) the fetus is in the woman body. the dna of the fetus is irrelevant 1) Adoption exists. 2) Her lunch is in the woman's body too. Does that make it part of her body?
1) and? people should'nt be forced to give away their children.
2) how dense are you? its irrelavant if its part of the body or not. and yes, it would obviously be infrigement of your body rights if i'd choose to take the lunch out of your body cause i want to eat it too.
|
On April 02 2015 03:43 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 03:39 Sbrubbles wrote:On April 02 2015 03:26 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 03:12 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 03:09 Acrofales wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 03:01 Jormundr wrote:
The only reason a man should have to pay child support is if there was a prior contract stating that he would do so. Putting your dick in someone shouldn't necessitate that you own her vagina or she owns your wallet. she doesn't though. You pay child support for the child, not for her... Not in the US. Custodian generally gets the money. I'm going out on a limb here to say that if the mother than takes the money and uses it to buy new clothes (or worse, meth) for herself (while neglecting the child), she loses custody and might even face criminal charges? Its almost like we have all seen this argument before over and over. Its like the last 4 pages have all been leading up to this point where the thread would degrade down to this tired discussion again. On April 02 2015 03:11 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 03:07 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 03:01 Jormundr wrote:
The only reason a man should have to pay child support is if there was a prior contract stating that he would do so. Putting your dick in someone shouldn't necessitate that you own her vagina or she owns your wallet. she doesn't though. You pay child support for the child, not for her... Not in the US. Custodian generally gets the money. Yes, that is how raising kids works. Also children can't enter contracts without parental approval. If you don't want to pay child support, avoid having children. You are the master of your penis and the law fully accepts that as a natural right and responsibility. Nice double standard. Women can get out of an unwanted pregnancy scot-free if they just get an abortion, but men are stuck with one no matter what. "If you don't want to a pregnancy, avoid having children. You are the master of your vagina and the law fully accepts that as a natural right and responsibility." Life is hard, get a condom if you don't want to pay child support. If you don't like that women get to choose to get an abortion, just know that the same rights will be provided to men when since gets there. Just not now. You said it yourself earlier that birth control doesn't always work. Women can have all the care-free sex they want, since they can just get an abortion. But men have no recourse. Either they don't have sex, or they risk paying child support for 18 years. While I wouldn't call that fair by any stretch, imho it's better than the alternatives. Not requiring child support to be paid is worse (you end up with some situations of the parent having trouble taking care of the child financially). Allowing the man to have a veto on abortion is worse (violate the woman's right to her body). Not allowing abortions period is worse (from the perspective of someone favorable to abortion). Lets break this down. 1) The woman can get a job. She knew what she was getting into when she kept the kid. Remember, adoption is an option too. 2) The fetus is not the woman's body. It does not have her DNA. 3) That's subjective, as you admit.
1) The woman can certainly get a job, and from what I can tell most do when they are raising a child alone. Child support is nice, but it isn't that nice. However, what is your definition of "knowing what she was getting into?" By keeping the kid, she knew she was going to be raising a kid, but did she think it would be with a partner? On the other hand, it's impossible to know if the father will just leave or if the couple will break up. Should she be solely financially responsible for the child now? Providing incentives for fathers to leave their families with no repercussions doesn't really seem to be the best option for society, now does it? For the record, I believe that there should be some sort of process, during the window in which abortion is legal, where the father can provide a public statement that he does not want a child, and is therefore exempt from child support payments should the woman decide to keep it. This would be your form of "male abortion," whereby the man can also make a choice to not have a child if he does not wish to, post-conception. This would also allow the woman to make her choice knowing full well he is not on board.
2) The fetus is wholly within the woman's body, completely reliant on her anatomy for sustenance. Quibbling about whether or not the fetus' host has any say over what happens to the fetus is the very nature of this debate. Suffice to say we disagree on this point. The woman and the fetus are biologically linked in such a significant way that in my opinion the fetus is definitely an extension of the woman's body.
3) Yes, it is subjective. I am of the opinion that if a grown woman and a non-sentient sack of embryos have mutually exclusive interests, the woman's rights outweigh any rights the fetus may or may not have. Call it seniority if you want.
