Is child support outdated in the abortion age?

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski
ridiculous

Why? Only women get "choice"?

WOW!! Use a condom or face the consequences.. how fucking hard is that

WOW!! Use birthcontrol or face the consequences.. how fucking hard is that

Same for both women and men, so try again.

 

[Zebo]

Sorry child's welfare takes precedence over you.

Let me put it another way.

What's more 'fair'

1. An adult male paying some percentage of his income to support his progeny.

2. A child going without that support

I can't believe this question is even asked. I would give my 4 everything I own and start penniless in Kabul Afghanistan before being a absentee or negligent father. You obviously have no children.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
The man had the choice also.


When the child is born, it is due to both the male and female.
They need to take the responsibilty of the child.

This is really a pre-birth issue. The woman has "choice" and the male does not. The remedy posed for this is for the male to sign documentation that it's his "choice" to not participate.

If men were the ones carrying babies to term I am almost 100% certain the courts would give us the same ultimate decision making powers. Count me into the group of guys who aren't willing to endure monthly menstruation in order to gain this advantage

I have a hard time understanding why a guy who gets a girl pregnant (who wants to have the baby) like the OP is stating, should think he should be able to be recused from financial responsibility by "choice" just because the ultimate choice lies with her.

The remedy you mention is plausible, but would pretty much ensure that any woman with a brain would choose not to participate in the conception with the guy. However, I tend to think not all women have the aforementioned hardware to make such no-brainers and this would still be an issue.

So it's not about "choice" then? It's about bodily functions? Financial "responsibility" has nothing to do with bodily functions. Also, they still have more choice even if a man waived his rights in the first trimester - women still have the option of adoption after a man's "choice" would have long expired.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: ultra laser
I think the idea of child support is outdated. Women now have the option to abort their children, and as such, whether or not a child comes into existence is their sole decision. Why, then, should a man have to pay for the result of a woman's choice? It seems that women want freedom yet not the responsibility that comes with it.

You have the option of keeping your dick in your pants, too, or at the very least, always wearing a rubber. It seems that some men want freedom to have sex with impunity yet not the responsibility that comes with it.

And women have those same options(keep legs closed/pants on and contraceptives) yet they have "choice" on top of it which means they have full control no matter what the wishes of the sperm provider. EVERYTHING is equal up to the point of conception as far as responsibility goes so please try again.

Please try again? Why? Because you think otherwise? I always feel a sense of comfort when you and I disagree on an issue. I'm not certain if you have been paying attention the past few years, but is pretty much a slam dunk that when you disagree with someone posting here, you are the one that's wrong. That's why I only reply to your posts a couple of times a year. FGS CAD, even an outdated calendar eventually gets it right again...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Sorry child's welfare takes precedence over you.

Let me put it another way.

What's more 'fair'

1. An adult male paying some percentage of his income to support his progeny.

2. A child going without that support

I can't believe this question is even asked. I would give my 4 everything I own and start penniless in Kabul Afghanistan before being a absentee or negligent father. You obviously have no children.

I agree once the child is born and kept by the mother.... again all my answers are based on the premise in the OP about "choice".

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: ultra laser
I think the idea of child support is outdated. Women now have the option to abort their children, and as such, whether or not a child comes into existence is their sole decision. Why, then, should a man have to pay for the result of a woman's choice? It seems that women want freedom yet not the responsibility that comes with it.

You have the option of keeping your dick in your pants, too, or at the very least, always wearing a rubber. It seems that some men want freedom to have sex with impunity yet not the responsibility that comes with it.

And women have those same options(keep legs closed/pants on and contraceptives) yet they have "choice" on top of it which means they have full control no matter what the wishes of the sperm provider. EVERYTHING is equal up to the point of conception as far as responsibility goes so please try again.

Please try again? Why? Because you think otherwise? I always feel a sense of comfort when you and I disagree on an issue. I'm not certain if you have been paying attention the past few years, but is pretty much a slam dunk that when you disagree with someone posting here, you are the one that's wrong. That's why I only reply to your posts a couple of times a year. FGS CAD, even an outdated calendar eventually gets it right again...

Yes, your post only addressed the actions of the male - I pointed out that the woman has the same options up to that point. The actions, responsibility, and options are the same up until the time of conception as it currently stands, it's afterwards that it becomes unequal so it makes zero sense for you to chant about "keeping your dick in your pants" in regards to this issue.

As to the rest - I can say the same about you. any other worthless jabbering you wish to do?

 

[ultra laser]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Sorry child's welfare takes precedence over you.

Let me put it another way.

What's more 'fair'

1. An adult male paying some percentage of his income to support his progeny.

2. A child going without that support

I can't believe this question is even asked. I would give my 4 everything I own and start penniless in Kabul Afghanistan before being a absentee or negligent father. You obviously have no children.

