Who Should Pay Child Support? (Split from Roe v Wade is on deck)

[laughing dog]

Why should an agreement to choose the least expensive option in case of an oops be unenforceable?

Because forced abortions are a human rights violation.

I'm not saying to force them. I'm saying if she chooses a more expensive option that cost is on her.

The cost is on her and on the child. Your lack of concern for the well-being of the child is frightening.

 

[laughing dog]

How about this.

The default assumption between unmarried people getting together for a mutually agreeable romp is that, in the case of a pregnancy he wants an abortion. And will pay for it.

If she wants something else that's fine too. But if she wants child support, in the event of a pregnancy, she needs to make that clear before the sex. She still has complete control over her body. I'll continue the pregnancy, I'll terminate, whatever she wants.

But she cannot obligate someone else to a commitment against their will, based on her unfettered choice.

How about that?
Tom

So, the welfare of the child is compromised so that men are absolved of their accountability for their actions.

 

[TomC]

So, the welfare of the child is compromised so that men are absolved of their accountability for their actions.

Nope.
There is no child unless and until the mother decides to make one.

Please remember. I'm Tom the Prude. I think everyone, male and female, ought to consider the risks that they're running by choosing fertile sex.

What I'm talking about here is the gender discrimination. I'm fine with holding everyone accountable for the outcomes of their choices.
Tom

 

[TomC]

But you don’t treat kids like they are disposable.

I'm not the one doing that.
I believe that if people get together for potentially fertile sex they've both chosen an obligation.

The way things are now, RvW, women can legally treat kids as disposable. But only women.
Tom

 

[steve_bank]

wrong thread.

 

[TomC]

wrong thread.

I didn't make the split.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

So, the welfare of the child is compromised so that men are absolved of their accountability for their actions.

Nope.
There is no child unless and until the mother decides to make one.

You need to bone up on biology - women cannot make children on their own.

Please remember. I'm Tom the Prude. I think everyone, male and female, ought to consider the risks that they're running by choosing fertile sex.

You are not. Clearly you think the man need not consider any risk about creating a child.

What I'm talking about here is the gender discrimination. I'm fine with holding everyone accountable for the outcomes of their choices.
Tom

Clearly you are not. Choosing to inseminate a egg means the possibility of a child being born. You wish to exempt men from the accountability for the outcome of that choice.

 

[laughing dog]

The way things are now, RvW, women can legally treat kids as disposable. But only women.
Tom

Kids are children, not fetuses. Roe v Wade does not allow women to legally treat children as disposable. Your statement is a falsehood.

 

[TomC]

You need to bone up on biology - women cannot make children on their own.

Bone up on your law.
Is there a child at 2 weeks of pregnancy?
Legally, no there isn't.

Legally, the fetus becomes a child if, and when, the mother decides he/she is is a child.

I keep having this pointed out by people who support abortion rights.

Hypocritically, they can't seem to agree upon when a human being becomes worthy of any protection.
Tom

 

[Rhea]

There is no child unless and until the mother decides to make one.

This is epic.

Men have no part in creating situation where child needs support. Women are to blame, and it’s a voluntary deliberate decision.


You did not leave a single misogyny stone unturned.

 

[Rhea]

Hypocritically, they can't seem to agree upon when a human being becomes worthy of any protection.

In what way is it “hypocritical” for people to not agree with ech other?

 

[TomC]

There is no child unless and until the mother decides to make one.

This is epic.

Men have no part in creating situation where child needs support. Women are to blame, and it’s a voluntary deliberate decision.


You did not leave a single misogyny stone unturned.

It's feminism.

Tell me flat out "A two week old fetus is a child." I don't think you will. Because that would interfere with women choosing whatever they want.

It's not that men have no part in making the fetus. But they have no part, legally, in deciding whether the fetus is a child needing support or a dispensable clump of cells.

That's my point.
Tom

 

[Rhea]

Tell me flat out "A two week old fetus is a child." I don't think you will. Because that would interfere with women choosing whatever they want.

You are completely and utterly missing the ENTIRE POINT.


Don’t try to guess what I’m going to say. Listen. Carefully.

Even if the fetus is “a child” a microsecond after conception, it is STILL every human being’s inalienable right to not be coerced into donating their organs or body to that “child.”