|
On April 02 2015 04:00 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 03:26 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 03:12 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 03:09 Acrofales wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 03:01 Jormundr wrote:
The only reason a man should have to pay child support is if there was a prior contract stating that he would do so. Putting your dick in someone shouldn't necessitate that you own her vagina or she owns your wallet. she doesn't though. You pay child support for the child, not for her... Not in the US. Custodian generally gets the money. I'm going out on a limb here to say that if the mother than takes the money and uses it to buy new clothes (or worse, meth) for herself (while neglecting the child), she loses custody and might even face criminal charges? Its almost like we have all seen this argument before over and over. Its like the last 4 pages have all been leading up to this point where the thread would degrade down to this tired discussion again. On April 02 2015 03:11 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 03:07 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 03:01 Jormundr wrote:
The only reason a man should have to pay child support is if there was a prior contract stating that he would do so. Putting your dick in someone shouldn't necessitate that you own her vagina or she owns your wallet. she doesn't though. You pay child support for the child, not for her... Not in the US. Custodian generally gets the money. Yes, that is how raising kids works. Also children can't enter contracts without parental approval. If you don't want to pay child support, avoid having children. You are the master of your penis and the law fully accepts that as a natural right and responsibility. Nice double standard. Women can get out of an unwanted pregnancy scot-free if they just get an abortion, but men are stuck with one no matter what. "If you don't want to a pregnancy, avoid having children. You are the master of your vagina and the law fully accepts that as a natural right and responsibility." Life is hard, get a condom if you don't want to pay child support. If you don't like that women get to choose to get an abortion, just know that the same rights will be provided to men when since gets there. Just not now. You said it yourself earlier that birth control doesn't always work. Women can have all the care-free sex they want, since they can just get an abortion. But men have no recourse. Either they don't have sex, or they risk paying child support for 18 years. Holy shit. 1. You downplay the emotional and physical risks of both pregnancy AND abortion. An abortion is considered a surgical procedure, and has real risks. It is, by all accounts, also a traumatic experience. If you call that care-free, you are completely disconnected from reality. 2. The argument has somehow moved from whether abortion should be allowed, to some kind of man's rights issue. So you conceded the point that abortion should be legal, but are now only arguing about whether it is ALSO okay for a man to force his girlfriend/wife/babymomma to have an abortion. Weren't you a libertarian?
I have not conceded the point that abortion should be legal. I don't care whether it's legal or not (excluding the fact that the current cut-off is arbitrary BS). I think it should either be legal right up till the baby starts acting like a person, at like age 4 or whatever, or it shouldn't be legal at all.
Now I'm arguing about removing a double standard. If it's OK for a woman who doesn't want a baby to have an abortion against the father's wishes, it should be OK for a father to not pay child support for a child he never wanted.
On April 02 2015 04:04 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 03:43 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 03:39 Sbrubbles wrote:On April 02 2015 03:26 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 03:12 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 03:09 Acrofales wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 03:01 Jormundr wrote:
The only reason a man should have to pay child support is if there was a prior contract stating that he would do so. Putting your dick in someone shouldn't necessitate that you own her vagina or she owns your wallet. she doesn't though. You pay child support for the child, not for her... Not in the US. Custodian generally gets the money. I'm going out on a limb here to say that if the mother than takes the money and uses it to buy new clothes (or worse, meth) for herself (while neglecting the child), she loses custody and might even face criminal charges? Its almost like we have all seen this argument before over and over. Its like the last 4 pages have all been leading up to this point where the thread would degrade down to this tired discussion again. On April 02 2015 03:11 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 03:07 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 03:01 Jormundr wrote:
The only reason a man should have to pay child support is if there was a prior contract stating that he would do so. Putting your dick in someone shouldn't necessitate that you own her vagina or she owns your wallet. she doesn't though. You pay child support for the child, not for her... Not in the US. Custodian generally gets the money. Yes, that is how raising kids works. Also children can't enter contracts without parental approval. If you don't want to pay child support, avoid having children. You are the master of your penis and the law fully accepts that as a natural right and responsibility. Nice double standard. Women can get out of an unwanted pregnancy scot-free if they just get an abortion, but men are stuck with one no matter what. "If you don't want to a pregnancy, avoid having children. You are the master of your vagina and the law fully accepts that as a natural right and responsibility." Life is hard, get a condom if you don't want to pay child support. If you don't like that women get to choose to get an abortion, just know that the same rights will be provided to men when since gets there. Just not now. You said it yourself earlier that birth control doesn't always work. Women can have all the care-free sex they want, since they can just get an abortion. But men have no recourse. Either they don't have sex, or they risk paying child support for 18 years. While I wouldn't call that fair by any stretch, imho it's better than the alternatives. Not requiring child support to be paid is worse (you end up with some situations of the parent having trouble taking care of the child financially). Allowing the man to have a veto on abortion is worse (violate the woman's right to her body). Not allowing abortions period is worse (from the perspective of someone favorable to abortion). Lets break this down. 1) The woman can get a job. She knew what she was getting into when she kept the kid. Remember, adoption is an option too. 2) The fetus is not the woman's body. It does not have her DNA. 3) That's subjective, as you admit. 1) The woman can certainly get a job, and from what I can tell most do when they are raising a child alone. Child support is nice, but it isn't that nice. However, what is your definition of "knowing what she was getting into?" By keeping the kid, she knew she was going to be raising a kid, but did she think it would be with a partner? On the other hand, it's impossible to know if the father will just leave or if the couple will break up. Should she be solely financially responsible for the child now? Providing incentives for fathers to leave their families with no repercussions doesn't really seem to be the best option for society, now does it? For the record, I believe that there should be some sort of process, during the window in which abortion is legal, where the father can provide a public statement that he does not want a child, and is therefore exempt from child support payments should the woman decide to keep it. This would be your form of "male abortion," whereby the man can also make a choice to not have a child if he does not wish to, post-conception. This would also allow the woman to make her choice knowing full well he is not on board. 2) The fetus is wholly within the woman's body, completely reliant on her anatomy for sustenance. Quibbling about whether or not the fetus' host has any say over what happens to the fetus is the very nature of this debate. Suffice to say we disagree on this point. The woman and the fetus are biologically linked in such a significant way that in my opinion the fetus is definitely an extension of the woman's body. 3) Yes, it is subjective. I am of the opinion that if a grown woman and a non-sentient sack of embryos have mutually exclusive interests, the woman's rights outweigh any rights the fetus may or may not have. Call it seniority if you want.
