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

[Rhea]

And you're still not addressing the issue of why he only gets the choice before sex, she gets it after. Why is an agreement about what the couple will do irrelevant?

They both have a choice before sex. (Caveat - imperfect attempts at controlling that outcome)
They both have a choice after birth
AND only the pregnant one gets a choice about what happens to her own pregnant body.

There is a period, in the middle there, where the non-pregnant partner is a bystander, and does not have any choices about their body, because they do not have anything going on in their own body to make a choice about.

(Caveat: knowing that I prefer societal payments to single parents over forced child support)

The question is, "Why does her decision to grow a fetus into a child obligate the man to pay child support?" Why is he obligated to more than the cost of an abortion? He has no say in the decision.

So far, the best justification amounts to "If you can't take the heat then stay out of the kitchen." But it only applies to men. I see that as hypocritical gender discrimination.

He also, if the child were born and grew to be 10 years old and desperately needed a blood donation because of an accident and the only matching donor is the person who caused the accident, he also has no say in the decision of that person to donate blood to his dying child. Bcause, under no circumstances, ever, does he have a right to own another person’s body such that he gets to dictate what they do with it.

That is not what Roe v Wade says.

No.
It's what feticide rights supporters say.

If the female parent chooses not to carry the fetus, the fetus is not a child. It's a clump of cells. Otherwise, abortion is the deliberate destruction of a human being.
Tom

It is not “feticide” to decide to not support a fetus. The fetus has no “RIGHT” to a person’s body.
Likewise, it is not “fratricide” for a brother to refuse to donate a kidney to a brother.

The use of the words “feticide” and “murder” and “deliberate destruction” are all designed to cover up the fact that one being is insisting on the use of another being’s body, and thinking they have a right to that, like there is any act, ever, that legally compels a being to donate their body.

Those words are an attempt to cut off the legal and logical certainty of bodily autonomy by dousing it in emotion. In this case to get out of paying child support for a live and birthed child that the person has fathered.

 

[Rhea]

Odd, how this derail from the right to abortion then kind of derails itself right back to abortion.

This is a good point. This split thread is about child support.
Let’s get back to that.
Go to the abortion thread if you want to make emotional appeals to derail conversations.


Child Support.

 

[Toni]

Women should get the final say about whether to carry a pregnancy to term.

That's not what we're talking about. Nobody is disagreeing with that statement.

The question is, "Why does her decision to grow a fetus into a child obligate the man to pay child support?" Why is he obligated to more than the cost of an abortion? He has no say in the decision.

So far, the best justification amounts to "If you can't take the heat then stay out of the kitchen." But it only applies to men. I see that as hypocritical gender discrimination.
Tom

Not at all. You are arguing as though she does not also support the child, as though he is unable to obtain primary custody of and resulting child, as though his potential financial responsibility were greater than hers or that his future financial responsibilities were somehow a greater burden than her physical risks—even if the pregnancy is terminated or she miscarries. None of that is true.

What is true is that if she Carrie’s the pregnancy to term, the child has an absolute right to be financially supported by the parents, to have decent and safe housing, adequate food, to be clothed abs to have the best education possible. The child also has a right to be loved and patented by people who love them and put their best interests ahead of their own. We cannot compel love or affection. We can compel ( to an extent) financial support from both parents.

That is not what Roe v Wade says.

No.
It's what feticide rights supporters say.

If the female parent chooses not to carry the fetus, the fetus is not a child. It's a clump of cells. Otherwise, [bold]abortion is the deliberate destruction of a human being.[/bold]
Tom

According to the Catholic Church.

This, however, is not a reflection of reality.

 

[TomC]

They both have a choice before sex.

Granted. I agree.

They both have a choice after birth

That's false and you know it. Legally, the father is required to pay the mother child support if she wants it. A sizable chunk over 18 years. The father doesn't have a choice, starting at conception, other than do as he's told by the mother.

We both know this. Why do I have to keep explaining this?
Tom

 

[TomC]

According to the Catholic Church.

What does the Catholic Church have to do with this?
Tom

 

[Toni]

According to the Catholic Church.

What does the Catholic Church have to do with this?
Tom

Apparently your upbringing. You're parroting their stance.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

They both have a choice before sex.

Granted. I agree.

They both have a choice after birth

That's false and you know it. Legally, the father is required to pay the mother child support if she wants it.

Man, it is always about the dollar signs. This really ignores the woman's (and man's) role regarding support, both financial and physical. For a chunk of change a guy can walk away and not do a thing for the child. The price of not having a help raise a child is somewhat priceless, as that investment of time is substantial.

The woman is on the hook for financial support and being there. And to be clear, the investment in a child is a lot more time than money.

 

[Toni]

They both have a choice before sex.

Granted. I agree.

They both have a choice after birth

That's false and you know it. Legally, the father is required to pay the mother child support if she wants it. A sizable chunk over 18 years. The father doesn't have a choice, starting at conception, other than do as he's told by the mother.

We both know this. Why do I have to keep explaining this?
Tom

That's nonsense. There is NOTHING that stops the man from attempting to gain full custody, which means, the mother would likely pay him child support or from attempting to gain shared custody, in which case financials/courts would determine who paid child support if anyone does.

Men have many, many choices. I've written about some men I know who have managed to get out of paying child support, a couple of cases involving members of my own family. That's just off the top of my head. A coworker basically paid the child support of her new husband's daughter by a previous marriage as well as paying for the court costs of the many, many times they were in court over one very stupid issue or another. Hey, she picked a dud of a husband in my book but her earnings were greater than his or the mother's or the mother's new husband and she got to pay for all of them.

