Women Getting Paid Child Support (Derail from: I get foods stamps)

[RavenSky]

The CHILD is his, therefore he is equally responsible for it. Don't want kids? Get snipped.

Again, the CHOICE wasn't equally his, therefore the RESPONSIBILITY should not be equally his.

Funny how feminists lose the pro-choice logic when it comes to child support, which favors women greatly.

The CHOICE is equally his, and the RESPONSIBILITY is equally his, and it is HIS child too. He can get himself snipped if he wants to ensure he isn't responsible for birthing any children.

It is sickening to me how some men want to ignore their own child. No matter how much a misogynist a man is, it is still HIS child too.

 

[Derec]

The CHOICE is equally his,

No, it is not. A man's choice ends at ejaculation, while a woman has several months time to make up her mind whether she wants a child or not.

and it is HIS child too.

Not even that is necessarily true, given sexist laws that reward cheating sluts with child support payments from their cheated-on ex-husbands.

He can get himself snipped if he wants to ensure he isn't responsible for birthing any children.

And so can she. That doesn't change the fact that there is a huge imbalance in choice when neither are snipped and that should be reflected in legal responsibility for the child.

It is sickening to me how some men want to ignore their own child.

That's because they did not get a choice. Why do you keep ignoring that fact?
And besides, sometimes it is not even their child and they still have to pay.

 

[Derec]

Yes, derec, we are all aware that in your world view that only what a man wants is important

No, what both want should be important, not only what a woman wants. Under current laws, the woman has all the power in whether a child is born, but a man has at least half the financial responsibility. That is obviously not just and should change.

and that women are all lying, cheating sluts.

Did I say all?
But many obviously are. And men too. But the big difference is that if a man cheats and a child is created, the ex-wife is not going to get saddled with child support payments. If a woman cheats, and a child is born, the man is under the laws of many states. And that is a huge injustice. Even you should be able to recognize that.
'

How's that working out for you?

I don't have any child support payments ...

 

[atrib]

That's because they did not get a choice. Why do you keep ignoring that fact?

Men do get a choice. Men can choose NOT to have sex. You keep forgetting this little detail.

The woman has the option to choose for a few months after the act. But the woman also has to carry the child for many months, which is no trivial task. The pregnancy may also place her health or life at risk. I think its a fair trade. Why don't you?

 

[RavenSky]

OK, Derec's stupid repetitive anti-woman derail is over...

 

[Derec]

Men do get a choice. Men can choose NOT to have sex. You keep forgetting this little detail.

As can women. But men's choice ends there while women get months to make up their mind. Why do you keep ignoring this huge discrepancy in choice while bringing up the minuscule choice men have as if that somehow makes the choice men and women have equal.
By the way, "don't have sex" is a retort used by pro-lifers against women. Feminists do not like it, yet here you use essentially the same argument here against men. Another blatant double standard!

The woman has the option to choose for a few months after the act. But the woman also has to carry the child for many months, which is no trivial task. The pregnancy may also place her health or life at risk. I think its a fair trade. Why don't you?

It's not a fair trade. A woman ultimately chooses to go through the pregnancy - otherwise she can take morning after pill or even medical abortion early in the pregnancy. Why should men (even men who have nothing to do with getting her pregnant - if a woman puts a man's name down on a birth certificate he is considered guilty until proven innocent and often not even then) have to pay for a woman's choice? Financial responsibility should be commensurate with the choice one had in the outcome. What's wrong with that?

- - - Updated - - -

OK, Derec's stupid repetitive anti-woman derail is over...

It's not anti-woman, it's pro-equality.

 

[bilby]

OK, Derec's stupid repetitive anti-woman derail is over...

Not while he yet breathes, apparently...

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Save it for the religious right.

While I do think it's her responsibility that's because it's her choice whether to carry or abort. Responsibility for the outcome of a decision should rest with the person making the decision.

I am not saying she needs a man's consent to have a child. I'm saying she shouldn't have a child when she's not in a position to support a child. I am not saying she needs anyone permission to have an abortion.

Perhaps you did not learn basic biology, but women do not produce children without some action--and certain inaction on the part of men.

And it doesn't take some action and inaction on her part to have a child???

So men have no responsibility for their reproductive choices?

It's her choice.

Not an answer. So men have no responsibility for their reproductive choices?

He's responsible for the cost of the abortion. If she chooses a more expensive option that's her problem.

A man's only responsible for abortions and not impregnation that he could have avoided with a condom?

 

[Derec]

Not while he yet breathes, apparently...

Neither you nor RavenSky have explained how wanting responsibility to be commensurate with choice is "anti-woman"?
If a man makes a choice to rob a bank should a woman be held responsible just because they had sex 9 months earlier? And if a law was passed that made her responsible because they had sex would that be a just law just because she had a choice not to have sex with him?

- - - Updated - - -

So men have no responsibility for their reproductive choices?

We are not given any reproductive choice after ejaculation. So why should men have to pay for choices made by women?

 

[fast]

If a man makes a choice to rob a bank should a woman be held responsible just because they had sex 9 months earlier? And if a law was passed that made her responsible because they had sex would that be a just law just because she had a choice not to have sex with him?

You're testing my morning comprehension skills.

 

[fast]

Got it. Just needed it to sink in.