1) I like your idea about an amnesty period where fathers can declare that they want out. This seems like a pretty good solution. I do agree that a father that would wait till the kid is born before he tries to bail is an asshole, and I have no sympathy for him. I'd also suggest that the cut-off be set after those tests that look for birth defects, so a father won't be stuck raising a seriously disabled child. It wouldn't be fair to withhold that kind of information from him when he makes his decision.
2) Babies are completely reliant on their guardian's care too.
3) Babies are non-sentient too.
Seems like we disagree philosophically, but it's all just meaningless since we agree on the idea in #1.
|
On April 02 2015 04:02 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 03:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 03:48 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 03:42 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 03:32 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 03:24 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:20 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 03:18 Jormundr wrote:
[quote]
Men also don't have a chance of getting custody, or getting a nickel of support on the off chance that some judge actually rules in their favor. That is a valid complain that has nothing to do with abortion. It is a completely separate issue. Incorrect. Women are far more likely to go through with a pregnancy when they 99% know that they will get to keep the child and get a check from the father for the next 18 years, who will most likely not be allowed to see the child at a proportional rate to the money he spends on it. wow somebody has a chip on their shoulder. Somebody has run out of arguments whats there to argue against? you make blanket statements that are clearly insane and have no factual support as if they were the law. also, i dont really consider making arguments against you worthwhile since you have both feet clearly planted in la la land. do this, put some factual support for your arguments on the table and then we can have a discussion. You're the lawyer, aren't you? Put forth some evidence suggesting that I'm wrong, and that the majority of custody and child support cases don't rule in favor of women. i dont disagree with that statement. i do find it ironic that this is a sexist system put in place by men though, which kind of takes the wind out of your sails. i do disagree with everything else you put in your post. Women are far more likely to go through with a pregnancy when they 99% know that they will get to keep the child and get a check from the father for the next 18 years smells like bullshit. who will most likely not be allowed to see the child at a proportional rate to the money he spends on it. the law does not allow this. if you are saying its being applied this way, prove it. How does that smell like bullshit? Are you saying that women are literally financially retarded? Because if they aren't then that statement is only logical. Am I saying that most women have children to receive child support? No. Am I saying that knowing they will get it if they need it factors heavily into their decision making? Yes. Towards the last bitIf 90% of the people with equal custody pay their child support on time and 68% of people who pay child support don't pay it on time.....
There are very very very very very very very very very very few situations in which having a child is financially a good idea, EVER. Receiving child support in no way compensates for the expenses.