If a woman cannot afford a child, she should not have one. And you must remember that before a child can have welfare it must first exist; and whether or not it will exist is dependent entirely on the woman's volition.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: ultra laser

Originally posted by: Zebo
Sorry child's welfare takes precedence over you.

Let me put it another way.

What's more 'fair'

1. An adult male paying some percentage of his income to support his progeny.

2. A child going without that support

I can't believe this question is even asked. I would give my 4 everything I own and start penniless in Kabul Afghanistan before being a absentee or negligent father. You obviously have no children.

If a woman cannot afford a child, she should not have one. And you must remember that before a child can have welfare it must first exist; and whether or not it will exist is dependent entirely on the woman's volition.

If a woman cannot afford to have a child, chances are she will anyway because it is her, and our species, biological imperative. You underestimate the will and the need to reproduce regardless of societal customs/rules of finance. In doing so, you ignore reality.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: ultra laser
I think the idea of child support is outdated. Women now have the option to abort their children, and as such, whether or not a child comes into existence is their sole decision. Why, then, should a man have to pay for the result of a woman's choice? It seems that women want freedom yet not the responsibility that comes with it.

I feel your pain, but don't worry, when you are making that last payment, it won't even buy a bag of groceries.

 

[Wheezer]

I think the idea of child support is outdated. Women now have the option to abort their children, and as such, whether or not a child comes into existence is their sole decision. Why, then, should a man have to pay for the result of a woman's choice? It seems that women want freedom yet not the responsibility that comes with it.

Sounds like someone shoulda pulled out and shot it in a bucket........but since you didn't....[Nelson]HA HA.[/Nelson]

You make it sound like it only is a matter of money to raise a child...you might want to rethink that idea there sparky.

"Freedom?"

- 3 a.m feedings
- changing shitty diapers at all hours
- keeping them safe 24/7
- watching over them so some perv doesn't try to take them
- getting them ready for school every morning
- preparing decent meals
- makeing sure they are clothed properly
- dealing with tantrums
- teething
- colic
- Dr. visits

and that is just the tip of the iceberg.....there is so much more and for 18 years......which is why I never wanted kids, too much damn responsibility.

But if I had a kid I would gladly pay child support as long as I did not have to deal with all that bullshit....take the money and leave me out of it.

There are some out there that should never be parents...ever but those single moms who are busting their ases to raise a well rounded child and work a full time job good for you.....a putz like the OP obviously has no fucking clue what it takes to raise a child.

 

[3chordcharlie]

So as usual, this is being framed as a man vs. woman debate, which it is not.

Children need to be supported, usually for more than two decades. It has nothing to do with the woman.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
So as usual, this is being framed as a man vs. woman debate, which it is not.

Children need to be supported, usually for more than two decades. It has nothing to do with the woman.

You would be correct if the discussion was about the child - it's not. It's about the financial charge without options for only one side of the equation. Basically, the premise and question is "choice" - not about what may be best for a birthed and kept child.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
The man had the choice also.


When the child is born, it is due to both the male and female.
They need to take the responsibilty of the child.

This is really a pre-birth issue. The woman has "choice" and the male does not. The remedy posed for this is for the male to sign documentation that it's his "choice" to not participate.

That's kind of a silly premise. While both a man and a woman are involved in pregnancy, suggesting that their roles are identical and thus the man should get an equal amount of "choice" (which is exactly what you're doing) doesn't make a lot of sense. Abortion is a choice for women because THEY are ones who get pregnant. As for financial support after birth, at that point even pro-choice people aren't arguing that it's still a choice issue...the man shouldn't be allowed to not take responsibility after birth any more than the woman is.

Conflating abortion and financial support is comparing apples and oranges.

Again, this isn't about AFTER the birth - this is BEFORE the birth. You know... "pre-birth" like I stated and you didn't seem to read.
There are ZERO "choices" for a male after conception and there are atleast 2 for women - 1 pre-birth and one immediately post birth(adoption) both of which only the woman has a "choice". If there is supposed to be responsibility and equality - an option should be provided the male during the first trimester just like it is afforded the woman. I would still agree that the adoption "choice" should still remain for the woman immediately after birth since she did her time(being pregnant and actually doing the birthing). But again - it's ironic to see all these "choice" people trying to deny "choice"... it makes one wonder if their support of abortion as a "choice" really is about "choice"...

Is this something more than just a roundabout way to argue against abortion? Because it sure doesn't sound that way...

You're arguing for fairness and equality where it doesn't exist. Women get pregnant, men don't, so any argument based on "equality" doesn't have a leg to stand on.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
So as usual, this is being framed as a man vs. woman debate, which it is not.

Children need to be supported, usually for more than two decades. It has nothing to do with the woman.

You would be correct if the discussion was about the child - it's not. It's about the financial charge without options for only one side of the equation. Basically, the premise and question is "choice" - not about what may be best for a birthed and kept child.

