|
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. |
ok, i have a question regarding the meaning of the word sentient. my online translation tells me that i would include children/late term embryos/ all kind of non human animals.
what exactly does it mean?
i'd like to point out that personhood and having the right to live are two different things
|
On April 02 2015 04:19 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 04:17 Jormundr wrote: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:
[quote]
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!
He has no solution, only a chip on his shoulder and some stats that he claims are real, but lack citation.
|
On April 02 2015 04:17 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 04:14 Acrofales wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
I've been saying 4 years because that's my experience as to when babies start to develop sentience. Like I said, I'm OK with abortion before it. I'm not trying to say a fetus is a human. I'm saying a 2-day old baby is not.
|
On April 02 2015 04:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 04:19 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 04:17 Jormundr wrote: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:
[quote]
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! He has no solution, only a chip on his shoulder and some stats that he claims are real, but lack citation.
he has a solution, which he clearly stated before. the father has to agree to pay child support via contract.
its stupid as hell, but thats his solution.
edit:
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.
|
On April 02 2015 04:19 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 04:17 Jormundr wrote: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:
[quote]
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!
Fathers should have the choice to opt out of paying for a child that they had no intention of raising or connection to. If you are considering having a child and you want your partner to help pay for it, discuss it with them and if they agree get a legal record of exactly what responsibilities they have. If they don't agree then find someone who does or accept all the responsibility yourself.
If deemed necessary revamp the welfare system.
Also make abortions available + free, it's stupid to force people to have children.
|
On April 02 2015 04:24 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 04:22 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 04:19 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 04:17 Jormundr wrote: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:[quote] 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! He has no solution, only a chip on his shoulder and some stats that he claims are real, but lack citation. he has a solution, which he clearly stated before. the father has to agree to pay child support via contract. its stupid as hell, but thats his solution. edit: Show nested quote +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.
It's stupid as hell to discuss who should pay for children in a committed relationship? Or is it dumber to be like you and assume that you're expected to pay for sex in a country where prostitution is illegal?
|
On April 02 2015 04:20 Paljas wrote:
ok, i have a question regarding the meaning of the word sentient. my online translation tells me that i would include children/late term embryos/ all kind of non human animals.
what exactly does it mean?
i'd like to point out that personhood and having the right to live are two different things
dictionary.com refers to it as "an attitude toward something; regard; opinion."
"a mental feeling; emotion:"
as well as "refined or tender emotion; manifestation of the higher or more refined feelings."
I'm pretty sure that on a practical level no native English speaker would refer to an embryo as having sentiment
personally I think that animals would have sentiment but I'm not sure if evryone would agree with that
I don't know enough about human psychology and development to know at what point one would develop sentiment.
hope this helps somewhat.
|
On April 02 2015 04:29 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 04:20 Paljas wrote:
ok, i have a question regarding the meaning of the word sentient. my online translation tells me that i would include children/late term embryos/ all kind of non human animals.
what exactly does it mean?
i'd like to point out that personhood and having the right to live are two different things dictionary.com refers to it as "an attitude toward something; regard; opinion." "a mental feeling; emotion:" as well as "refined or tender emotion; manifestation of the higher or more refined feelings." I'm pretty sure that on a pracitcal level no natice englich speecher would refer to an embryo as having sentiment
You're confusing sentient (the word in question) with sentiment. Sentience is the ability to feel/experience the world.
|
On April 02 2015 04:24 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 04:22 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 04:19 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 04:17 Jormundr wrote: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:[quote] 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! He has no solution, only a chip on his shoulder and some stats that he claims are real, but lack citation. he has a solution, which he clearly stated before. the father has to agree to pay child support via contract. its stupid as hell, but thats his solution. edit: Show nested quote +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.
Yeah, I discarded the "solution" that has a zero % chance of working and just washed one party of all responsibility.
|
anyway the problem with saying you shouldn't have welfare is that your punishing the child who's innocent in the whole thing. and saying you should have no responsibility to your biological offspring just because you didn't want them seems to go against common human opinions of morality.
|
On April 02 2015 04:35 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 04:31 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 04:29 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On April 02 2015 04:20 Paljas wrote:
ok, i have a question regarding the meaning of the word sentient. my online translation tells me that i would include children/late term embryos/ all kind of non human animals.
what exactly does it mean?
i'd like to point out that personhood and having the right to live are two different things dictionary.com refers to it as "an attitude toward something; regard; opinion." "a mental feeling; emotion:" as well as "refined or tender emotion; manifestation of the higher or more refined feelings." I'm pretty sure that on a pracitcal level no natice englich speecher would refer to an embryo as having sentiment You're confusing sentient (the word in question) with sentiment. Sentience is the ability to feel/experience the world.