|
On April 02 2015 04:02 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 03:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 03:48 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 03:42 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 03:32 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 03:24 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:20 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 03:18 Jormundr wrote:
[quote]
Men also don't have a chance of getting custody, or getting a nickel of support on the off chance that some judge actually rules in their favor. That is a valid complain that has nothing to do with abortion. It is a completely separate issue. Incorrect. Women are far more likely to go through with a pregnancy when they 99% know that they will get to keep the child and get a check from the father for the next 18 years, who will most likely not be allowed to see the child at a proportional rate to the money he spends on it. wow somebody has a chip on their shoulder. Somebody has run out of arguments whats there to argue against? you make blanket statements that are clearly insane and have no factual support as if they were the law. also, i dont really consider making arguments against you worthwhile since you have both feet clearly planted in la la land. do this, put some factual support for your arguments on the table and then we can have a discussion. You're the lawyer, aren't you? Put forth some evidence suggesting that I'm wrong, and that the majority of custody and child support cases don't rule in favor of women. i dont disagree with that statement. i do find it ironic that this is a sexist system put in place by men though, which kind of takes the wind out of your sails. i do disagree with everything else you put in your post. Women are far more likely to go through with a pregnancy when they 99% know that they will get to keep the child and get a check from the father for the next 18 years smells like bullshit. who will most likely not be allowed to see the child at a proportional rate to the money he spends on it. the law does not allow this. if you are saying its being applied this way, prove it. How does that smell like bullshit? Are you saying that women are literally financially retarded? Because if they aren't then that statement is only logical. Am I saying that most women have children to receive child support? No. Am I saying that knowing they will get it if they need it factors heavily into their decision making? Yes. Towards the last bitIf 90% of the people with equal custody pay their child support on time and 68% of people who pay child support don't pay it on time.....
let me make up bullshit statistics too. men are unlikely to have sex if they know they will be financially responsible for the child. oh wait, there may be something at play other than finances....
also your wiki (lol, the bastion of people who claim to know something on the internet) article has nothing to do with how the law is enforced.
|
On April 02 2015 04:02 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 03:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 03:48 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 03:42 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 03:32 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 03:24 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:20 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 03:18 Jormundr wrote:
[quote]
Men also don't have a chance of getting custody, or getting a nickel of support on the off chance that some judge actually rules in their favor. That is a valid complain that has nothing to do with abortion. It is a completely separate issue. Incorrect. Women are far more likely to go through with a pregnancy when they 99% know that they will get to keep the child and get a check from the father for the next 18 years, who will most likely not be allowed to see the child at a proportional rate to the money he spends on it. wow somebody has a chip on their shoulder. Somebody has run out of arguments whats there to argue against? you make blanket statements that are clearly insane and have no factual support as if they were the law. also, i dont really consider making arguments against you worthwhile since you have both feet clearly planted in la la land. do this, put some factual support for your arguments on the table and then we can have a discussion. You're the lawyer, aren't you? Put forth some evidence suggesting that I'm wrong, and that the majority of custody and child support cases don't rule in favor of women. i dont disagree with that statement. i do find it ironic that this is a sexist system put in place by men though, which kind of takes the wind out of your sails. i do disagree with everything else you put in your post. Women are far more likely to go through with a pregnancy when they 99% know that they will get to keep the child and get a check from the father for the next 18 years smells like bullshit. who will most likely not be allowed to see the child at a proportional rate to the money he spends on it. the law does not allow this. if you are saying its being applied this way, prove it. How does that smell like bullshit? Are you saying that women are literally financially retarded? Because if they aren't then that statement is only logical. Am I saying that most women have children to receive child support? No. Am I saying that knowing they will get it if they need it factors heavily into their decision making? Yes. Towards the last bitIf 90% of the people with equal custody pay their child support on time and 68% of people who pay child support don't pay it on time.....
You do realize the stat that you quoted has a "citation needed" tag next to it on Wikipedia.
|
On April 02 2015 04:05 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 04:02 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 03:48 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 03:42 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 03:32 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 03:24 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:20 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
That is a valid complain that has nothing to do with abortion. It is a completely separate issue. Incorrect. Women are far more likely to go through with a pregnancy when they 99% know that they will get to keep the child and get a check from the father for the next 18 years, who will most likely not be allowed to see the child at a proportional rate to the money he spends on it. wow somebody has a chip on their shoulder. Somebody has run out of arguments whats there to argue against? you make blanket statements that are clearly insane and have no factual support as if they were the law. also, i dont really consider making arguments against you worthwhile since you have both feet clearly planted in la la land. do this, put some factual support for your arguments on the table and then we can have a discussion. You're the lawyer, aren't you? Put forth some evidence suggesting that I'm wrong, and that the majority of custody and child support cases don't rule in favor of women. i dont disagree with that statement. i do find it ironic that this is a sexist system put in place by men though, which kind of takes the wind out of your sails. i do disagree with everything else you put in your post. Women are far more likely to go through with a pregnancy when they 99% know that they will get to keep the child and get a check from the father for the next 18 years smells like bullshit. who will most likely not be allowed to see the child at a proportional rate to the money he spends on it. the law does not allow this. if you are saying its being applied this way, prove it. How does that smell like bullshit? Are you saying that women are literally financially retarded? Because if they aren't then that statement is only logical. Am I saying that most women have children to receive child support? No. Am I saying that knowing they will get it if they need it factors heavily into their decision making? Yes. Towards the last bitIf 90% of the people with equal custody pay their child support on time and 68% of people who pay child support don't pay it on time..... There are very very very very very very very very very very few situations in which having a child is financially a good idea, EVER. Receiving child support in no way compensates for the expenses.
