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

[TomC]

And so still, there seems to be no point here at which anyone has presented any intelligible argument against the idea that "pregnancy theoretic males" ought pay their responsibility forward to a shared risk pool rather than have any power at all to invoke a contract against responsibility.

At that point, their contract to have no responsibility for any child produced by sex is signed with their own vasectomies, or signed with the history of their insurance payments.

Could you explain this word salad well enough to make it comprehensible?

Let's start with your term "pregnancy theoretic males". What does that mean to you?
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

And so still, there seems to be no point here at which anyone has presented any intelligible argument against the idea that "pregnancy theoretic males" ought pay their responsibility forward to a shared risk pool rather than have any power at all to invoke a contract against responsibility.

At that point, their contract to have no responsibility for any child produced by sex is signed with their own vasectomies, or signed with the history of their insurance payments.

Could you explain this word salad well enough to make it comprehensible?

Let's start with your term "pregnancy theoretic males". What does that mean to you?
Tom

Someone who can participate in a pregnancy but cannot be pregnant.

 

[TomC]

Someone who can participate in a pregnancy but cannot be pregnant.

That's a very poor explanation.

I could participate in a pregnancy. As far as I know, I'm still fertile.
I've not had potentially fertile sex in well over 30 years. I'm 63, unlikely to change my ways, but I qualify as "can participate in a pregnancy".

And furthermore, I was pregnant back in the day. Only once, my then girlfriend and I stopped using any version of the rhythm method after we got pregnant. But yeah, we'd made a baby together. We were both pregnant.
Tom

 

[steve_bank]

For me that is a main issue.

Get rid of abortion, ok. If we do that out of a mral sense, then the obligation follows to ensure health care, education, safe homes, and nutrition.

Abortion is illegal so when a kid pops out it is on its own. Born into a alcoholic family, tough luck kid deal with it.

The pro life crowd is in denail and uttery hypocritcal. If all life matters even a few weeks after conception where is universal health care ? Where is guaranteed nutrition for all kids?

 

[TomC]

Get rid of abortion, ok.

I cannot possibly support getting rid of abortion.

My mom would have died without a surgical abortion.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

And no, I do not personally have financial responsibility for someone else's child.

In Australia? You don't pay taxes?

Yes, I pay taxes, but I do not pay child support for someone else's child, which is why I very specifically said 'personal financial responsibility'.

 

[Metaphor]

And so still, there seems to be no point here at which anyone has presented any intelligible argument against the idea that "pregnancy theoretic males" ought pay their responsibility forward to a shared risk pool rather than have any power at all to invoke a contract against responsibility.

At that point, their contract to have no responsibility for any child produced by sex is signed with their own vasectomies, or signed with the history of their insurance payments.

Just because you ejaculate into people with female gonads, doesn't mean we all do.

 

[Jarhyn]

Someone who can participate in a pregnancy but cannot be pregnant.

That's a very poor explanation.

I could participate in a pregnancy. As far as I know, I'm still fertile.
I've not had potentially fertile sex in well over 30 years. I'm 63, unlikely to change my ways, but I qualify as "can participate in a pregnancy".

And furthermore, I was pregnant back in the day. Only once, my then girlfriend and I stopped using any version of the rhythm method after we got pregnant. But yeah, we'd made a baby together. We were both pregnant.
Tom

It's not an explanation. It's a definition: pick any given person who can be pregnant. There is a fixed population of people who can make that person pregnant.

From that set of people. find every person that they can make pregnant...

Repeat that process until the sets don't change.

You now have two populations relative to your selected "Eve": pregnancy theoretic males and pregnancy theoretic females. It's not ambiguous in the least: It is a fixed non-arbitrary convergent set with a fixed relationship to an admittedly arbitrary "Eve", though you can just use any given volunteer as a "Eve". This set is going to be mostly identical for any given selected "Eve" of a given species, assuming that individual can be made pregnant at all.

