|
On September 20 2011 04:13 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 02:44 Lord_J wrote:On September 20 2011 02:37 scorch- wrote:
Abolish child support outside of divorce situations. A woman has no right to expect anyone not wed to her to support her financially, why can she expect to have support for a child she births? If she chooses to have an abortion, and can prove who was responsible, she can get 50% of the cost out of him. There are methods that reliably prevent pregnancy from occurring before it happens, and only she can control whether those methods get used... What you--and those making similar arguments in this thread--seem to fail to realise is that the expectation of support that the law provides for is not for the woman's sake, but for the child's. Then why aren't women obligated to spend child-support payments on the child? I mean, the money is "for the child's sake".
I really don't know what it's like in Canada, but in germany women have to spend child-support as well if the man turns out to raise the children. So if it really isn't that way in canada that sucks, but is again, a different problem.
On September 20 2011 04:15 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 04:01 Toadesstern wrote:On September 20 2011 03:58 sevencck wrote:On September 20 2011 03:23 Adolith wrote:
I think there are some misconceptions in this thread.
Then, people compare 9 months of pregnancy with paying 18 years of support. The mother in this case still has to raise the child, buy food/clothes etc. That is no small feat. If the mother decides to keep the child, she has a higher "price" to pay imho. If you feel your money is misused, there a still child services, court etc. The difference is whatever the woman pays she has the privilege of living according to her own choices. The man loses this privilege. If you believe that sacrificing your own hopes and ambitions due to a woman making your life choice on your behalf and expecting 18 years of financial servitude can be compared to 9 months of possibly (and very probably) happy pregnancy and motherhood, you are mistaken indeed. Validating this with a statement like "you shouldn't have had sex if you weren't ready to be a father" is ludicrous and ridiculous. Pointing to the difficulties of pregnancy or even abortion is irrelevant because the issue here is choice, and in either case the woman has it. as someone said earlier, we're not living in utopia and sometimes life's a bitch and you got to stand up responsible. There are just no alternatives to what we got. Yeah it's not nice that a man and a woman got to pay for a baby although they don't have the money if it happened to early but again, the alternatives are far worse and illegal. Adoption and abortion are both legal....
yes they are, but forced adoption and abortion aren't
|
On September 20 2011 04:04 CCitrus wrote:
A lot of flaming tempers. This might be a lost cause, but can we all take this debate a little less personally?
Question: Exactly how much are child support payments? I have no idea.
The average amount of child support owed in this country boils down to about $300 a month. Similarly, on average, country wide, only 67% of that is actually paid.
It's not like these women are living large off this "free money", nor are their lives super easy whilst raising a child. It's clearly a small enough sum of money that another income source is needed, and raising a child takes a fucking LOT of time/effort.
|
On September 20 2011 04:14 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 04:10 seppolevne wrote:On September 20 2011 03:41 Haemonculus wrote:On September 20 2011 03:32 Klipsys wrote:On September 20 2011 03:19 Toadesstern wrote:
And stop crying about men having to pay for the rest of their lives... it's not like women are sitting at home, laughing while the guy pays 100% and the woman enjoys good life with everything being paid. They got to feel the consequences, too. Yeah they can decide to abort, but still you guys make it sound like it's only "unfair" for men while women have a nice time.
Okay, there are alot of single moms who are struggling and there providing for there kids and that's fine. However, there are also alot of women who treat their kids as dolls and get paid money to dress them up. You have no idea how often I've seen mothers in designer clothing while there kid is in a burlap sack. And they buy shit with a unemployment debit card. And their kids usually can't read or write, and is probably going to end up stealing my car. I don't understand how people continue to argue like this. Random, highly uncommon, (and occasionally on these boards, entirely imagined) examples do not constitute a sound argument. So uncommon circumstances should not be considered by law? "Oh that doesn't happen very often so don't worry about it, they can just deal." I think laws should be in place to protect people in all circumstances, not just the most common. My point is that you can't bring up super ridiculous and uncommon examples and base an argument on them. "I once heard a story about some crazy broad who scraped semen and jammed it in herself, therefore women cheat the system often and can't be trusted to receive child support" or: "I read an article about some guy who accidentally shot himself, therefore gun accidents are super common, and no one should be allowed to have them." You've got to look at a much wider range of numbers before taking fringe outliers and holding them up as examples to represent your point.