You're either strawmanning or smoking the pipe here mate. We're talking about the difference between paying full price for something or getting it for 30% off, not some mystical land where women are all making bank off of child support payments (though I do actually know two people who do this).
|
On April 02 2015 04:02 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 03:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 03:48 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 03:42 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 03:32 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 03:24 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:20 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 03:18 Jormundr wrote:
[quote]
Men also don't have a chance of getting custody, or getting a nickel of support on the off chance that some judge actually rules in their favor. That is a valid complain that has nothing to do with abortion. It is a completely separate issue. Incorrect. Women are far more likely to go through with a pregnancy when they 99% know that they will get to keep the child and get a check from the father for the next 18 years, who will most likely not be allowed to see the child at a proportional rate to the money he spends on it. wow somebody has a chip on their shoulder. Somebody has run out of arguments whats there to argue against? you make blanket statements that are clearly insane and have no factual support as if they were the law. also, i dont really consider making arguments against you worthwhile since you have both feet clearly planted in la la land. do this, put some factual support for your arguments on the table and then we can have a discussion. You're the lawyer, aren't you? Put forth some evidence suggesting that I'm wrong, and that the majority of custody and child support cases don't rule in favor of women. i dont disagree with that statement. i do find it ironic that this is a sexist system put in place by men though, which kind of takes the wind out of your sails. i do disagree with everything else you put in your post. Women are far more likely to go through with a pregnancy when they 99% know that they will get to keep the child and get a check from the father for the next 18 years smells like bullshit. who will most likely not be allowed to see the child at a proportional rate to the money he spends on it. the law does not allow this. if you are saying its being applied this way, prove it. How does that smell like bullshit? Are you saying that women are literally financially retarded? Because if they aren't then that statement is only logical. Am I saying that most women have children to receive child support? No. Am I saying that knowing they will get it if they need it factors heavily into their decision making? Yes. Towards the last bitIf 90% of the people with equal custody pay their child support on time and 68% of people who pay child support don't pay it on time.....
Jormundr, your posts are dripping with a personal bias that (at least to me) indicates you have some sort of traumatic experience surrounding custody and/or child support. Saying things like women are far more likely to go through with a pregnancy because child support without any factual evidence for that is crazy.
Newsflash: child support payments are not enough to actually raise a child. A parent using child support as the sole means of raising a child or somehow making a profit and using child support payments for their personal needs and wants is likely committing child abuse and should be investigated as such. Acting like child support is somehow a free pass for raising a child on someone else's dime is demonstrating a disconnect from reality.
If you want to reform the system in terms of who gets custody and how much child support payments should be, I am all for that. Similarly, if you want to put a system in place that allows the man to disavow the child while the woman can still get an abortion so that he does not have to pay child support, I am all for that as well.
EDIT: Paying full price for what? This isn't a TV she's buying, it's raising a child. There are other things to consider than just the price. For women that just straight up do not want children, I don't think the discounted cost is going to make them any more likely to keep the child. Any predatory behavior on the woman's part could be prevented by my "man-abortion" suggestion (for lack of a better term).
|
On April 02 2015 04:05 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 04:00 Acrofales wrote:On April 02 2015 03:26 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 03:12 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 03:09 Acrofales wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 03:01 Jormundr wrote:
The only reason a man should have to pay child support is if there was a prior contract stating that he would do so. Putting your dick in someone shouldn't necessitate that you own her vagina or she owns your wallet. she doesn't though. You pay child support for the child, not for her... Not in the US. Custodian generally gets the money. I'm going out on a limb here to say that if the mother than takes the money and uses it to buy new clothes (or worse, meth) for herself (while neglecting the child), she loses custody and might even face criminal charges? Its almost like we have all seen this argument before over and over. Its like the last 4 pages have all been leading up to this point where the thread would degrade down to this tired discussion again. On April 02 2015 03:11 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 03:07 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 03:01 Jormundr wrote:
The only reason a man should have to pay child support is if there was a prior contract stating that he would do so. Putting your dick in someone shouldn't necessitate that you own her vagina or she owns your wallet. she doesn't though. You pay child support for the child, not for her... Not in the US. Custodian generally gets the money. Yes, that is how raising kids works. Also children can't enter contracts without parental approval. If you don't want to pay child support, avoid having children. You are the master of your penis and the law fully accepts that as a natural right and responsibility. Nice double standard. Women can get out of an unwanted pregnancy scot-free if they just get an abortion, but men are stuck with one no matter what. "If you don't want to a pregnancy, avoid having children. You are the master of your vagina and the law fully accepts that as a natural right and responsibility." Life is hard, get a condom if you don't want to pay child support. If you don't like that women get to choose to get an abortion, just know that the same rights will be provided to men when since gets there. Just not now. You said it yourself earlier that birth control doesn't always work. Women can have all the care-free sex they want, since they can just get an abortion. But men have no recourse. Either they don't have sex, or they risk paying child support for 18 years. Holy shit. 1. You downplay the emotional and physical risks of both pregnancy AND abortion. An abortion is considered a surgical procedure, and has real risks. It is, by all accounts, also a traumatic experience. If you call that care-free, you are completely disconnected from reality. 2. The argument has somehow moved from whether abortion should be allowed, to some kind of man's rights issue. So you conceded the point that abortion should be legal, but are now only arguing about whether it is ALSO okay for a man to force his girlfriend/wife/babymomma to have an abortion. Weren't you a libertarian? I have not conceded the point that abortion should be legal. I don't care whether it's legal or not (excluding the fact that the current cut-off is arbitrary BS). I think it should either be legal right up till the baby starts acting like a person, at like age 4 or whatever, or it shouldn't be legal at all. Now I'm arguing about removing a double standard. If it's OK for a woman who doesn't want a baby to have an abortion against the father's wishes, it should be OK for a father to not pay child support for a child he never wanted.