You can even start with a set of them, or even all people you care to look at. Then at the end to filter the set, you empty it and reselect from all persons using your discovered "pregnancy theoretic males".

As such "the set of those who cannot be made pregnant" is "a well defined set" under the definition "all people, of the set of all people, for whom are excluded when, following selection of all pregnancy theoretic males, are excluded from the subsequent selection of pregnancy theoretic females".

Did you miss "but cannot be pregnant"?

Honestly, though you're right. "Cannot be pregnant" is sloppy. That doesn't make someone pregnancy theoretic male since a pregnancy theoretic male can, in theory potentially also become pregnant. It would be a miracle of absurd proportions to have someone who has both gonads, both of which are functional in that way.

In that case they aren't not just "pregnancy theoretic male"; they're both.

It'll probably require the turkey baster though to get the job done for one or the other capability though...

This does imply a third category in "non-pregnancy-theoretic", and two/three meta-categories "not pregnancy theoretic male" and "not pregnancy theoretic female" (and I suppose "is pregnancy theoretic").These are mostly unimportant here, but become very important considering segregation of spaces for various, socially justifiable intents.

The idea is that we pick a representative group.

I create this distinction for only one reason: being pregnancy theoretic male is being proposed to carry a burden hopefully just as onerous as the risk foisted upon "pregnancy theoretic females" merely for existing as humans and liking the occasional shag, and being wired up in such a way as to make doing so as likely as possible to be "irresponsible".

This is to say, by remaining so in society, you natively pose a risk of being a parent, no matter what you want. Once you put it in someone else's body, it's in their body, not yours. No longer your decision.

This means BEFORE you are putting it in someone else's body, there's a responsibility to have already done the work to make sure there's no risk to you or them or the possible child in the case you don't want to be a parent, or stay with the other parent for longer than a quick shag.

If you don't want the responsibility to have already done the work for that, get snipped.

 

[TomC]

If you don't want the responsibility to have already done the work for that, get snipped.

Do you think that women are as capable and responsible?

Or is this just politically correct gender bigotry. Women can't be expected to take responsibility for their own Choices. Men can.
Is that what you're saying? It sure sounds that way to me. Unapologetic gender bigotry.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

If you don't want the responsibility to have already done the work for that, get snipped.

Do you think that women are as capable and responsible?

Or is this just politically correct gender bigotry. Women can't be expected to take responsibility for their own Choices. Men can.
Is that what you're saying? It sure sounds that way to me. Unapologetic gender bigotry.
Tom

I think people are capable of and responsible for making their own decisions about accepting or rejecting something growing in their own bodies.

This is about people who want to not be responsible for the potentiality of their behavior making something grow in someone else's body.

It's not their body so they don't get to decide, full stop. They get to decide when it is their body. But it isn't.

The person who's body it IS inside of doesn't get much choice about being a parent in most cases, other than to abort (because they don't consent to it in their body nor to being a parent), and the insurance money can then go to fund an abortion instead of an education, assuming they don't want to be a parent.

The parent of the flesh, as it were, doesn't really get out of that responsibility if they choose to not abort. Maybe pregnancy theoretic females are on the hook for an "abortion tax" to a similar shared risk pool of perhaps 2% the cost of the other?

By paying the responsibility forward, this becomes an option.

But as long as it's "stay off the hook" logic, people will take the prize and leave the hook if they can. That's exactly the sort of "skill" behavior you want to genetically weed out.

So, either already have it paid forward,get hitched, or get snipped.

Do you reject that? Why?

 

[Toni]

Someone who can participate in a pregnancy but cannot be pregnant.

That's a very poor explanation.

I could participate in a pregnancy. As far as I know, I'm still fertile.
I've not had potentially fertile sex in well over 30 years. I'm 63, unlikely to change my ways, but I qualify as "can participate in a pregnancy".

And furthermore, I was pregnant back in the day. Only once, my then girlfriend and I stopped using any version of the rhythm method after we got pregnant. But yeah, we'd made a baby together. We were both pregnant.
Tom

Nope. YOU were not pregnant.

