|
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 04:52 Karis Vas Ryaar 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. 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
It is the mother's choice, first and foremost. If the mother cannot provide a minimum level of care for the child then she shouldn't be the caregiver. Hence why we have other welfare in the form of social services. We even have welfare SPECIFICALLY CATERS to single mothers. Why not improve that rather than endorse state-enforced theft from people who have no reasonable obligation to a child that is not their own?
|
Looking over the recent discussion two things are abundantly clear.
1. No one posting has likely spent time in foster care, highly unlikely any posters were adopted too
2. It's all men/boys discussing it.
The almost elusively male white/Asian population of TL consistently suffers from having discussions woefully lacking popular perspectives from other groups.
The most important function of Abortion after saving a woman's life is preventing unwanted children. Of course things like real sexual education are preferred and proven far more effective than any abstinence only program, but you know..."God said blah blah or something!" We also aren't doing anyone any favors by lying to children about how sex works or hiding other relevant information/resources, like condoms or legitimate STI information.
On child support, it is bullshit on it's face that a woman who needs a check from a man is a better home for a child than the man who makes the money to support the child. A man and woman should have equal rights and responsibilities once the baby is born. A woman shouldn't be any more able to not work and get custody as a man. Though society would likely have negative things to say about a stay at home dad living off of his ex-wife's/baby momma's paychecks (not that they don't about women sometimes too).
I could understand if it was couched as... If he has to get childcare (most likely would as a working single parent) than after other members of his home (older children/new wife/grandma) the mother has first right of refusal for child care. Basically that a parent couldn't take a child to a daycare unless the other parent was unable/unwilling to supervise the child.
A problem here (like it is many other places) is abusive relationships. A 'traditional woman' gets with some abusive asshole and gets basically raped and impregnated. Now she is stuck, she doesn't believe in abortion but as a 'traditional' woman she didn't have income/skills/education. What other recourse does she have?
|
On April 02 2015 05:01 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 04:53 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Who would he sign this contract with?
|
is this even a point in politics ?!
Jormundr, everything you say, says more about you than politics ..
you are not able to understand a law, that is to my knowledge in every single country of the western world existent.
your arguments are childish
SHE has to do this
SHE has to know that blablabla
if you dont want to pay child support, use a condom, or start fucking man. thats the level of your arguments :D
|
On April 02 2015 05:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 05:01 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 04:53 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Who would he sign this contract with?
The partner who is pregnant or who is considering having children in the event of a pregnancy.
|
On April 02 2015 05:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 05:01 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 04:53 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Who would he sign this contract with?
The state? Who cares, the point is it is public record and official documentation of his decision. The woman does not factor into this decision, just like the decision to get an abortion is not up to him. But at least this way she knows whether or not he is committing to take care of the child, and it can factor into her decision whether or not to go through with the pregnancy.
|
On April 02 2015 05:05 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 05:03 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 05:01 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 04:53 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Who would he sign this contract with? The partner who is pregnant or who is considering having children in the event of a pregnancy.
that's the point he's making because that should not be legal... You don't pay child support to the mom, you pay child support for the kid (s welfare). You'd have to make a contract with the kid agreeing that you don't have to pay childsupport for him/her...
You can't make contracts like that...
|
On April 02 2015 05:07 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 05:05 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 05:03 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 05:01 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 04:53 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Who would he sign this contract with? The partner who is pregnant or who is considering having children in the event of a pregnancy. that's the point he's making because that should not be legal... You don't pay child support to the mom, you pay child support for the kid (s welfare). You'd have to make a contract with the kid agreeing that you don't have to pay childsupport for him/her... You can't make contracts like that...
Here's a timeline for you
Conception -------- What we're talking about -------------------------------------- Birth-------------------------- your strawman
|
On April 02 2015 05:07 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 05:05 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 05:03 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 05:01 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 04:53 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Who would he sign this contract with? The partner who is pregnant or who is considering having children in the event of a pregnancy. that's the point he's making because that should not be legal... You don't pay child support to the mom, you pay child support for the kid (s welfare). You'd have to make a contract with the kid agreeing that you don't have to pay childsupport for him/her... You can't make contracts like that...
The kid is a fetus, not a kid. I don't think these contracts should be allowed to exist after the period (and maybe even a little bit before) the woman is able to abort the pregnancy, because she should have all available information before that deadline is passed. But during her window to opt out, he should be able to opt out as well. The "he should have used a condom" argument is a silly one because it is the same one that people use to argue against abortion in the first place. It won't get you anywhere. Sometimes people have unprotected sex and shit happens. I would rather no one's life get ruined as a result instead of solely protecting the woman from an unwanted pregnancy.
|
On April 02 2015 05:05 phil.ipp wrote:
is this even a point in politics ?!