Okay. I think the problem we are having is that I do not consider the thing that is removed from a woman's body a human being, and thus do not attribute the same rights to it as you do. Whereas I do attribute those rights to the child after it has been born.
Btw, you must have real problems with in-vitro fertilization. Hundreds, if not thousands, of humans are flushed down the drain there every day.
|
On April 02 2015 04:14 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 04:05 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 04:00 Acrofales wrote:On April 02 2015 03:26 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 03:12 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 03:09 Acrofales wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 03:01 Jormundr wrote:
The only reason a man should have to pay child support is if there was a prior contract stating that he would do so. Putting your dick in someone shouldn't necessitate that you own her vagina or she owns your wallet. she doesn't though. You pay child support for the child, not for her... Not in the US. Custodian generally gets the money. I'm going out on a limb here to say that if the mother than takes the money and uses it to buy new clothes (or worse, meth) for herself (while neglecting the child), she loses custody and might even face criminal charges? Its almost like we have all seen this argument before over and over. Its like the last 4 pages have all been leading up to this point where the thread would degrade down to this tired discussion again. On April 02 2015 03:11 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 03:07 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 03:01 Jormundr wrote:
The only reason a man should have to pay child support is if there was a prior contract stating that he would do so. Putting your dick in someone shouldn't necessitate that you own her vagina or she owns your wallet. she doesn't though. You pay child support for the child, not for her... Not in the US. Custodian generally gets the money. Yes, that is how raising kids works. Also children can't enter contracts without parental approval. If you don't want to pay child support, avoid having children. You are the master of your penis and the law fully accepts that as a natural right and responsibility. Nice double standard. Women can get out of an unwanted pregnancy scot-free if they just get an abortion, but men are stuck with one no matter what. "If you don't want to a pregnancy, avoid having children. You are the master of your vagina and the law fully accepts that as a natural right and responsibility." Life is hard, get a condom if you don't want to pay child support. If you don't like that women get to choose to get an abortion, just know that the same rights will be provided to men when since gets there. Just not now. You said it yourself earlier that birth control doesn't always work. Women can have all the care-free sex they want, since they can just get an abortion. But men have no recourse. Either they don't have sex, or they risk paying child support for 18 years. Holy shit. 1. You downplay the emotional and physical risks of both pregnancy AND abortion. An abortion is considered a surgical procedure, and has real risks. It is, by all accounts, also a traumatic experience. If you call that care-free, you are completely disconnected from reality. 2. The argument has somehow moved from whether abortion should be allowed, to some kind of man's rights issue. So you conceded the point that abortion should be legal, but are now only arguing about whether it is ALSO okay for a man to force his girlfriend/wife/babymomma to have an abortion. Weren't you a libertarian? I have not conceded the point that abortion should be legal. I don't care whether it's legal or not (excluding the fact that the current cut-off is arbitrary BS). I think it should either be legal right up till the baby starts acting like a person, at like age 4 or whatever, or it shouldn't be legal at all. Now I'm arguing about removing a double standard. If it's OK for a woman who doesn't want a baby to have an abortion against the father's wishes, it should be OK for a father to not pay child support for a child he never wanted. Okay. I think the problem we are having is that I do not consider the thing that is removed from a woman's body a human being, and thus do not attribute the same rights to it as you do. Whereas I do attribute those rights to the child after it has been born. Btw, you must have real problems with in-vitro fertilization. Hundreds, if not thousands, of humans are flushed down the drain there every day.