I would think that looking at fringe outliers would give you the greatest possible range of numbers, which is why they are outliers. If you can design a system to handle the wackiness at the ends of the spectrum, it will handle the inner stuff no problem. Making rules to handle the middle 95% is nice, but you still screw over that 5%.
|
yes they are, but forced adoption and abortion aren't
Yet forcibly taking money away from a man for the woman should be?
The issue here is the "choice" part. Why is it acceptable to you that the woman has the choice, and the man just "has to live with it"?
It's not like these women are living large off this "free money", nor are their lives super easy whilst raising a child. It's clearly a small enough sum of money that another income source is needed, and raising a child takes a fucking LOT of time/effort.
Their choice. Has nothing to do with the argument. Nobody is arguing raising a child is easy, the issue here is that woman do have the choice of whether or not to have the child, yet the man has no choice in whether or not he has to pay for it.
|
|
|
On September 20 2011 04:21 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:Yet forcibly taking money away from a man for the woman should be? The issue here is the "choice" part. Why is it acceptable to you that the woman has the choice, and the man just "has to live with it"?
That's just my point. You ARE NOT taking the money away from the man and giving it a woman. If this would be the case a contract like you guys would like would be legal. You are giving that money to your kid! The parents just end up organizing it since it's kinda hard to buy yourself a meal at the age of 1.
I see the point that it's not nice and I totally agree with it. However the alternatives are way worse.
You can't force abortion, no matter if the reason is the guy not willing to pay or the government telling the parents they're to poor to have a child.
So if you guys come up with a solution that'd be awesome but everything we got so far is whining about how unfair life is with a few ideas that end up way worse if you think it through.
|
On September 20 2011 04:21 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:Yet forcibly taking money away from a man for the woman should be? The issue here is the "choice" part. Why is it acceptable to you that the woman has the choice, and the man just "has to live with it"?
This exactly. I was going to respond along this line of thought and you have done it for me. Also, "life is not fair" is not the logical basis for the statement that "The women has the higher risks to take, the higher price to pay, so she makes the choice." Noone is denying a woman the right to choose, I'm fully in favor of it. We are suggesting those choices shouldn't speak for the man to the extent that they do. "Life is not fair" can be equally erroneously used as a logical basis for anyone's point. As an example, if you can't support the child on your own, then perhaps you should consider one of the alternatives available to you -- putting it up for adoption for example, and if this isn't satisfactory to you, then I'll remind you that life isn't fair.
|
I think that if that the woman should have the right to decide if she wants to keep the child or abort it. If she decides she wants to give birth but doesn't want to keep it the father should have the option to take the child as his child alone and the mother should have no financial responsibility to it. The other part of this is; I believe if the mother wants to give birth and keep the child then the father can decide if he wants to give up his rights to the child and give the child completely over to the mother w/o any financial responsibility to the child. If neither of them want the child but want to give birth they can put the child up for adoption to a third party and neither parent will have any financial responsibility to the child. The strange thing is all of these possibilities are in law today except for the one where the father doesn't want the child and the mother does. Its just fair and to those of you talking about supernatural laws over the laws of men please take your religion and keep it in your church. There is no higher law than the law of man. Even nature bends to our will.
|
On September 20 2011 04:18 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 04:14 Haemonculus wrote:On September 20 2011 04:10 seppolevne wrote:On September 20 2011 03:41 Haemonculus wrote:On September 20 2011 03:32 Klipsys wrote:On September 20 2011 03:19 Toadesstern wrote:
And stop crying about men having to pay for the rest of their lives... it's not like women are sitting at home, laughing while the guy pays 100% and the woman enjoys good life with everything being paid. They got to feel the consequences, too. Yeah they can decide to abort, but still you guys make it sound like it's only "unfair" for men while women have a nice time.