Oh, and lol btw

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

There seems to be a lot of paternalism at play here. Women need to be taken care of. Men should pay for the choices that women make, because men had a role to play in enabling those choices. , or in some cases as Derec keeps pointing out and nobody is refuting.. sometimes not even then. Here in Ontario you can get roped into child support simply by living with a single mother and her child. Even non-romantic housemates can get roped in this way. It makes life more difficult than it should be for single moms who have to deal with rightfully weary men.

We are not discussing the circumstance under which a woman makes the deliberate--and expensive--choice to conceive by sperm donor, presumably intending to raise the child on her own. Although many women do conceive via sperm donation with the express mutual intent to raise that child with her spouse or partner. Although the principle is the same: two people create a child together and both are equally responsible. Of course if the child is carried by the woman, she bears the entire physical risk and burden-- which will effect her for the rest of her life. His contribution is over in seconds.

First, so what if his contribution is over in seconds and she bears the entire physical risk? Why does that matter if she wanted to do so? I could understand if an early abortion was a serious risk to the mother as compared to having the child and she decided against the abortion because she was afraid of the risks and had the baby even though she didn't want to. Then it would be a situation where she was forced to have the baby and bear all those physical risks. But that isn't reality. Reality is she WANTS to have the baby. She takes on the physical risk of having the baby voluntarily.

So she is making more choice here than he is, and her final choice trumps his attempt to have a baby, so she should be held more responsible, no?

No.

Care to elaborate? Why no? I see a lot of very terse reactions to Derec's argument here, and no logic or reason being advanced to defeat it other than "just because" or "states and right thinking people disagree with you". That should bother you as freethinkers. You should be able to do better than that. I can think of a few points you could make... and I am wondering why you are not.

How's this for an analogy? She is president with a veto and he is a legislator that helped her draft the bill.

Not apt.

Again, why not? Just saying "no! Wrong!" doesn't carry any water in rational discourse.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It is sickening to me how some men want to ignore their own child. No matter how much a misogynist a man is, it is still HIS child too.

By this logic, should sperm donors be held financially responsible for their genetic children made from their sperm? It is their own child after all. It is HIS child too, as you say. Is he a misogynist for not wanting to raise it?

Come to think of it, what does any of this have to do with misogyny other than to use it an attempted insult at people? Not wanting to support your offspring is an anti-offspring thing, not an anti-woman thing. Women are just as capable of being anti-offspring.

 

[laughing dog]

It's not anti-woman, it's pro-equality.

No, it is anti-child which means it cannot possibly be "pro-equality". You and others who "feel" like you seem to forget that there is real and more important issue of the welfare of the child.

 

[Derec]

It's not anti-woman, it's pro-equality.

No, it is anti-child which means it cannot possibly be "pro-equality". You and others who "feel" like you seem to forget that there is real and more important issue of the welfare of the child.

"Welfare of the child" (which is really an euphemism for "women getting paid" because child support money is not held in trust but is given to the woman who can do with it as she pleases) should not trump the rights of men. Otherwise you might as well assign single mothers to people like Bill Gates etc. That would be in the best interest of the child (not to mention the mother) but it would be incredibly unjust. The current law which is very biased against fathers (and men who are not the father at all) is not much less ridiculous than that.

We live in a society where a woman can lie about being on birth control and the man is still liable for child support. We live in a society where a man can wear a condom but if a woman takes the discarded condom and impregnates herself he is still liable for child support. These cases are terribly unjust but they can be resolved simply by giving the man some choice over whether he wants to accept the rights and responsibilities of fatherhood after the ejaculation.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Neither you nor RavenSky have explained how wanting responsibility to be commensurate with choice is "anti-woman"?
If a man makes a choice to rob a bank should a woman be held responsible just because they had sex 9 months earlier? And if a law was passed that made her responsible because they had sex would that be a just law just because she had a choice not to have sex with him?

- - - Updated - - -

So men have no responsibility for their reproductive choices?

We are not given any reproductive choice after ejaculation.

Do you have a choice before ejaculation?

So why should men have to pay for choices made by women?

Do you have a choice before ejaculation?

You sound like sex is something men have no control over. Men have no control over the women they want, no control of whether or not they fuck, no control over wearing a condom.

Maybe that's the trouble certain men have with women

A lack of ... control.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Which, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with the conservative push to eliminate sex-ed in schools, affordable birth control, women's reproductive health care, child care options, etc. Yep, it is 10,000,000% all this woman's own fault.

As opposed to 0% fault you want to assign her. By the way, female (and female only!) contraceptives are 100% covered by Obamacare.

A minor nitpick, if she is getting child support, that implies she is raising the child. You are aware that raising a child would, in some circles, be considered "accepting some of the fault", right?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You are aware that raising a child would, in some circles, be considered "accepting some of the fault", right?

Pfft. Not the way I do it.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[laughing dog]

No, it is anti-child which means it cannot possibly be "pro-equality". You and others who "feel" like you seem to forget that there is real and more important issue of the welfare of the child.

"Welfare of the child" (which is really an euphemism for "women getting paid" because child support money is not held in trust but is given to the woman who can do with it as she pleases) should not trump the rights of men.

No, welfare of the child means the welfare of the child. Raising a child takes effort, time and resources, even if you do not approve of the child. While the funds are "held in trust", the child is not receiving support. Duh.

I suppose we could have a court appointed trustee, but that would mean increasing your taxes to pay for it. And, we could literally legislate that all sperm donors (regardless of the method of donation) are not legally obligated to support any resulting issue from the "donation". But then your taxes would increase even more, since our society is not going to let children starve.

So, are you still going to champion for the rights of all sperm donors even though it may cause your federal and local tax bills?