I don't actually, because I lean towards the first position I stated. I think either are logically defensible, but I prefer the one that defines personhood based on sentience.
|
On April 02 2015 04:12 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 04:02 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 03:48 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 03:42 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 03:32 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 03:24 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:20 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
That is a valid complain that has nothing to do with abortion. It is a completely separate issue. Incorrect. Women are far more likely to go through with a pregnancy when they 99% know that they will get to keep the child and get a check from the father for the next 18 years, who will most likely not be allowed to see the child at a proportional rate to the money he spends on it. wow somebody has a chip on their shoulder. Somebody has run out of arguments whats there to argue against? you make blanket statements that are clearly insane and have no factual support as if they were the law. also, i dont really consider making arguments against you worthwhile since you have both feet clearly planted in la la land. do this, put some factual support for your arguments on the table and then we can have a discussion. You're the lawyer, aren't you? Put forth some evidence suggesting that I'm wrong, and that the majority of custody and child support cases don't rule in favor of women. i dont disagree with that statement. i do find it ironic that this is a sexist system put in place by men though, which kind of takes the wind out of your sails. i do disagree with everything else you put in your post. Women are far more likely to go through with a pregnancy when they 99% know that they will get to keep the child and get a check from the father for the next 18 years smells like bullshit. who will most likely not be allowed to see the child at a proportional rate to the money he spends on it. the law does not allow this. if you are saying its being applied this way, prove it. How does that smell like bullshit? Are you saying that women are literally financially retarded? Because if they aren't then that statement is only logical. Am I saying that most women have children to receive child support? No. Am I saying that knowing they will get it if they need it factors heavily into their decision making? Yes. Towards the last bitIf 90% of the people with equal custody pay their child support on time and 68% of people who pay child support don't pay it on time..... Jormundr, your posts are dripping with a personal bias that (at least to me) indicates you have some sort of traumatic experience surrounding custody and/or child support. Saying things like women are far more likely to go through with a pregnancy because child support without any factual evidence for that is crazy. Newsflash: child support payments are not enough to actually raise a child. A parent using child support as the sole means of raising a child or somehow making a profit and using child support payments for their personal needs and wants is likely committing child abuse and should be investigated as such. Acting like child support is somehow a free pass for raising a child on someone else's dime is demonstrating a disconnect from reality. If you want to reform the system in terms of who gets custody and how much child support payments should be, I am all for that. Similarly, if you want to put a system in place that allows the man to disavow the child while the woman can still get an abortion so that he does not have to pay child support, I am all for that as well.
Newsflash: No. You're the crazy one if you believe what you're saying. Are people more or less likely to go to college if they get a scholarship? More? Then why would it be different for child support? Child support is an incentive to have children. It may not be the sole reason, but it is A REASON, and A BIG ONE, as money usually is.
Tying back into abortion, 73% of women have abortions because they don't think it's financially viable.
And you're here telling me that money has NOTHING to do with giving birth to a child for women?
|
On April 02 2015 04:14 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 04:05 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 04:00 Acrofales wrote:On April 02 2015 03:26 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 03:12 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 03:09 Acrofales wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 03:01 Jormundr wrote:
The only reason a man should have to pay child support is if there was a prior contract stating that he would do so. Putting your dick in someone shouldn't necessitate that you own her vagina or she owns your wallet. she doesn't though. You pay child support for the child, not for her... Not in the US. Custodian generally gets the money. I'm going out on a limb here to say that if the mother than takes the money and uses it to buy new clothes (or worse, meth) for herself (while neglecting the child), she loses custody and might even face criminal charges? Its almost like we have all seen this argument before over and over. Its like the last 4 pages have all been leading up to this point where the thread would degrade down to this tired discussion again. On April 02 2015 03:11 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 03:07 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:03 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 03:01 Jormundr wrote:
The only reason a man should have to pay child support is if there was a prior contract stating that he would do so. Putting your dick in someone shouldn't necessitate that you own her vagina or she owns your wallet. she doesn't though. You pay child support for the child, not for her... Not in the US. Custodian generally gets the money. Yes, that is how raising kids works. Also children can't enter contracts without parental approval. If you don't want to pay child support, avoid having children. You are the master of your penis and the law fully accepts that as a natural right and responsibility. Nice double standard. Women can get out of an unwanted pregnancy scot-free if they just get an abortion, but men are stuck with one no matter what. "If you don't want to a pregnancy, avoid having children. You are the master of your vagina and the law fully accepts that as a natural right and responsibility." Life is hard, get a condom if you don't want to pay child support. If you don't like that women get to choose to get an abortion, just know that the same rights will be provided to men when since gets there. Just not now. You said it yourself earlier that birth control doesn't always work. Women can have all the care-free sex they want, since they can just get an abortion. But men have no recourse. Either they don't have sex, or they risk paying child support for 18 years. Holy shit. 1. You downplay the emotional and physical risks of both pregnancy AND abortion. An abortion is considered a surgical procedure, and has real risks. It is, by all accounts, also a traumatic experience. If you call that care-free, you are completely disconnected from reality. 2. The argument has somehow moved from whether abortion should be allowed, to some kind of man's rights issue. So you conceded the point that abortion should be legal, but are now only arguing about whether it is ALSO okay for a man to force his girlfriend/wife/babymomma to have an abortion. Weren't you a libertarian? I have not conceded the point that abortion should be legal. I don't care whether it's legal or not (excluding the fact that the current cut-off is arbitrary BS). I think it should either be legal right up till the baby starts acting like a person, at like age 4 or whatever, or it shouldn't be legal at all. Now I'm arguing about removing a double standard. If it's OK for a woman who doesn't want a baby to have an abortion against the father's wishes, it should be OK for a father to not pay child support for a child he never wanted. Okay. I think the problem we are having is that I do not consider the thing that is removed from a woman's body a human being, and thus do not attribute the same rights to it as you do. Whereas I do attribute those rights to the child after it has been born. Btw, you must have real problems with in-vitro fertilization. Hundreds, if not thousands, of humans are flushed down the drain there every day.
Millitron has drawn his arbitrary line at 4 years old in order to provide false-equivalence between abortion and infanticide. In his eyes, these two things are just as bad, so you may as well put them on the same side of the line rather than either side of the line. Thankfully our legal system settled this issue 40 years ago and drew the line when the fetus is you know, contained within the woman's body and wholly reliant on her biology and her alone for life support.
|
On April 02 2015 04:17 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 04:12 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 04:02 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 03:48 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 03:42 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 03:32 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 03:24 Jormundr wrote:
[quote]
Incorrect. Women are far more likely to go through with a pregnancy when they 99% know that they will get to keep the child and get a check from the father for the next 18 years, who will most likely not be allowed to see the child at a proportional rate to the money he spends on it. wow somebody has a chip on their shoulder. Somebody has run out of arguments whats there to argue against? you make blanket statements that are clearly insane and have no factual support as if they were the law. also, i dont really consider making arguments against you worthwhile since you have both feet clearly planted in la la land. do this, put some factual support for your arguments on the table and then we can have a discussion. You're the lawyer, aren't you? Put forth some evidence suggesting that I'm wrong, and that the majority of custody and child support cases don't rule in favor of women. i dont disagree with that statement. i do find it ironic that this is a sexist system put in place by men though, which kind of takes the wind out of your sails. i do disagree with everything else you put in your post. Women are far more likely to go through with a pregnancy when they 99% know that they will get to keep the child and get a check from the father for the next 18 years smells like bullshit. who will most likely not be allowed to see the child at a proportional rate to the money he spends on it. the law does not allow this. if you are saying its being applied this way, prove it. How does that smell like bullshit? Are you saying that women are literally financially retarded? Because if they aren't then that statement is only logical. Am I saying that most women have children to receive child support? No. Am I saying that knowing they will get it if they need it factors heavily into their decision making? Yes. Towards the last bitIf 90% of the people with equal custody pay their child support on time and 68% of people who pay child support don't pay it on time..... Jormundr, your posts are dripping with a personal bias that (at least to me) indicates you have some sort of traumatic experience surrounding custody and/or child support. Saying things like women are far more likely to go through with a pregnancy because child support without any factual evidence for that is crazy. Newsflash: child support payments are not enough to actually raise a child. A parent using child support as the sole means of raising a child or somehow making a profit and using child support payments for their personal needs and wants is likely committing child abuse and should be investigated as such. Acting like child support is somehow a free pass for raising a child on someone else's dime is demonstrating a disconnect from reality. If you want to reform the system in terms of who gets custody and how much child support payments should be, I am all for that. Similarly, if you want to put a system in place that allows the man to disavow the child while the woman can still get an abortion so that he does not have to pay child support, I am all for that as well. Newsflash: No. You're the crazy one if you believe what you're saying. Are people more or less likely to go to college if they get a scholarship? More? Then why would it be different for child support? Child support is an incentive to have children. It may not be the sole reason, but it is A REASON, and A BIG ONE, as money usually is.
So what is your alternative, since you refuse to comment on mine? Should child support just not be a thing? Fathers everywhere get a free pass to abandon their families at the drop of a hat and go do their own thing, yippee!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