 

[TomC]

Someone who can participate in a pregnancy but cannot be pregnant.

That's a very poor explanation.

I could participate in a pregnancy. As far as I know, I'm still fertile.
I've not had potentially fertile sex in well over 30 years. I'm 63, unlikely to change my ways, but I qualify as "can participate in a pregnancy".

And furthermore, I was pregnant back in the day. Only once, my then girlfriend and I stopped using any version of the rhythm method after we got pregnant. But yeah, we'd made a baby together. We were both pregnant.
Tom

Nope. YOU were not pregnant.

Sorry feminist.
Yeah I was. And I knew it.
Tom

 

[Toni]

Someone who can participate in a pregnancy but cannot be pregnant.

That's a very poor explanation.

I could participate in a pregnancy. As far as I know, I'm still fertile.
I've not had potentially fertile sex in well over 30 years. I'm 63, unlikely to change my ways, but I qualify as "can participate in a pregnancy".

And furthermore, I was pregnant back in the day. Only once, my then girlfriend and I stopped using any version of the rhythm method after we got pregnant. But yeah, we'd made a baby together. We were both pregnant.
Tom

Nope. YOU were not pregnant.

Sorry feminist.
Yeah I was. And I knew it.
Tom

No, you may have been an expectant father but you were never pregnant. Your uterus did not swell because you have no uterus. Your breasts did not get sore. You did not experience morning sickness (unless you were sick because your girlfriend just puked). Your blood volume did not increase. Your blood vessels did not expand nor did your hip joints or other joints in your body. Your body's organs did not pump blood, make a CO2-O2 exchange for, filter blood for another human being.

You may have felt deeply invested in the pregnancy but you were not pregnant.

 

[Trausti]

Someone who can participate in a pregnancy but cannot be pregnant.

That's a very poor explanation.

I could participate in a pregnancy. As far as I know, I'm still fertile.
I've not had potentially fertile sex in well over 30 years. I'm 63, unlikely to change my ways, but I qualify as "can participate in a pregnancy".

And furthermore, I was pregnant back in the day. Only once, my then girlfriend and I stopped using any version of the rhythm method after we got pregnant. But yeah, we'd made a baby together. We were both pregnant.
Tom

Nope. YOU were not pregnant.

Sorry feminist.
Yeah I was. And I knew it.
Tom

No, you may have been an expectant father but you were never pregnant. Your uterus did not swell because you have no uterus. Your breasts did not get sore. You did not experience morning sickness (unless you were sick because your girlfriend just puked). Your blood volume did not increase. Your blood vessels did not expand nor did your hip joints or other joints in your body. Your body's organs did not pump blood, make a CO2-O2 exchange for, filter blood for another human being.

You may have felt deeply invested in the pregnancy but you were not pregnant.

Wait, are you saying men can’t get pregnant?

 

[steve_bank]

Get rid of abortion, ok.

I cannot possibly support getting rid of abortion.

My mom would have died without a surgical abortion.
Tom

I was saying if abortion is banned thwn to the OP who pays for the consequences along whith Pro Lifer's hypocusy in not syoortng iniversal health care.

I support abortion short of late term abortion. I am not religious, but aborting a healthy fetus beyond a certain stage of developemnt does not sit well with me.

The new abortion laws are putting thenthreshold at the lower limit on the ability to detect pregnancy. That is too low a limit.

 

[Metaphor]

I wrote what I did: that the man should sign a document accepting or refusing to accept responsibilities for any unplanned conception prior to sex so that the woman would be able to make an informed decision.

And if a man has signed such a document, you agree that he should be absolved from any legal responsibility if the women becomes pregnant?

I'm still interested in your answer to this, Toni.

I'm still waiting.