Okay, there are alot of single moms who are struggling and there providing for there kids and that's fine. However, there are also alot of women who treat their kids as dolls and get paid money to dress them up. You have no idea how often I've seen mothers in designer clothing while there kid is in a burlap sack. And they buy shit with a unemployment debit card. And their kids usually can't read or write, and is probably going to end up stealing my car. I don't understand how people continue to argue like this. Random, highly uncommon, (and occasionally on these boards, entirely imagined) examples do not constitute a sound argument. So uncommon circumstances should not be considered by law? "Oh that doesn't happen very often so don't worry about it, they can just deal." I think laws should be in place to protect people in all circumstances, not just the most common. My point is that you can't bring up super ridiculous and uncommon examples and base an argument on them. "I once heard a story about some crazy broad who scraped semen and jammed it in herself, therefore women cheat the system often and can't be trusted to receive child support" or: "I read an article about some guy who accidentally shot himself, therefore gun accidents are super common, and no one should be allowed to have them." You've got to look at a much wider range of numbers before taking fringe outliers and holding them up as examples to represent your point. I would think that looking at fringe outliers would give you the greatest possible range of numbers, which is why they are outliers. If you can design a system to handle the wackiness at the ends of the spectrum, it will handle the inner stuff no problem. Making rules to handle the middle 95% is nice, but you still screw over that 5%.
And if a full 5% of unwanted pregnancies occurred because crazy people were impregnating themselves on discarded rags, maybe it would be worth looking into.
|
On September 20 2011 04:31 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 04:18 seppolevne wrote:On September 20 2011 04:14 Haemonculus wrote:On September 20 2011 04:10 seppolevne wrote:On September 20 2011 03:41 Haemonculus wrote:On September 20 2011 03:32 Klipsys wrote:On September 20 2011 03:19 Toadesstern wrote:
And stop crying about men having to pay for the rest of their lives... it's not like women are sitting at home, laughing while the guy pays 100% and the woman enjoys good life with everything being paid. They got to feel the consequences, too. Yeah they can decide to abort, but still you guys make it sound like it's only "unfair" for men while women have a nice time.
Okay, there are alot of single moms who are struggling and there providing for there kids and that's fine. However, there are also alot of women who treat their kids as dolls and get paid money to dress them up. You have no idea how often I've seen mothers in designer clothing while there kid is in a burlap sack. And they buy shit with a unemployment debit card. And their kids usually can't read or write, and is probably going to end up stealing my car. I don't understand how people continue to argue like this. Random, highly uncommon, (and occasionally on these boards, entirely imagined) examples do not constitute a sound argument. So uncommon circumstances should not be considered by law? "Oh that doesn't happen very often so don't worry about it, they can just deal." I think laws should be in place to protect people in all circumstances, not just the most common. My point is that you can't bring up super ridiculous and uncommon examples and base an argument on them. "I once heard a story about some crazy broad who scraped semen and jammed it in herself, therefore women cheat the system often and can't be trusted to receive child support" or: "I read an article about some guy who accidentally shot himself, therefore gun accidents are super common, and no one should be allowed to have them." You've got to look at a much wider range of numbers before taking fringe outliers and holding them up as examples to represent your point. I would think that looking at fringe outliers would give you the greatest possible range of numbers, which is why they are outliers. If you can design a system to handle the wackiness at the ends of the spectrum, it will handle the inner stuff no problem. Making rules to handle the middle 95% is nice, but you still screw over that 5%. And if a full 5% of unwanted pregnancies occurred because crazy people were impregnating themselves on discarded rags, maybe it would be worth looking into.