oh lol complete reading comprehension fail on my part..
dictionary defines it as
"having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
2.
characterized by sensation and consciousness."
phylisophically it gets complicated
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience
fundamentally "sentience is the ability to experience sensations"
in regards to animal cnsciousness also tricky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness
I think most people consider animals Sentient though I could be wrong.
no one would consider an embryo sentient(at least I can't figure out a single argument someone could make in favor of it). not sure where the cutoff point on human development would be.
hope that clarifies it a little bit.
|
what i remind myself again and again if im discussing things here on TL, especially woman/man related stuff
maybe you talk to 16 year old computer nerd :D
puts things into perspective :D
|
On April 02 2015 04:28 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 04:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 04:22 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 04:19 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 04:17 Jormundr wrote: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:
[quote]
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! He has no solution, only a chip on his shoulder and some stats that he claims are real, but lack citation. he has a solution, which he clearly stated before. the father has to agree to pay child support via contract. its stupid as hell, but thats his solution. edit: 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. It's stupid as hell to discuss who should pay for children in a committed relationship? Or is it dumber to be like you and assume that you're expected to pay for sex in a country where prostitution is illegal?
its stupid as hell to let a child's welfare depend on the whims of the father. fathers who are responsible dont need a contract; fathers who are not wont sign a contract.
also, there is such a thing as a social contract (i.e., the law). not sure why that is not sufficient in lieu of a private contract.
|
On April 02 2015 04:48 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 04:28 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 04:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 04:22 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 04:19 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 04:17 Jormundr wrote: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:
[quote]
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! He has no solution, only a chip on his shoulder and some stats that he claims are real, but lack citation. he has a solution, which he clearly stated before. the father has to agree to pay child support via contract. its stupid as hell, but thats his solution. edit: 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. It's stupid as hell to discuss who should pay for children in a committed relationship? Or is it dumber to be like you and assume that you're expected to pay for sex in a country where prostitution is illegal? its stupid as hell to let a child's welfare depend on the whims of the father. fathers who are responsible dont need a contract; fathers who are not wont sign a contract. also, there is such a thing as a social contract (i.e., the law). not sure why that is not sufficient in lieu of a private contract.
the law described more how it is now not how it should be. Obviously the law requires you to pay child support I'm thinking he's saying that it shouldn't. unless I'm missing your point
|
On April 02 2015 04:48 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 04:28 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 04:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 04:22 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 04:19 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 04:17 Jormundr wrote: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:
[quote]
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! He has no solution, only a chip on his shoulder and some stats that he claims are real, but lack citation. he has a solution, which he clearly stated before. the father has to agree to pay child support via contract. its stupid as hell, but thats his solution. edit: 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. It's stupid as hell to discuss who should pay for children in a committed relationship? Or is it dumber to be like you and assume that you're expected to pay for sex in a country where prostitution is illegal? its stupid as hell to let a child's welfare depend on the whims of the father. fathers who are responsible dont need a contract; fathers who are not wont sign a contract. also, there is such a thing as a social contract (i.e., the law). not sure why that is not sufficient in lieu of a private contract.
So why have a baby with an irresponsible father? Answer: a woman should always be free to NOT do that. And she should also be free to do that. She just shouldn't be free to expect that some random guy who she fucks is going to pay for HER child.
|
On April 02 2015 04:51 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 04:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 04:28 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 04:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 04:22 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 04:19 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 04:17 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 04:12 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 04:02 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:54 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
smells like bullshit.
[quote]
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! He has no solution, only a chip on his shoulder and some stats that he claims are real, but lack citation. he has a solution, which he clearly stated before. the father has to agree to pay child support via contract. its stupid as hell, but thats his solution. edit: 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. It's stupid as hell to discuss who should pay for children in a committed relationship? Or is it dumber to be like you and assume that you're expected to pay for sex in a country where prostitution is illegal? its stupid as hell to let a child's welfare depend on the whims of the father. fathers who are responsible dont need a contract; fathers who are not wont sign a contract. also, there is such a thing as a social contract (i.e., the law). not sure why that is not sufficient in lieu of a private contract. So why have a baby with an irresponsible father? Answer: a woman should always be free to NOT do that. And she should also be free to do that. She just shouldn't be free to expect that some random guy who she fucks is going to pay for HER child.
can we just sum up all of your arguments to "its the woman's fault" for sake of brevity?
|
On April 02 2015 04:51 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 04:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 04:28 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 04:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 04:22 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 04:19 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 04:17 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 04:12 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 04:02 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:54 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
smells like bullshit.