Why should she respond? The answer is right there in her comment that you replied to with your doofus non sequitur question. If he accepted responsibility, then he should not be absolved from responsibility should she choose to have sex and subsequently get pregnant. If he refuses responsibility, she may choose to say no to sex at all. When she chooses whether to have sex with him or not, it will be an informed decision.

No, her answer is not right there.

Does Toni support a culture where a man can be off the hook legally if a woman signed a written agreement saying he would have no responsibility for a child?

Toni said she supported that culture but I do not believe her.

After I submitted my post, I suspected that's what you might mean. So then why question her about her principles when you're just going to accuse her of not telling the truth about her principles?

I don't question her when she says something I expect her to say.

But when she says something I do not expect from her, because it conflicts with her views expressed in the past, I question it.

Toni has quite vocally supported the idea that non-biological fathers, after having discovered that they are not the biological parent of children they previously thought were their biological children, should be forced by the State to continue to pay child support. This seems in conflict to me to releasing from obligation a man who actually is the biological father.

And I don't see why she would not support that culture. That's a written agreement.

I have my reasons for suspecting she didn't actually mean what she wrote. And my suspicions that I was right to doubt her get stronger the more she continues to post whilst ignoring my own request for clarification.

Anyway, the point was that if a man refuses responsibility for a pregnancy resulting from his having sex with her, she will then be informed before she decides whether or not to have sex with him. If they're having unprotected sex, why go to the trouble of a contract when you know about birth control?

Maybe your mistrust of Toni's sticking to her principles has more to do with mistrusting her (or any woman's) ability to control themselves when choosing sex partners. I find that a lot of men have trouble believing that women don't think with their dicks.

Yes, your ridiculous, nasty assertion aside, all am I asking for is Toni's confirmation that she supports what she said she supports.

Toni, if a 25 year old woman agrees to sex with a man, and signs a document agreeing she will be solely responsible for the pregnancy and child that may arise, do you support that he should never have a legal obligation toward that potential child?

Toni, still waiting.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I wrote what I did: that the man should sign a document accepting or refusing to accept responsibilities for any unplanned conception prior to sex so that the woman would be able to make an informed decision.

And if a man has signed such a document, you agree that he should be absolved from any legal responsibility if the women becomes pregnant?

I'm still interested in your answer to this, Toni.

I'm still waiting.

Why should she respond? The answer is right there in her comment that you replied to with your doofus non sequitur question. If he accepted responsibility, then he should not be absolved from responsibility should she choose to have sex and subsequently get pregnant. If he refuses responsibility, she may choose to say no to sex at all. When she chooses whether to have sex with him or not, it will be an informed decision.

No, her answer is not right there.

Does Toni support a culture where a man can be off the hook legally if a woman signed a written agreement saying he would have no responsibility for a child?

Toni said she supported that culture but I do not believe her.

After I submitted my post, I suspected that's what you might mean. So then why question her about her principles when you're just going to accuse her of not telling the truth about her principles?

I don't question her when she says something I expect her to say.

But when she says something I do not expect from her, because it conflicts with her views expressed in the past, I question it.

Toni has quite vocally supported the idea that non-biological fathers, after having discovered that they are not the biological parent of children they previously thought were their biological children, should be forced by the State to continue to pay child support. This seems in conflict to me to releasing from obligation a man who actually is the biological father.

And I don't see why she would not support that culture. That's a written agreement.

I have my reasons for suspecting she didn't actually mean what she wrote. And my suspicions that I was right to doubt her get stronger the more she continues to post whilst ignoring my own request for clarification.

Anyway, the point was that if a man refuses responsibility for a pregnancy resulting from his having sex with her, she will then be informed before she decides whether or not to have sex with him. If they're having unprotected sex, why go to the trouble of a contract when you know about birth control?

Maybe your mistrust of Toni's sticking to her principles has more to do with mistrusting her (or any woman's) ability to control themselves when choosing sex partners. I find that a lot of men have trouble believing that women don't think with their dicks.