Period.

Whether it is a blob of cells, a fetus, a baby, a child or an adult, it has NO RIGHT to coerce the use of a woman’s body against her will.

Period.

 

[TomC]

Tell me flat out "A two week old fetus is a child." I don't think you will. Because that would interfere with women choosing whatever they want.

You are completely and utterly missing the ENTIRE POINT.


Don’t try to guess what I’m going to say. Listen. Carefully.

Even if the fetus is “a child” a microsecond after conception, it is STILL every human being’s inalienable right to not be coerced into donating their organs or body to that “child.”

Period.

Whether it is a blob of cells, a fetus, a baby, a child or an adult, it has NO RIGHT to coerce the use of a woman’s body against her will.

Period.

I don't agree. I think competent adults who choose behavior that involves another human being have Chosen responsibility.

But that's completely irrelevant to my point.

Does a woman who chooses to grow her fetus into a child have the right to force the man to subsidize her choice, against his will?
If so, why?
Tom

 

[Toni]

But you don’t treat kids like they are disposable.

I'm not the one doing that.
I believe that if people get together for potentially fertile sex they've both chosen an obligation.

The way things are now, RvW, women can legally treat kids as disposable. But only women.
Tom

No, Roe V Wade allows women to decide whether she wants to carry a pregnancy to term. There is no child at this point.

You want men to be able to exercise control over what the woman decides to do. You want to control the woman through money.

You need to bone up on biology - women cannot make children on their own.

Bone up on your law.
Is there a child at 2 weeks of pregnancy?
Legally, no there isn't.

Legally, the fetus becomes a child if, and when, the mother decides he/she is is a child.

I keep having this pointed out by people who support abortion rights.

Hypocritically, they can't seem to agree upon when a human being becomes worthy of any protection.
Tom

please cite statutes that say a woman decides when a fetus becomes a child.

 

[Toni]

There is no child unless and until the mother decides to make one.

This is epic.

Men have no part in creating situation where child needs support. Women are to blame, and it’s a voluntary deliberate decision.


You did not leave a single misogyny stone unturned.

It's feminism.

Tell me flat out "A two week old fetus is a child." I don't think you will. Because that would interfere with women choosing whatever they want.

It's not that men have no part in making the fetus. But they have no part, legally, in deciding whether the fetus is a child needing support or a dispensable clump of cells.

That's my point.
Tom

Law makers in TX would beg to differ. Also see OK, and about 24 other states.

 

[TomC]

Law makers in TX would beg to differ. Also see OK, and about 24 other states.

I totally agree that Texan law, and it's evil spawn, is appalling.
No problem there.

How about responding to what I actually post, instead of misrepresenting me and my opinions?
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

Tom, not only does every man, woman, and child have every right to revoke consent to the use of her biology for another organism, but it is also the responsibility of any thing that can bring some new thing into the world to make the world as ready as it can be for that thing, to prepare a place in the world for it.

Failing that, if they cannot do so, they owe it a swift and merciful end.

 

[Bomb#20]

I'm not saying to force them. I'm saying if she chooses a more expensive option that cost is on her.

Ah. That's not enforcing an agreement to choose the least expensive option; that's enforcing an agreement that she'll cover the excess costs in the event that she chooses a more expensive option. That very likely is enforceable against her, provided she has assets that can be attached to make good on it. But it's not enforceable against the child, because no contract is enforceable against a third party who isn't a signatory. When a mother sues a father for child support, the suit is on behalf of the child.

It's not like she can't afford to raise the child herself. It might not be easy but she chose the situation.

The child didn't. The child has a right to support from the father. Why on earth would he or she lose a right because some third party signed it away? Can I reprint your novel without your permission if your mom signs over your copyright?

 

[Toni]

Law makers in TX would beg to differ. Also see OK, and about 24 other states.

I totally agree that Texan law, and it's evil spawn, is appalling.
No problem there.

How about responding to what I actually post, instead of misrepresenting me and my opinions?
Tom

I did respond to exactly what you wrote.

You just don’t like it when your statements are contradicted by actual fact.

Since you are getting particular, you could provide statutes that back your claim that the woman decides when a fetus becomes a child.