[quote]
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! He has no solution, only a chip on his shoulder and some stats that he claims are real, but lack citation. he has a solution, which he clearly stated before. the father has to agree to pay child support via contract. its stupid as hell, but thats his solution. edit: 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. It's stupid as hell to discuss who should pay for children in a committed relationship? Or is it dumber to be like you and assume that you're expected to pay for sex in a country where prostitution is illegal? its stupid as hell to let a child's welfare depend on the whims of the father. fathers who are responsible dont need a contract; fathers who are not wont sign a contract. also, there is such a thing as a social contract (i.e., the law). not sure why that is not sufficient in lieu of a private contract. So why have a baby with an irresponsible father? Answer: a woman should always be free to NOT do that. And she should also be free to do that. She just shouldn't be free to expect that some random guy who she fucks is going to pay for HER child.
It's not fair to the child though to say that they have to suffer because of circumstances out of there control. your focusing on the mother when the reason for welfare is the good of the child
|
On April 02 2015 04:51 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 04:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 04:28 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 04:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 04:22 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 04:19 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 04:17 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 04:12 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 04:02 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:54 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
smells like bullshit.
[quote]
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! He has no solution, only a chip on his shoulder and some stats that he claims are real, but lack citation. he has a solution, which he clearly stated before. the father has to agree to pay child support via contract. its stupid as hell, but thats his solution. edit: 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. It's stupid as hell to discuss who should pay for children in a committed relationship? Or is it dumber to be like you and assume that you're expected to pay for sex in a country where prostitution is illegal? its stupid as hell to let a child's welfare depend on the whims of the father. fathers who are responsible dont need a contract; fathers who are not wont sign a contract. also, there is such a thing as a social contract (i.e., the law). not sure why that is not sufficient in lieu of a private contract. So why have a baby with an irresponsible father? Answer: a woman should always be free to NOT do that. And she should also be free to do that. She just shouldn't be free to expect that some random guy who she fucks is going to pay for HER child.
Except it is his child too. There is no debating that he was instrumental in the child's creation.
|
On April 02 2015 04:53 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 04:51 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 04:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 04:28 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 04:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 04:22 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 04:19 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 04:17 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 04:12 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 04:02 Jormundr wrote:[quote] 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! He has no solution, only a chip on his shoulder and some stats that he claims are real, but lack citation. he has a solution, which he clearly stated before. the father has to agree to pay child support via contract. its stupid as hell, but thats his solution. edit: 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. It's stupid as hell to discuss who should pay for children in a committed relationship? Or is it dumber to be like you and assume that you're expected to pay for sex in a country where prostitution is illegal? its stupid as hell to let a child's welfare depend on the whims of the father. fathers who are responsible dont need a contract; fathers who are not wont sign a contract. also, there is such a thing as a social contract (i.e., the law). not sure why that is not sufficient in lieu of a private contract. So why have a baby with an irresponsible father? Answer: a woman should always be free to NOT do that. And she should also be free to do that. She just shouldn't be free to expect that some random guy who she fucks is going to pay for HER child. Except it is his child too. There is no debating that he was instrumental in the child's creation.
Now that I understand his specific position on child support, I agree with him. You all are providing counterarguments that assume the child has already been born, when that doesn't have to be the case. Is there any fundamental problem with the following scenario:
During the period during a pregnancy in which abortion is legal, the man is able to sign a contract stating he does not want a child, relinquishing any right to custody and any financial responsibility. At that point the woman can decide if she wants to raise the child alone, have an abortion, or put the child up for adoption. All the cards are on the table and both parties know how committed the other is to raising the child, and can use that information in determining whether or not they would like to have a child. If she does continue with the pregnancy after such a contract has been signed, the man (or woman, depending on custody) would be responsible for child support should it come to that.
|
On April 02 2015 04:51 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 04:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 04:28 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 04:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 04:22 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 04:19 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 04:17 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 04:12 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 04:02 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 03:54 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
smells like bullshit.
[quote]
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! He has no solution, only a chip on his shoulder and some stats that he claims are real, but lack citation. he has a solution, which he clearly stated before. the father has to agree to pay child support via contract. its stupid as hell, but thats his solution. edit: 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. It's stupid as hell to discuss who should pay for children in a committed relationship? Or is it dumber to be like you and assume that you're expected to pay for sex in a country where prostitution is illegal? its stupid as hell to let a child's welfare depend on the whims of the father. fathers who are responsible dont need a contract; fathers who are not wont sign a contract. also, there is such a thing as a social contract (i.e., the law). not sure why that is not sufficient in lieu of a private contract. So why have a baby with an irresponsible father? Answer: a woman should always be free to NOT do that. And she should also be free to do that. She just shouldn't be free to expect that some random guy who she fucks is going to pay for HER child.
Their child... I don't like the fact that fathers have such a horrible chance to get custody either but throwing a tantrum doesn't make it any better and it should be considered separately
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
