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

[whichphilosophy]

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.

Good advice to us men is that if we want to avoid pregnancies keeping in our pants. It's very hard for some when it's very hard.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Do you have a choice before ejaculation?

This is a broken record. Nobody has denied that men have a choice before ejaculation. Not even Derec. Not even going back to the first post this came up in.

Repeating over and over that men have a choice to have sex or not have sex does not address any of the points that have actually been made here.

The way this is being addressed here feels a lot like how religious people speak at rather than with non-believers. Just keep repeating the mantra and hope that is enough. Instead of logic or reason, Derec's points are being met with righteous indignation. Come on now. A freethinker forum can do a lot better.

 

[Derec]

Good advice to us men is that if we want to avoid pregnancies keeping in our pants.

That's the very thing pro-lifers keep saying to women, and feminists reject it as "misogynistic". Yet, they use the very same argument against men.
Why should men be punished for having sex, but women should not be punished for having sex?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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

Good advice to us men is that if we want to avoid pregnancies keeping in our pants. It's very hard for some when it's very hard.

But not even that is enough. The assertion has been made that you can be roped into child support payments regardless of it not being your DNA and regardless of keeping it in your pants, and this assertion has yet to be challenged or debunked here.

 

[Toni]

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.

Sperm donors specifically donate sperm for the purpose of helping someone to conceive a child. The responsibility got any resulting children lies with the parent(s)--not the sperm donor. The sperm donor has an obligation to provide honest and accurate answers to health questions.

Misogyny is apparent when a poster characterizes women as sluts, etc. who don't terminate pregnancies because the bio father wished to be unburdened of any possible financial obligations.

Never mind that child support is for the benefit of the child. If the mother doesn't suffer from abject poverty for defying the man's desire to not have a child, it's unfair. To the man. The only person who counts.

 

[Playball40]

I don't think men should have to pay child support for a non-biological, non-adopted child. That's where it ends.

 

[fast]

Good advice to us men is that if we want to avoid pregnancies keeping in our pants. It's very hard for some when it's very hard.

But not even that is enough. The assertion has been made that you can be roped into child support payments regardless of it not being your DNA and regardless of keeping it in your pants, and this assertion has yet to be challenged or debunked here.

If a man stands up and takes on a caretaker role in financially assisting a mother and her child, and if it's substantive and enduring such that an abrupt about face would turn their world upside down, then shitty is the character of the man who would abandon them on the basis of no biological or marital connections.

Oh, and I'm not so sure it's always a case of unfairness when men and women are not treated exactly the same, and that's in part because things are not exactly the same. The point of last control for bringing a life into this world is not the same for a woman as it is for a man. Women get a little extra time, but that's not a product of unfairness; that's a biological fact of life.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I don't think men should have to pay child support for a non-biological, non-adopted child. That's where it ends.

Finally somebody who will address that and take a reasonable and rational position without demonizing and strawmanning one side or the other. Refreshing

 

[fast]

I don't think men should have to pay child support for a non-biological, non-adopted child. That's where it ends.

Then don't voluntarily take on the role and procure an atmosphere of dependence.

 

[Derec]

Misogyny is apparent when a poster characterizes women as sluts, etc. who don't terminate pregnancies because the bio father wished to be unburdened of any possible financial obligations.

You are mischaracterizing. The only women I called sluts are those that cheat, get pregnant, and then sue their ex-husband for child support, presumably because he has more money than the pool boy or whoever the cheating slut was cheating with.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Sperm donors specifically donate sperm for the purpose of helping someone to conceive a child. The responsibility got any resulting children lies with the parent(s)--not the sperm donor. The sperm donor has an obligation to provide honest and accurate answers to health questions.

Misogyny is apparent when a poster characterizes women as sluts, etc. who don't terminate pregnancies because the bio father wished to be unburdened of any possible financial obligations.

Never mind that child support is for the benefit of the child. If the mother doesn't suffer from abject poverty for defying the man's desire to not have a child, it's unfair. To the man. The only person who counts.

That last sentence is whining strawman rhetoric. Do you really believe Derec wants women to suffer in abject poverty for having children, and that it is unfair to men if they don't? You think he gets off on female poverty? Does he say that wealthy independent women shouldn't be having kids and getting away with it? No. He is saying that men shouldn't be roped in against their consent and be forced to pay for her decision. Why should he be?

That brings us to the post of mine you quoted and the one I was responding to. Is it biology or is it choice that makes a person more financially responsible than the rest of society for the support of a child? Ravensky was expressing frustration based on a biological responsibility. "It is HIS child!" Ravensky said. So I asked about sperm donors. it is their biological child too. They have given up all rights to the child and dislodged all financial responsibility for the child, so choice is relevant to at least some degree.