Yes, your ridiculous, nasty assertion aside, all am I asking for is Toni's confirmation that she supports what she said she supports.

Toni, if a 25 year old woman agrees to sex with a man, and signs a document agreeing she will be solely responsible for the pregnancy and child that may arise, do you support that he should never have a legal obligation toward that potential child?

Toni, still waiting.

So in the future, women can only have sex if they sign liability waivers.

 

[Metaphor]

I wrote what I did: that the man should sign a document accepting or refusing to accept responsibilities for any unplanned conception prior to sex so that the woman would be able to make an informed decision.

And if a man has signed such a document, you agree that he should be absolved from any legal responsibility if the women becomes pregnant?

I'm still interested in your answer to this, Toni.

I'm still waiting.

Why should she respond? The answer is right there in her comment that you replied to with your doofus non sequitur question. If he accepted responsibility, then he should not be absolved from responsibility should she choose to have sex and subsequently get pregnant. If he refuses responsibility, she may choose to say no to sex at all. When she chooses whether to have sex with him or not, it will be an informed decision.

No, her answer is not right there.

Does Toni support a culture where a man can be off the hook legally if a woman signed a written agreement saying he would have no responsibility for a child?

Toni said she supported that culture but I do not believe her.

After I submitted my post, I suspected that's what you might mean. So then why question her about her principles when you're just going to accuse her of not telling the truth about her principles?

I don't question her when she says something I expect her to say.

But when she says something I do not expect from her, because it conflicts with her views expressed in the past, I question it.

Toni has quite vocally supported the idea that non-biological fathers, after having discovered that they are not the biological parent of children they previously thought were their biological children, should be forced by the State to continue to pay child support. This seems in conflict to me to releasing from obligation a man who actually is the biological father.

And I don't see why she would not support that culture. That's a written agreement.

I have my reasons for suspecting she didn't actually mean what she wrote. And my suspicions that I was right to doubt her get stronger the more she continues to post whilst ignoring my own request for clarification.

Anyway, the point was that if a man refuses responsibility for a pregnancy resulting from his having sex with her, she will then be informed before she decides whether or not to have sex with him. If they're having unprotected sex, why go to the trouble of a contract when you know about birth control?

Maybe your mistrust of Toni's sticking to her principles has more to do with mistrusting her (or any woman's) ability to control themselves when choosing sex partners. I find that a lot of men have trouble believing that women don't think with their dicks.

Yes, your ridiculous, nasty assertion aside, all am I asking for is Toni's confirmation that she supports what she said she supports.

Toni, if a 25 year old woman agrees to sex with a man, and signs a document agreeing she will be solely responsible for the pregnancy and child that may arise, do you support that he should never have a legal obligation toward that potential child?

Toni, still waiting.

So in the future, women can only have sex if they sign liability waivers.

I have no idea why you think that follows from the question I am asking Toni, because it does not follow.

 

[Toni]

I wrote what I did: that the man should sign a document accepting or refusing to accept responsibilities for any unplanned conception prior to sex so that the woman would be able to make an informed decision.

And if a man has signed such a document, you agree that he should be absolved from any legal responsibility if the women becomes pregnant?

I'm still interested in your answer to this, Toni.

I'm still waiting.

Why should she respond? The answer is right there in her comment that you replied to with your doofus non sequitur question. If he accepted responsibility, then he should not be absolved from responsibility should she choose to have sex and subsequently get pregnant. If he refuses responsibility, she may choose to say no to sex at all. When she chooses whether to have sex with him or not, it will be an informed decision.

No, her answer is not right there.

Does Toni support a culture where a man can be off the hook legally if a woman signed a written agreement saying he would have no responsibility for a child?

Toni said she supported that culture but I do not believe her.

After I submitted my post, I suspected that's what you might mean. So then why question her about her principles when you're just going to accuse her of not telling the truth about her principles?

I don't question her when she says something I expect her to say.

But when she says something I do not expect from her, because it conflicts with her views expressed in the past, I question it.