You can't just decide what the discussion is or is not about because it makes your argument easier. If a child is born, SOMEONE has to take care of it, and it would seem to make sense that it's the financial responsibility of the parents. Arguing that it's somehow not fair because the man didn't have a choice as to whether or not the child was born requires us to ignore what's best for the child.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
So as usual, this is being framed as a man vs. woman debate, which it is not.

Children need to be supported, usually for more than two decades. It has nothing to do with the woman.

You would be correct if the discussion was about the child - it's not. It's about the financial charge without options for only one side of the equation. Basically, the premise and question is "choice" - not about what may be best for a birthed and kept child.

Since Rainsford hit the nail on the head with his response to you, I'll just offer some advice:

You will have an easier time arguing this by pointing out that a single mom can give a child up for adoption, and simultaneously, magically relieve the father of any obligation. This will be much more convincing than the argument you are using at the moment.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
So as usual, this is being framed as a man vs. woman debate, which it is not.

Children need to be supported, usually for more than two decades. It has nothing to do with the woman.

You would be correct if the discussion was about the child - it's not. It's about the financial charge without options for only one side of the equation. Basically, the premise and question is "choice" - not about what may be best for a birthed and kept child.

You can't just decide what the discussion is or is not about because it makes your argument easier. If a child is born, SOMEONE has to take care of it, and it would seem to make sense that it's the financial responsibility of the parents. Arguing that it's somehow not fair because the man didn't have a choice as to whether or not the child was born requires us to ignore what's best for the child.

What? Did you not read the OP?

And yes, I agree with what you state(again under the premise of "choice"), IF and when a child "is born. However, "choice" as defined by abortion doesn't take into account what is "best for the child" either so yes- "choice" may not take into account what's "best".

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Who knew Michael Crook and his retarded cousin were members here? What a world!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
So as usual, this is being framed as a man vs. woman debate, which it is not.

Children need to be supported, usually for more than two decades. It has nothing to do with the woman.

You would be correct if the discussion was about the child - it's not. It's about the financial charge without options for only one side of the equation. Basically, the premise and question is "choice" - not about what may be best for a birthed and kept child.

Since Rainsford hit the nail on the head with his response to you, I'll just offer some advice:

You will have an easier time arguing this by pointing out that a single mom can give a child up for adoption, and simultaneously, magically relieve the father of any obligation. This will be much more convincing than the argument you are using at the moment.

I responded to his post. And yes, i have already pointed out that adoption is the second "choice" a woman has that a man does not. It doesn't change things much though when it comes to "choice".

 

[nonameo]

The courts should just make them have another child so they each can have one. Problem solved!

 

[ScottyB]

There should be no such thing as child support. If the woman doesn't want to pay for the kid she can give it up for adoption.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: ultra laser
I think the idea of child support is outdated. Women now have the option to abort their children, and as such, whether or not a child comes into existence is their sole decision. Why, then, should a man have to pay for the result of a woman's choice? It seems that women want freedom yet not the responsibility that comes with it.

It sounds like you more or less support "paper abortions for men". It's a great idea and it makes perfect sense, but it's an idea before its time. Abortion is barely legal as it is right now. In order to be able to convince the public to support paper abortions for men, abortion first needs be accepted as being fully moral, and in the case of unplanned pregnancy, the rational course of action if not morally obligatory. We are light-years away from that. Too many people still buy into Christian mythology.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
The man had the choice also.

When the child is born, it is due to both the male and female.
They need to take the responsibilty of the child.

Those are very different kinds of choices. Men don't have the absolute ability to prevent a pregnancy whereas women do. An example of an equal choice in this regard would be if abortion were made illegal and women were forced to carry unwanted embryos to term.

It comes down to this, women have 100% of the choice as to whether or not a child will be born, so why shouldn't they also bear 100% of the responsibility if a man offers to waive all parental rights within a reasonable amount of time after conception?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: dahunan

WOW!! Use a condom or face the consequences.. how fucking hard is that.

Condoms can break and thus aren't 100% reliable. Also, men don't have any other options other than sterilization.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: ultra laser
I think the idea of child support is outdated. Women now have the option to abort their children, and as such, whether or not a child comes into existence is their sole decision. Why, then, should a man have to pay for the result of a woman's choice? It seems that women want freedom yet not the responsibility that comes with it.

Oh this is awesome.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Sorry child's welfare takes precedence over you.

Let me put it another way.

What's more 'fair'

1. An adult male paying some percentage of his income to support his progeny.

2. A child going without that support

I can't believe this question is even asked. I would give my 4 everything I own and start penniless in Kabul Afghanistan before being a absentee or negligent father. You obviously have no children.

The problem with "for the children" type arguments is that you can use them to justify just about anything "for the children". How about communism or outright slavery or very high taxes--"for the children"? One day those children will grow up to be full adults who will then suffer all of the government's policies "for the children".

What you're missing here is that these children would have their mothers to raise and support them and their mother's families. Of course, some children will be born into poverty as they are today, but that's a result of their mothers' own irrationality and irresponsibility.