Some here are repeating the mantra that "The man had the choice to ejaculate or not". They think it obvious that this means he should be responsible for supporting the child (more than the rest of society is) despite the fact that usually when he does this no child is created and despite the fact that when he does this the woman then makes a choice of whether or not to have an abortion. Derec believes that this added level of choice and conscious decision specifically to bring this child into the world should attach a higher level of responsibility to the woman. Nobody has bothered to explain why not.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If a man stands up and takes on a caretaker role in financially assisting a mother and her child, and if it's substantive and enduring such that an abrupt about face would turn their world upside down, then shitty is the character of the man who would abandon them on the basis of no biological or marital connections.

In for a penny, in for a pound eh? By helping somebody out, you should be legally required to keep helping them out for the rest of their lives? Imagine if charities operated this way. You gave blood for the last ten years, now you don't want to, so we are forcing some out of you today. You dropped some canned goods off at the shelter each year in the past, so now we are raiding your pantry. You gave annual donations to Doctors Without Borders, so we are garnishing your wages now. You helped out a single mom for a few years because she was having money trouble and had a starving baby to feed, so you must now support that child until he's 18. You don't think this will discourage people from helping each other out?

If your concern is the support being pulled from the woman and child, leaving them living in abject poverty, then your issue shouldn't be with kind soul who had been helping them. It should be with the society at large that has put them and keeps them in that position. With a proper social safety net, funded by all of us in society, this would not be an issue. What reason do you have to say that the one person who went out of his or her way to help out in the past should be more required that the rest of us to help the woman and child now?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Misogyny is apparent when a poster characterizes women as sluts, etc. who don't terminate pregnancies because the bio father wished to be unburdened of any possible financial obligations.

You are mischaracterizing. The only women I called sluts are those that cheat, get pregnant, and then sue their ex-husband for child support, presumably because he has more money than the pool boy or whoever the cheating slut was cheating with.

So a strawwoman argument then?

 

[fast]

In for a penny, in for a pound eh? By helping somebody out, you should be legally required to keep helping them out for the rest of their lives?

I was speaking to his character. I'm adamently opposed to legally requiring unjust child support. Only in the rarest of cases should there be legal support from the male friend to the mother and her child by court order. A man that has moved in and assisted them for six months should in no way be expected to continue footing their bills, at least not beyond a short time. A man that moves in and takes up residence for six years and becomes the primary breadwinner, and if the financial livelihood of the mother and child has been shaped in a dependent fashion, then still, the man should have a way out, to one day cleanly close the doors to which he partook in opening, but to argue that marital or biological connection absolves him of the implicit promise to care for and provide for them is ludicrous. You don't set people up and crash their world around them because things didn't work out. It's vengeful and wrong.

Imagine if charities operated this way. You gave blood last month, so we are forcing some out of you today. You dropped some canned goods off at the shelter, so we are raiding your pantry. You gave annual donations to Doctors Without Borders, so we are garnishing your wages now. You helped out a single mom who was having money trouble and had a starving baby to feed, so you must now support that child until he's 18. You don't think this will discourage people from helping each other out?

Your examples lack the kind of endurance and dependence I had in mind. If one could (and did) give the quantity of blood that only an army could do, if this continued as a long-term habitual pattern, and if a bond of dependence has been established, then sure, to immediately stop cold turkey and turn my back on the way of life I created between us would be wrong.

If your concern is the support being pulled from the woman and child, leaving them living in abject poverty, then your issue shouldn't be with kind soul who had been helping them. It should be with the society at large that has put them and keeps them in that position. With a proper social safety net, funded by all of us in society, this would not be an issue. What reason do you have to say that the one person who went out of his or her way to help out in the past should be more required that the rest of us to help the woman and child now?

Helping them? I won't disagree with that characterization, but let us not limit our perspective to the good only. Creating reliance and doing nothing in the interim to spawn self-reliance puts a darker shade on the idea that they were being helped. Each situation is unique, and the circumstances are important. There are likely numerous examples where continued support would not be reasonable, yet I don't feel it's without reason to think it wrong to quickly discard support in every instance. At any rate, having marital or biological reasonings as a basis to cut all ties of long-term, established support seems to me a bit callous.

I don't want to deal with your last question right now.

 

[braces_for_impact]

The fact of the matter is that child support, paternity, family and divorce are all nuanced situations, and that our current system is hopelessly inept at solving the various problems that arise. Men are tricked into impregnating women every day, and I'm sure that there are men who intentionally get women pregnant against their will also, (other than rape, obviously) forcing her to make an awful choice.

There was a time when I would have agreed wholeheartedly that the child support system (as it stood in the courts) was rigged in favor of women. After decades of men walking away from their responsibilities, this was even expected. The view I now take is that in many cases, the courts are biased against the non-custodial parent. This varies by state, as some are better at child support enforcement than others, but none I know of are ideal. Some like Indiana, are among the worst.

