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

[Jimmy Higgins]

Because Women ARE THE KITCHEN.

I consider women competent adults, capable of making their own Choices.

Both before and after sex. Not just THE KITCHEN.
Tom

I guess the term "metaphor" is as lost on you as the meaning of the word "nuance".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Women are compelled to continue pregnancies against their will every single day in the US.

Yay for Bernie Sanders!

Your argument seems to be that unless the man can dictate to the woman what she must do or cannot do with her body, he has zero responsibility towards the woman or any resulting child.

That's not my argument at all.

Remember me? The prude who opposes irresponsible sex, regardless of gender?

My argument is that everyone who chooses potentially fertile sex is taking a risk. A big one. Men should be held accountable. Women should be held accountable.

The problem I'm having in this thread is the general feminist principle that only women's rights matter.
Tom

The actual problem you are having is that you are equating parenthood with money and not time.

 

[laughing dog]

The problem I'm having in this thread is the general feminist principle that only women's rights matter.
Tom

No, the problem is your position is incoherent.

 

[laughing dog]

The reason the man is obligated to more than the cost of an abortion is because that whole analogy breaks down, because the woman isn't the tort victim. The child is the tort victim.

I understand your analogy.
But here's where it breaks down.

The child is entirely a result of the woman's choice. She can choose against creating a child if she wants to do so. It's not the father's child. It's entirely her child.
Tom

A man can choose against creating a child as well. Your argument is incoherent.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

In what universe? Women are not obligated to raise their children or help pay for them.

 

[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.

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.

In what universe? Women are not obligated to raise their children or help pay for them.

If the mother wants to place the child for adoption, the father must also agree: they must both relinquish their parental rights, with some exceptions when the court terminated parental rights. Those circumstances are generally quite severe.

If the father wants to raise the child, he can petition for custody AND the mother then pays child support, assuming the father gains custody.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

In what universe? Women are not obligated to raise their children or help pay for them.

If the mother wants to place the child for adoption, the father must also agree: they must both relinquish their parental rights, with some exceptions when the court terminated parental rights. Those circumstances are generally quite severe.

You are ahead of yourself. Women don't have to carry a fetus to term.

If the father wants to raise the child, he can petition for custody AND the mother then pays child support, assuming the father gains custody.

Some biological fathers do not know they are fathers, because there is no obligation for a woman to tell a man she is pregnant with his child.

 

[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.

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.

In what universe? Women are not obligated to raise their children or help pay for them.

If the mother wants to place the child for adoption, the father must also agree: they must both relinquish their parental rights, with some exceptions when the court terminated parental rights. Those circumstances are generally quite severe.

You are ahead of yourself. Women don't have to carry a fetus to term.

If the father wants to raise the child, he can petition for custody AND the mother then pays child support, assuming the father gains custody.

Some biological fathers do not know they are fathers, because there is no obligation for a woman to tell a man she is pregnant with his child.

Not sure what nonsense you are about. You stated a woman is not obligated to raise their children or pay for them. If you meant that a woman is not obligated to carry a pregnancy to term, you’re only partially right with respect to the current status of women’s rights in the US. Some states absolutely are doing their best to compel a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, under pretty severe penalty for not complying.

In the US, if a woman wants state aid in helping to support her child, she is obligated to provide the name of the father.

Some men are not informed that they may become fathers because some of them disappear and don’t care to be found, are arrested, engendered a child through rape and so on. Some women choose not to inform the father for a variety of reasons. One reason might be uncertainty about who the father is or being mistaken about who the father is.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

In what universe? Women are not obligated to raise their children or help pay for them.

If the mother wants to place the child for adoption, the father must also agree: they must both relinquish their parental rights, with some exceptions when the court terminated parental rights. Those circumstances are generally quite severe.

You are ahead of yourself. Women don't have to carry a fetus to term.

If the father wants to raise the child, he can petition for custody AND the mother then pays child support, assuming the father gains custody.

Some biological fathers do not know they are fathers, because there is no obligation for a woman to tell a man she is pregnant with his child.

Not sure what nonsense you are about. You stated a woman is not obligated to raise their children or pay for them. If you meant that a woman is not obligated to carry a pregnancy to term, you’re only partially right with respect to the current status of women’s rights in the US. Some states absolutely are doing their best to compel a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, under pretty severe penalty for not complying.

Not just that. There are also safe haven laws in every US state.

 

[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.

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.

In what universe? Women are not obligated to raise their children or help pay for them.

If the mother wants to place the child for adoption, the father must also agree: they must both relinquish their parental rights, with some exceptions when the court terminated parental rights. Those circumstances are generally quite severe.

You are ahead of yourself. Women don't have to carry a fetus to term.

If the father wants to raise the child, he can petition for custody AND the mother then pays child support, assuming the father gains custody.

Some biological fathers do not know they are fathers, because there is no obligation for a woman to tell a man she is pregnant with his child.

Not sure what nonsense you are about. You stated a woman is not obligated to raise their children or pay for them. If you meant that a woman is not obligated to carry a pregnancy to term, you’re only partially right with respect to the current status of women’s rights in the US. Some states absolutely are doing their best to compel a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, under pretty severe penalty for not complying.

Not just that. There are also safe haven laws in every US state.

Yes, there are safe haven laws. Do you have any understanding of just who makes use of safe havens? Or why?

Going through an unwanted, difficult, stressful pregnancy is not like taking a shit. There are a lot of physical, emotional, psychological, societal and economic reasons some decide their only alternative is to leave the baby at a hospital or fire station. Generally, the father is either abusive or out of the picture to the point that attempting to pursue him for support or to see if he wants to raise the baby is impossible.