Toni has quite vocally supported the idea that non-biological fathers, after having discovered that they are not the biological parent of children they previously thought were their biological children, should be forced by the State to continue to pay child support. This seems in conflict to me to releasing from obligation a man who actually is the biological father.

And I don't see why she would not support that culture. That's a written agreement.

I have my reasons for suspecting she didn't actually mean what she wrote. And my suspicions that I was right to doubt her get stronger the more she continues to post whilst ignoring my own request for clarification.

Anyway, the point was that if a man refuses responsibility for a pregnancy resulting from his having sex with her, she will then be informed before she decides whether or not to have sex with him. If they're having unprotected sex, why go to the trouble of a contract when you know about birth control?

Maybe your mistrust of Toni's sticking to her principles has more to do with mistrusting her (or any woman's) ability to control themselves when choosing sex partners. I find that a lot of men have trouble believing that women don't think with their dicks.

Yes, your ridiculous, nasty assertion aside, all am I asking for is Toni's confirmation that she supports what she said she supports.

Toni, if a 25 year old woman agrees to sex with a man, and signs a document agreeing she will be solely responsible for the pregnancy and child that may arise, do you support that he should never have a legal obligation toward that potential child?

Toni, still waiting.

So in the future, women can only have sex if they sign liability waivers.

It would be really interesting to see who would be able to hold out longer--the men or the women.

 

[Jarhyn]

I wrote what I did: that the man should sign a document accepting or refusing to accept responsibilities for any unplanned conception prior to sex so that the woman would be able to make an informed decision.

And if a man has signed such a document, you agree that he should be absolved from any legal responsibility if the women becomes pregnant?

I'm still interested in your answer to this, Toni.

I'm still waiting.

Why should she respond? The answer is right there in her comment that you replied to with your doofus non sequitur question. If he accepted responsibility, then he should not be absolved from responsibility should she choose to have sex and subsequently get pregnant. If he refuses responsibility, she may choose to say no to sex at all. When she chooses whether to have sex with him or not, it will be an informed decision.

No, her answer is not right there.

Does Toni support a culture where a man can be off the hook legally if a woman signed a written agreement saying he would have no responsibility for a child?

Toni said she supported that culture but I do not believe her.

After I submitted my post, I suspected that's what you might mean. So then why question her about her principles when you're just going to accuse her of not telling the truth about her principles?

I don't question her when she says something I expect her to say.

But when she says something I do not expect from her, because it conflicts with her views expressed in the past, I question it.

Toni has quite vocally supported the idea that non-biological fathers, after having discovered that they are not the biological parent of children they previously thought were their biological children, should be forced by the State to continue to pay child support. This seems in conflict to me to releasing from obligation a man who actually is the biological father.

And I don't see why she would not support that culture. That's a written agreement.

I have my reasons for suspecting she didn't actually mean what she wrote. And my suspicions that I was right to doubt her get stronger the more she continues to post whilst ignoring my own request for clarification.

Anyway, the point was that if a man refuses responsibility for a pregnancy resulting from his having sex with her, she will then be informed before she decides whether or not to have sex with him. If they're having unprotected sex, why go to the trouble of a contract when you know about birth control?

Maybe your mistrust of Toni's sticking to her principles has more to do with mistrusting her (or any woman's) ability to control themselves when choosing sex partners. I find that a lot of men have trouble believing that women don't think with their dicks.

Yes, your ridiculous, nasty assertion aside, all am I asking for is Toni's confirmation that she supports what she said she supports.

Toni, if a 25 year old woman agrees to sex with a man, and signs a document agreeing she will be solely responsible for the pregnancy and child that may arise, do you support that he should never have a legal obligation toward that potential child?

Toni, still waiting.

So in the future, women can only have sex if they sign liability waivers.

It would be really interesting to see who would be able to hold out longer--the men or the women.

Take it long enough, and you could get the "men" to sign liability contracts for other people's children for the chance to get laid.