If you want to argue that the court system is often unfair with regards to child support and sometimes uses draconian measures to collect and is slow to correct mistakes it made, if it ever acknowledges those mistakes, I'll agree, 100%. It's wrong and it's wrong for all parties concerned.

If you want to argue that child support isn't always used for the purposes it is intended, then I'll agree. Some people are awful. I will also say that more than one of my friends has had extremely unrealistic ideas about what their child support payments made to the mother can possibly cover, how quickly children outgrow clothing and shoes and how much it costs to provide school supplies, much less any extras. Don't even get me started on simultaneously complaining the mother doesn't work enough hours and how expensive child care is AND how the kid eats them out of house and home during visitation.

If men really had no choice starting at conception but to do as he's told by the mother, then there would be a lot fewer deadbeat dads, or men who father children by multiple women they don't bother to maintain a relationship with.

 

[TomC]

According to the Catholic Church.

What does the Catholic Church have to do with this?
Tom

Apparently your upbringing. You're parroting their stance.

Your mind reading is weak.

I graduated from 12 years of Catholic education in 1976. I was fully convinced that an abortion was a medical matter, nobody's business but a woman and her doctor.

You have posted your opinion that I was too young/male/stupid to understand the debate around RvW in the early 70s. I just find you insulting. I did understand them. And I was a voracious reader.

You really don't know what you're talking about. Your insults make me angry.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

According to the Catholic Church.

What does the Catholic Church have to do with this?
Tom

Apparently your upbringing. You're parroting their stance.

Your mind reading is weak.

I graduated from 12 years of Catholic education in 1976. I was fully convinced that an abortion was a medical matter, nobody's business but a woman and her doctor.

To be clear, your spoken position on Roe v Wade has been 'muddled' at best. To the point, it almost seems intentional.

 

[TomC]

There is NOTHING that stops the man from attempting to gain full custody,

That's ridiculous.
Of course there is. And you know it.

If the mother decides not to provide a gestation there's nobody to get custody of. The man cannot get custody of a child if the woman kills it.
Tom

 

[TomC]

To be clear, your spoken position on Roe v Wade has been 'muddled' at best. To the point, it almost seems intentional.

Can you distinguish between "nuanced" and "muddled"?

I am intentionally nuanced. Procreation is a complex and important subject.

Perhaps I would seem less muddled if folks like you didn't keep misrepresenting what I actually post?
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

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?

Apparently you don't think men are capable and responsible. Adults accept responsibility for their actions.

 

[laughing dog]

To be clear, your spoken position on Roe v Wade has been 'muddled' at best. To the point, it almost seems intentional.

Can you distinguish between "nuanced" and "muddled"?

I am intentionally nuanced.

The position that abortion is murder is not a nuanced position. It is a dogmatic absolute.

 

[Toni]

To be clear, your spoken position on Roe v Wade has been 'muddled' at best. To the point, it almost seems intentional.

Can you distinguish between "nuanced" and "muddled"?

I am intentionally nuanced.

The position that abortion is murder is not a nuanced position. It is a dogmatic absolute.

It is dogmatically and absolutely incorrect.

 

[TomC]

To be clear, your spoken position on Roe v Wade has been 'muddled' at best. To the point, it almost seems intentional.

Can you distinguish between "nuanced" and "muddled"?

I am intentionally nuanced.

The position that abortion is murder is not a nuanced position. It is a dogmatic absolute.

To be clear, your spoken position on Roe v Wade has been 'muddled' at best. To the point, it almost seems intentional.

Can you distinguish between "nuanced" and "muddled"?

I am intentionally nuanced.

The position that abortion is murder is not a nuanced position. It is a dogmatic absolute.

That's probably why I never said it.
Tom

 

[Toni]

To be clear, your spoken position on Roe v Wade has been 'muddled' at best. To the point, it almost seems intentional.

Can you distinguish between "nuanced" and "muddled"?

I am intentionally nuanced. Procreation is a complex and important subject.

Perhaps I would seem less muddled if folks like you didn't keep misrepresenting what I actually post?
Tom

No, you would seem less muddled if you were less inconsistent and did not insist on evoking emotional untruths to cover for deficits of your position.

You argued that a man must do whatever a woman wants after conception. In a discussion about child support. And then, when I made a counter argument, you trotted out women killing a child because she decides to terminate a pregnancy, which is absolute nonsense except to some Catholics and some other Christians.

 

[Toni]

To be clear, your spoken position on Roe v Wade has been 'muddled' at best. To the point, it almost seems intentional.

Can you distinguish between "nuanced" and "muddled"?

I am intentionally nuanced.

The position that abortion is murder is not a nuanced position. It is a dogmatic absolute.

To be clear, your spoken position on Roe v Wade has been 'muddled' at best. To the point, it almost seems intentional.

Can you distinguish between "nuanced" and "muddled"?

I am intentionally nuanced.

The position that abortion is murder is not a nuanced position. It is a dogmatic absolute.

That's probably why I never said it.
Tom

You wrote in post 112:

The man cannot get custody of a child if the woman kills it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

To be clear, your spoken position on Roe v Wade has been 'muddled' at best. To the point, it almost seems intentional.

Can you distinguish between "nuanced" and "muddled"?

I am intentionally nuanced.

No, muddled. Nuanced would be upfront on the asterisks.

 

[TomC]

No, you would seem less muddled if you were less inconsistent and did not insist on evoking emotional untruths to cover for deficits of your position.

In what way am I inconsistent or evoking emotional untruths?
Tom