Personally, I wouldn't use the argument about it being the man's or woman's choice to have sex. There are other, more persuasive arguments to use to convince others of the importance of taking responsibility for any children. I know I wouldn't use this argument on a pro-fetus side of an argument (not that I am, I'm pro-choice anyway) and so it seems contradictory to me to use it against a man to encourage him to take responsibility. Many of us on the pro-choice side realize that many teenagers are going to end up having sex, whether taught safe sex methods or not, so I would expect the same from most women and men as well. They may in general be more responsible sexually, but then again they may not be. They may also be generally very responsible people, but are overcome in the heat of the moment when it comes to sexual activity. There are many factors that go into a choice to have sex, and many that are ignored as well. I haven't looked into the actual statistics, but my hunch is that most people who are sexually active have made the mistake of under utilizing or not utilizing some sort of birth control or protection from STD's. Have you or anyone you've ever known made this mistake? Imagine how your life or theirs might be completely different if they didn't get "lucky" and have no consequences from their slip up.

There are just so many ways to be dishonest - whether men or women in these situations, and almost all of it comes down to one version of events vs. another. There's got to be a better way than we currently have, but I'm not sure what that could be.

 

[Playball40]

I don't think men should have to pay child support for a non-biological, non-adopted child. That's where it ends.

Then don't voluntarily take on the role and procure an atmosphere of dependence.

I'm not saying whether I think its ethical or moral, etc.. I'm just saying it shouldn't be forced by the state. If a man discovers his wife cheated and a child is not his he shouldn't be forced to pay - I'm saying nothing of what I might think of a man who actually abandons a child he loved and thought was his own.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Do you have a choice before ejaculation?

This is a broken record. Nobody has denied that men have a choice before ejaculation. Not even Derec. Not even going back to the first post this came up in.

Repeating over and over that men have a choice to have sex or not have sex does not address any of the points that have actually been made here.

The way this is being addressed here feels a lot like how religious people speak at rather than with non-believers. Just keep repeating the mantra and hope that is enough. Instead of logic or reason, Derec's points are being met with righteous indignation. Come on now. A freethinker forum can do a lot better.

Your problem isn't with a woman's choice or even child support law, but with the human reproductive system. The woman has the choice to abort or not, not because of evil family court or evil SCOTUS, but because SHE'S THE ONE WHO IS PREGNANT. THEREFORE men who do not take responsibility prior to ejaculation have by their negligence agree to any pregnancies that occur from their action.

Now I think if a man has taken precautions against pregnancy and those precautions fail, he should have an out because he didn't want to be a parent and took measures not to be a parent making real his intent. I also have no problem with tax dollars being used to take care of the citizenry. But to say that a man can take no precautions, impregnate a woman, pay no support for the child he set himself up for, AND make no public relief for the support of the child because you you don't like the mother is LUNACY.

 

[laughing dog]

Some here are repeating the mantra that "The man had the choice to ejaculate or not". They think it obvious that this means he should be responsible for supporting the child (more than the rest of society is) despite the fact that usually when he does this no child is created and despite the fact that when he does this the woman then makes a choice of whether or not to have an abortion. Derec believes that this added level of choice and conscious decision specifically to bring this child into the world should attach a higher level of responsibility to the woman. Nobody has bothered to explain why not.

Your response ignores the fact that Derec does not wish to pay taxes to support that child (his objection to that is what started this thread). He does not want the rest of society to step in to support that child because child support is simply a euphemism for "women getting paid". To be succinct, your defense of Derec is based on complete misunderstanding/mischaracterization of his well-documented positions.

 

[Derec]

Your response ignores the fact that Derec does not wish to pay taxes to support that child (his objection to that is what started this thread).

Not to the extent I am doing currently, no. I do not object to a reasonable level of services. What I objected most is that she didn't even acknowledge the $7k of tax credits (plus the exemptions that make her federal income tax liability practically zero) in her pity piece.

He does not want the rest of society to step in to support that child because child support is simply a euphemism for "women getting paid".

If the children this woman has were conceived in mutual agreement then she of course should get child support. What I object to is men being forced to pay child support when they shouldn't and also to men's financial situation not being adequately considered when assessing child support payment amounts. I.e. a man can become homeless because of child support and alimony payments while the ex-wife lives comfortably in the house he paid for.

 

[laughing dog]

Not to the extent I am doing currently, no. I do not object to a reasonable level of services. What I objected most is that she didn't even acknowledge the $7k of tax credits (plus the exemptions that make her federal income tax liability practically zero) in her pity piece.

That is not what you wrote. And it is fair interpretation of your position that any child support is too much since you claim it is a euphemism for "women get paid". Moreover, snce the woman was complaining about the attitudes she encountered not the level of outside support, it makes one wonder what prompted your observation since it is literally irrelevant to her comments.

If the children this woman has were conceived in mutual agreement then she of course should get child support. What I object to is men being forced to pay child support when they shouldn't and also to men's financial situation not being adequately considered when assessing child support payment amounts. I.e. a man can become homeless because of child support and alimony payments while the ex-wife lives comfortably in the house he paid for.

Please explain how this is even remotely relevant to the comment of He does not want the rest of society to step in to support that child because child support is simply a euphemism for "women getting paid". which specifically points out to the "rest of society".