His reasoning holds whether you define the extreme ends of the spectrum as 5% or 0.05%.
|
On September 20 2011 04:33 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 04:31 Haemonculus wrote:On September 20 2011 04:18 seppolevne wrote:On September 20 2011 04:14 Haemonculus wrote:On September 20 2011 04:10 seppolevne wrote:On September 20 2011 03:41 Haemonculus wrote:On September 20 2011 03:32 Klipsys wrote:On September 20 2011 03:19 Toadesstern wrote:
And stop crying about men having to pay for the rest of their lives... it's not like women are sitting at home, laughing while the guy pays 100% and the woman enjoys good life with everything being paid. They got to feel the consequences, too. Yeah they can decide to abort, but still you guys make it sound like it's only "unfair" for men while women have a nice time.
Okay, there are alot of single moms who are struggling and there providing for there kids and that's fine. However, there are also alot of women who treat their kids as dolls and get paid money to dress them up. You have no idea how often I've seen mothers in designer clothing while there kid is in a burlap sack. And they buy shit with a unemployment debit card. And their kids usually can't read or write, and is probably going to end up stealing my car. I don't understand how people continue to argue like this. Random, highly uncommon, (and occasionally on these boards, entirely imagined) examples do not constitute a sound argument. So uncommon circumstances should not be considered by law? "Oh that doesn't happen very often so don't worry about it, they can just deal." I think laws should be in place to protect people in all circumstances, not just the most common. My point is that you can't bring up super ridiculous and uncommon examples and base an argument on them. "I once heard a story about some crazy broad who scraped semen and jammed it in herself, therefore women cheat the system often and can't be trusted to receive child support" or: "I read an article about some guy who accidentally shot himself, therefore gun accidents are super common, and no one should be allowed to have them." You've got to look at a much wider range of numbers before taking fringe outliers and holding them up as examples to represent your point. I would think that looking at fringe outliers would give you the greatest possible range of numbers, which is why they are outliers. If you can design a system to handle the wackiness at the ends of the spectrum, it will handle the inner stuff no problem. Making rules to handle the middle 95% is nice, but you still screw over that 5%. And if a full 5% of unwanted pregnancies occurred because crazy people were impregnating themselves on discarded rags, maybe it would be worth looking into. His reasoning holds whether you define the extreme ends of the spectrum as 5% or 0.05%.
No, it doesn't.
You can argue almost anything in the world if all you need is .05% occurrence to support an argument. I'm sure something like 1 in 1,000,000 people who buy rope, or a ladder, or a ceiling fan, are doing so in order to kill themselves. I'm sure that 1 in 1,000,000 people who purchase a knife are planning to stab someone.
You can't base an argument to limit their availability on such minute numbers.
|
I think the only fair thing is to make abortion illegal. Then both men and women don't have a choice.
|
or you could make the state pay 100%. In that case both could have a free choice but it would mean society has to pay for them. That's pretty much the only 2 options that aren't worse than what we got :/
(Edit: considering the fairness between men and women, I'm not pro abortion = illegal)
|
On September 20 2011 04:37 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 04:33 sevencck wrote:On September 20 2011 04:31 Haemonculus wrote:On September 20 2011 04:18 seppolevne wrote:On September 20 2011 04:14 Haemonculus wrote:On September 20 2011 04:10 seppolevne wrote:On September 20 2011 03:41 Haemonculus wrote:On September 20 2011 03:32 Klipsys wrote:On September 20 2011 03:19 Toadesstern wrote:
And stop crying about men having to pay for the rest of their lives... it's not like women are sitting at home, laughing while the guy pays 100% and the woman enjoys good life with everything being paid. They got to feel the consequences, too. Yeah they can decide to abort, but still you guys make it sound like it's only "unfair" for men while women have a nice time.