About 75% of infants surrendered via safe haven laws or who are not allowed to leave the hospital with their parents are born with drugs in their systems.

I’d much prefer that there were no need for such safe havens. I’d much prefer that everyone who becomes pregnant has the support to make the very best decision that they can, whether to carry the pregnancy or to terminate it. Whether to raise the child (either or both parents) or to place the child for adoption.

 

[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.

In what universe? Women are not obligated to raise their children or help pay for them.

If the mother wants to place the child for adoption, the father must also agree: they must both relinquish their parental rights, with some exceptions when the court terminated parental rights. Those circumstances are generally quite severe.

You are ahead of yourself. Women don't have to carry a fetus to term.

If the father wants to raise the child, he can petition for custody AND the mother then pays child support, assuming the father gains custody.

Some biological fathers do not know they are fathers, because there is no obligation for a woman to tell a man she is pregnant with his child.

Not sure what nonsense you are about. You stated a woman is not obligated to raise their children or pay for them. If you meant that a woman is not obligated to carry a pregnancy to term, you’re only partially right with respect to the current status of women’s rights in the US. Some states absolutely are doing their best to compel a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, under pretty severe penalty for not complying.

Not just that. There are also safe haven laws in every US state.

You do realize pregnancy and birth aren't negligble things to endure?

 

[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.

In what universe? Women are not obligated to raise their children or help pay for them.

Those women wouldn't be getting paid support, which is what some are messing their pants over in this thread. Keep up.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because you are vying for a world where people can duck out of responsibility for another human life existing.

If anyone want to avoid responsibility, they can either pay their insurance or get snipped.

That's how a man signs the contract to walk away.

A thing short of that is irresponsible action, especially since he can in many cases use confusion and ambiguity over fatherhood to claim "wasn't me".

So no. You want the contract, you sign it with your consent to accept the shared risk, or snip snip and no risk.

It most certainly can't be "done in the bedroom" like "ooh, contracts get me so WET" like NO PLS..

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

And getting snipped isn't an answer for someone who wants kids later and it's not foolproof anyway.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I see nothing in this that constitutes a refutation of it. You hate it but you're not showing why it shouldn't be.

Any normal thinking person who had an ounce of feeling or common sense would see ‘why it shouldn’t be.’ You sure saw what was ‘wrong’ with my counter, which was a pretty close mirror of your proposal only not quite so male centric. No: I dared to write something g that focused on the woman’s protections—abs the child’s.

As difficult as some seem to have with the concept, it is no longer a world where women are unable to vote, hold jobs, retain control of their own property, and their own lives.

If men wish to have sex with women, they need to step up and act like adults. If they ejaculate inside or near a vagina, or even engage in penis/vagina sex, they surely know that some sperm are present in the drop of fluid at the top of the penis and so better suit up if you’re going in! Because if you make a baby, through negligence or failure of birth control, the woman gets to make the decisions about whether to carry the pregnancy or terminate it. Because it is HER BODY. If there is a baby born, you get to make decisions about how you will help this child to grow into adulthood. Some if your contribution will be financial. So will the mother’s.

If that’s too big a burden to consider, just masturbate..

I still see no refutation, just an argument from faith.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

Because half of the couple does not have any right ever, to force the other half of the couple to do something with her body.

He is, literally, a bystander to the pregnancy.

After the pregnancy is over, they are both parents, or both not parents.
But at no time, ever, does he have a right to her body.

And if he doesn’t know that before sex, he should not be having sex.

Which says nothing about whether he should be liable for her choice.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

And if abortion isn't legal?

A completely different situation, you're trying to avoid the actual issue.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's been some years but I think that Loren was among those outraged when some college campuses were suggesting signing consent documents as to what each person consented to happen before sex. My apologies if I've gotten that wrong.

I was saying it was impractical, I wasn't outraged.

 

[Toni]

It's been some years but I think that Loren was among those outraged when some college campuses were suggesting signing consent documents as to what each person consented to happen before sex. My apologies if I've gotten that wrong.

I was saying it was impractical, I wasn't outraged.

Ah, sorry if I misrepresented you.

 

[Toni]

I see nothing in this that constitutes a refutation of it. You hate it but you're not showing why it shouldn't be.

Any normal thinking person who had an ounce of feeling or common sense would see ‘why it shouldn’t be.’ You sure saw what was ‘wrong’ with my counter, which was a pretty close mirror of your proposal only not quite so male centric. No: I dared to write something g that focused on the woman’s protections—abs the child’s.

As difficult as some seem to have with the concept, it is no longer a world where women are unable to vote, hold jobs, retain control of their own property, and their own lives.

If men wish to have sex with women, they need to step up and act like adults. If they ejaculate inside or near a vagina, or even engage in penis/vagina sex, they surely know that some sperm are present in the drop of fluid at the top of the penis and so better suit up if you’re going in! Because if you make a baby, through negligence or failure of birth control, the woman gets to make the decisions about whether to carry the pregnancy or terminate it. Because it is HER BODY. If there is a baby born, you get to make decisions about how you will help this child to grow into adulthood. Some if your contribution will be financial. So will the mother’s.

If that’s too big a burden to consider, just masturbate..

I still see no refutation, just an argument from faith.

Yes, you did

 

[Loren Pechtel]

See posts 122 and 119

Caution: Post numbers are not set in stone. I deleted a duplicate post in this thread. And I see there's another deletion farther down the thread, also.