Jormundr, everything you say, says more about you than politics ..
you are not able to understand a law, that is to my knowledge in every single country of the western world existent.
your arguments are childish
SHE has to do this
SHE has to know that blablabla
if you dont want to pay child support, use a condom, or start fucking man. thats the level of your arguments :D
If you don't want a baby, don't have one works equally as well as an argument against child support.
|
you are scared of fucking women
man up.
either you search for a woman who you trust, and is on the pill.
or you protect yourself with a condom.
we didnt create nations, who should now pass law, so you can fuck carefree without any social conscience
now please lets discuss something that actually matters
|
On April 02 2015 05:10 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 05:07 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 05:05 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 05:03 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 05:01 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 04:53 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote] 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. Who would he sign this contract with? The partner who is pregnant or who is considering having children in the event of a pregnancy. that's the point he's making because that should not be legal... You don't pay child support to the mom, you pay child support for the kid (s welfare). You'd have to make a contract with the kid agreeing that you don't have to pay childsupport for him/her... You can't make contracts like that... Here's a timeline for you Conception -------- What we're talking about -------------------------------------- Birth-------------------------- your strawman On April 02 2015 05:11 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 05:07 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 05:05 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 05:03 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 05:01 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 04:53 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote] 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. Who would he sign this contract with? The partner who is pregnant or who is considering having children in the event of a pregnancy. that's the point he's making because that should not be legal... You don't pay child support to the mom, you pay child support for the kid (s welfare). You'd have to make a contract with the kid agreeing that you don't have to pay childsupport for him/her... You can't make contracts like that... The kid is a fetus, not a kid. I don't think these contracts should be allowed to exist after the period (and maybe even a little bit before) the woman is able to abort the pregnancy, because she should have all available information before that deadline is passed. But during her window to opt out, he should be able to opt out as well. The "he should have used a condom" argument is a silly one because it is the same one that people use to argue against abortion in the first place. It won't get you anywhere. Sometimes people have unprotected sex and shit happens. I would rather no one's life get ruined as a result instead of solely protecting the woman from an unwanted pregnancy.
doesn't change the fact that it's the kid that's getting fucked over later on, wether or not he/she was a "kid" at that point in time.
If you want to increase taxes and change opting out to state welfare that'd be at least something you can talk about...
|
also I think you're exaggerating when you assume that having an unwanted kid as a man and paying child support=life ruined. there's lots of people who had kids they didn't necessarily want who've managed to be happy with their lives
|
On April 02 2015 05:01 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 04:53 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
the problem here is that it completely ignores the child's rights. the mother makes a stupid decision, but the child suffers.
people dont understand (or ignore) the fact that child support is not about the parents' rights, its about the child's rights.
also, going down the rabbit hole a bit, shouldnt the contract be signed before sex, not after? and, shouldnt i as a taxpayer, be allowed to refuse my consent to this contract since I will be the one paying for this child most likely?
|
On April 02 2015 05:15 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
also I think you're exaggerating when you assume that having an unwanted kid as a man and paying child support=life ruined. there's lots of people who had kids they didn't necessarily want who've managed to be happy with their lives
The key part of that is that he is paying it to a woman against his will and he doesn't like that at all because he couldn't made decisions. I mean, he could make the decision not to have sex, but he doesn't like that option either.
Of course the argument will be made that women are care free, because abortions are not major, painful surgical procedures. But that part isn't as important as the part where its unfair to men. We are close to the red pill right now.
|
On April 02 2015 05:13 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 05:10 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 05:07 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 05:05 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 05:03 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 05:01 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 04:53 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 04:51 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 04:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 04:28 Jormundr wrote:
[quote]
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. Who would he sign this contract with? The partner who is pregnant or who is considering having children in the event of a pregnancy. that's the point he's making because that should not be legal... You don't pay child support to the mom, you pay child support for the kid (s welfare). You'd have to make a contract with the kid agreeing that you don't have to pay childsupport for him/her... You can't make contracts like that... Here's a timeline for you Conception -------- What we're talking about -------------------------------------- Birth-------------------------- your strawman Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 05:11 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 05:07 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 05:05 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 05:03 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 05:01 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 04:53 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 04:51 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 04:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 04:28 Jormundr wrote:
[quote]
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. Who would he sign this contract with? The partner who is pregnant or who is considering having children in the event of a pregnancy. that's the point he's making because that should not be legal... You don't pay child support to the mom, you pay child support for the kid (s welfare). You'd have to make a contract with the kid agreeing that you don't have to pay childsupport for him/her... You can't make contracts like that... The kid is a fetus, not a kid. I don't think these contracts should be allowed to exist after the period (and maybe even a little bit before) the woman is able to abort the pregnancy, because she should have all available information before that deadline is passed. But during her window to opt out, he should be able to opt out as well. The "he should have used a condom" argument is a silly one because it is the same one that people use to argue against abortion in the first place. It won't get you anywhere. Sometimes people have unprotected sex and shit happens. I would rather no one's life get ruined as a result instead of solely protecting the woman from an unwanted pregnancy. doesn't change the fact that it's the kid that's getting fucked over later on, wether or not he/she was a "kid" at that point in time. If you want to increase taxes and change opting out to state welfare that'd be at least something you can talk about...