Okay, there are alot of single moms who are struggling and there providing for there kids and that's fine. However, there are also alot of women who treat their kids as dolls and get paid money to dress them up. You have no idea how often I've seen mothers in designer clothing while there kid is in a burlap sack. And they buy shit with a unemployment debit card. And their kids usually can't read or write, and is probably going to end up stealing my car. I don't understand how people continue to argue like this. Random, highly uncommon, (and occasionally on these boards, entirely imagined) examples do not constitute a sound argument. So uncommon circumstances should not be considered by law? "Oh that doesn't happen very often so don't worry about it, they can just deal." I think laws should be in place to protect people in all circumstances, not just the most common. My point is that you can't bring up super ridiculous and uncommon examples and base an argument on them. "I once heard a story about some crazy broad who scraped semen and jammed it in herself, therefore women cheat the system often and can't be trusted to receive child support" or: "I read an article about some guy who accidentally shot himself, therefore gun accidents are super common, and no one should be allowed to have them." You've got to look at a much wider range of numbers before taking fringe outliers and holding them up as examples to represent your point. I would think that looking at fringe outliers would give you the greatest possible range of numbers, which is why they are outliers. If you can design a system to handle the wackiness at the ends of the spectrum, it will handle the inner stuff no problem. Making rules to handle the middle 95% is nice, but you still screw over that 5%. And if a full 5% of unwanted pregnancies occurred because crazy people were impregnating themselves on discarded rags, maybe it would be worth looking into. His reasoning holds whether you define the extreme ends of the spectrum as 5% or 0.05%. No, it doesn't. You can argue almost anything in the world if all you need is .05% occurrence to support an argument. I'm sure something like 1 in 1,000,000 people who buy rope, or a ladder, or a ceiling fan, are doing so in order to kill themselves. I'm sure that 1 in 1,000,000 people who purchase a knife are planning to stab someone. You can't base an argument to limit their availability on such minute numbers.
I think his point was that you know you have a really inclusive and well-designed system if it satisfactorily addresses both what we call normal behavior as well as the extreme ends of the spectrum. His point was not to base policy for everyone around what works for the extremes.
|
The state should pay for unwanted kids, since they end up doing it anyway with PRISONS.
|
It's an obvious double standard.
|
On September 20 2011 03:13 Tor wrote:
To everyone who believes that women have the choice to abort is incredibly naive. It only takes a fear of side affects or a religious belief to prevent that choice from being real. As well, abortions aren't always available in time or in place (there are sometimes waiting lists so long that women can't get abortions within their 1st trimester and there aren't always doctors willing to abort).
As stated earlier on the same page, giving birth has more significant side effects and 12x the fatality rate. And if the woman holds religious beliefs that stop her from getting an abortion, why should the man be punished for that? If a man had similar beliefs he would not opt out of raising the child (and possibly not even use protection in the first place). Also, why should the law restrict everyone because some people have beliefs that don't allow them to take advantage of that? And as for availability of abortions, that's a logistical problem, and in the US, also a religious problem. If a woman cannot get an abortion she still has the option to give the child up for adoption.
|
On September 20 2011 05:06 Demonhunter04 wrote:
And if the woman holds religious beliefs that stop her from getting an abortion, why should the man be punished for that?.
Because, you know, both are responsible for it and noone is getting punished.
|
On September 20 2011 05:11 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 05:06 Demonhunter04 wrote:
And if the woman holds religious beliefs that stop her from getting an abortion, why should the man be punished for that?. Because, you know, both are responsible for it and noone is getting punished.
And what about the 70,000$ bill she is passing onto him?
|
On September 20 2011 05:19 Mentalizor wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 05:11 Toadesstern wrote:On September 20 2011 05:06 Demonhunter04 wrote:
And if the woman holds religious beliefs that stop her from getting an abortion, why should the man be punished for that?. Because, you know, both are responsible for it and noone is getting punished. And what about the 70,000$ bill she is passing onto him?
It's his fault and his responsibility, too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