We're getting into semantics here, but if the father opts out and the mother goes along with the pregnancy anyway and is unable to provide for her child, who is screwing the kid in the end? If you aren't able to financially take care of a child, don't have the child, that's pretty self-explanatory. Whether you can depend on one or two incomes factors into that decision, and I just think all the cards should be on the table while she still has a chance to abort.
|
On April 02 2015 05:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 05:15 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
also I think you're exaggerating when you assume that having an unwanted kid as a man and paying child support=life ruined. there's lots of people who had kids they didn't necessarily want who've managed to be happy with their lives The key part of that is that he is paying it to a woman against his will and he doesn't like that at all because he couldn't made decisions. I mean, he could make the decision not to have sex, but he doesn't like that option either. Of course the argument will be made that women are care free, because abortions are not major, painful surgical procedures.
I know I'm just objecting to some of his appeals to emotion and framing that are irrelevant to his actual argument xD.
|
On April 02 2015 04:37 phil.ipp wrote:
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
Let me just note that I know enough about enough of the regular posters in here to say that practically no one fits into the "16 year old computer nerd category." 
|
On April 02 2015 05:18 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 05:13 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 05:10 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 05:07 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 05:05 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 05:03 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 05:01 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 04:53 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 04:51 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 04:48 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
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. Who would he sign this contract with? The partner who is pregnant or who is considering having children in the event of a pregnancy. that's the point he's making because that should not be legal... You don't pay child support to the mom, you pay child support for the kid (s welfare). You'd have to make a contract with the kid agreeing that you don't have to pay childsupport for him/her... You can't make contracts like that... Here's a timeline for you Conception -------- What we're talking about -------------------------------------- Birth-------------------------- your strawman On April 02 2015 05:11 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 05:07 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 05:05 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 05:03 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 05:01 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 04:53 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 04:51 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 04:48 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
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. Who would he sign this contract with? The partner who is pregnant or who is considering having children in the event of a pregnancy. that's the point he's making because that should not be legal... You don't pay child support to the mom, you pay child support for the kid (s welfare). You'd have to make a contract with the kid agreeing that you don't have to pay childsupport for him/her... You can't make contracts like that... The kid is a fetus, not a kid. I don't think these contracts should be allowed to exist after the period (and maybe even a little bit before) the woman is able to abort the pregnancy, because she should have all available information before that deadline is passed. But during her window to opt out, he should be able to opt out as well. The "he should have used a condom" argument is a silly one because it is the same one that people use to argue against abortion in the first place. It won't get you anywhere. Sometimes people have unprotected sex and shit happens. I would rather no one's life get ruined as a result instead of solely protecting the woman from an unwanted pregnancy. doesn't change the fact that it's the kid that's getting fucked over later on, wether or not he/she was a "kid" at that point in time. If you want to increase taxes and change opting out to state welfare that'd be at least something you can talk about... We're getting into semantics here, but if the father opts out and the mother goes along with the pregnancy anyway and is unable to provide for her child, who is screwing the kid in the end? If you aren't able to financially take care of a child, don't have the child, that's pretty self-explanatory. Whether you can depend on one or two incomes factors into that decision, and I just think all the cards should be on the table while she still has a chance to abort.
I mean he even agreed with me...Here's a timeline for you
Conception -------- What we're talking about -------------------------------------- Birth-------------------------- your strawman
Pregnancy and a Kid as well as child support are two different concepts.
One leads to the other but they have to be looked at seperately because they're completly different issues.
|
On April 02 2015 05:12 phil.ipp wrote:
you are scared of fucking women
man up.
either you search for a woman who you trust, and is on the pill.
or you protect yourself with a condom.
we didnt create nations so you can fuck carefree without any social conscience
now please lets discuss something that actually matters
You are incapable of analyzing the stupid crap you're saying.
Either you search for a man you can trust, and who will pay for a child if you want to have one
Or you don't have the baby, or have the baby without his financial support.
Funny how even in this situation, the woman still has more freedom than men do currently
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
