Is child support outdated in the abortion age?

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
No, you are not correct because what I have been saying because what I've stated is in the context of "CHOICE" - not what's "best for the child after born and kept. Now again - look at what I've stated about after kept and born - obviously what is best for the child should be done but "best for the child" is not part of "choice" because "it" is just a glob of cells in the world of "choice".

Yes your blustering at the end I agree with but you keep missing the separation and context.

Question - do you agree with "choice" as it pertains to a woman?

At this point I think you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, but I will entertain it in hopes of bringing to an end.

I agree with "choice" and "fairness" on a case by case basis. In this case specifically, I just don't see a better way to handle the situation. Men do not have a choice after conception takes place. I don't like it, but I dislike the alternatives even more so...tough.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
No, you are not correct because what I have been saying because what I've stated is in the context of "CHOICE" - not what's "best for the child after born and kept. Now again - look at what I've stated about after kept and born - obviously what is best for the child should be done but "best for the child" is not part of "choice" because "it" is just a glob of cells in the world of "choice".

Yes your blustering at the end I agree with but you keep missing the separation and context.

Question - do you agree with "choice" as it pertains to a woman?

At this point I think you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, but I will entertain it in hopes of bringing to an end.

I agree with "choice" and "fairness" on a case by case basis. In this case specifically, I just don't see a better way to handle the situation. Men do not have a choice after conception takes place. I don't like it, but I dislike the alternatives even more so...tough.

Nice dodge... Oh well... you are entirely free to use differing criteria if you wish... just don't pretend to be consistent or principled.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
No, you are not correct because what I have been saying because what I've stated is in the context of "CHOICE" - not what's "best for the child after born and kept. Now again - look at what I've stated about after kept and born - obviously what is best for the child should be done but "best for the child" is not part of "choice" because "it" is just a glob of cells in the world of "choice".

Yes your blustering at the end I agree with but you keep missing the separation and context.

Question - do you agree with "choice" as it pertains to a woman?

At this point I think you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, but I will entertain it in hopes of bringing to an end.

I agree with "choice" and "fairness" on a case by case basis. In this case specifically, I just don't see a better way to handle the situation. Men do not have a choice after conception takes place. I don't like it, but I dislike the alternatives even more so...tough.

Nice dodge... Oh well... you are entirely free to use differing criteria if you wish... just don't pretend to be consistent or principled.

Dodge? I thought I answered your question. What the heck are you trying to ask me that I didn't answer? You asked "do you agree with "choice" as it pertains to a woman?" Try to be less cryptic with your posts. Be more specific and clear with your questions and explanations.

Let me try to rephrase the answer for you. I agree with the choices that women are granted in this situation. I also agree with the fact that men should not have a choice after conception takes place. Again, while I agree with that, I don't like it. I agree with it because I think it is the best way to handle the situation give the available solutions. I like things just the way they are with exception of the level of enforcement and the number of loopholes that exist to get around the law. It is not completely fair, but I think it is as close as we are going to get while also doing our best to protect the common welfare in this country by not screwing over the kids in this conflict.

Is that more clear?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
No, you are not correct because what I have been saying because what I've stated is in the context of "CHOICE" - not what's "best for the child after born and kept. Now again - look at what I've stated about after kept and born - obviously what is best for the child should be done but "best for the child" is not part of "choice" because "it" is just a glob of cells in the world of "choice".

Yes your blustering at the end I agree with but you keep missing the separation and context.

Question - do you agree with "choice" as it pertains to a woman?

At this point I think you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, but I will entertain it in hopes of bringing to an end.

I agree with "choice" and "fairness" on a case by case basis. In this case specifically, I just don't see a better way to handle the situation. Men do not have a choice after conception takes place. I don't like it, but I dislike the alternatives even more so...tough.

Nice dodge... Oh well... you are entirely free to use differing criteria if you wish... just don't pretend to be consistent or principled.

Dodge? I thought I answered your question. What the heck are you trying to ask me that I didn't answer? You asked "do you agree with "choice" as it pertains to a woman?" Try to be less cryptic with your posts. Be more specific and clear with your questions and explanations.

Let me try to rephrase the answer for you. I agree with the choices that women are granted in this situation. I also agree with the fact that men should not have a choice after conception takes place. Again, while I agree with that, I don't like it. I agree with it because I think it is the best way to handle the situation give the available solutions. I like things just the way they are with exception of the level of enforcement and the number of loopholes that exist to get around the law.

Is that more clear?

You answered with "case by case" - that is a dodge - not an answer.

So you agree that it's "choice" for a woman to either abort or later give up for adoption?

Again, you don't seem to be able to separate the situation here - you seem to only look at it all through the scope of the end result. Part of thinking through a position is to make sure there is rationality and consistency at each step. Would bypassing these potential snags in consistency not be akin to the "results justify the means"? Or otherwise posed as - you know the outcome you wish so you rationalize or skip what might not fit?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
You answered with "case by case" - that is a dodge - not an answer.

So you agree that it's "choice" for a woman to either abort or later give up for adoption?

Again, you don't seem to be able to separate the situation here - you seem to only look at it all through the scope of the end result. Part of thinking through a position is to make sure there is rationality and consistency at each step. Would bypassing these potential snags in consistency not be akin to the "results justify the means"? Or otherwise posed as - you know the outcome you wish so you rationalize or skip what might not fit?

I answered with "case by case" because that is precisely what I believe. I don't look at this stuff so black and white. Generally speaking though, my beliefs on the matter side with what I think is best for the kid should it be decided by the woman to not get an abortion or give it up for adoption. I put that as a priority over "choice" in this case.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
just because a man wants to have sex with doesn't mean he wants to have a baby with you.

Consciously? Yeah, that might be the case. However, the urge to have sex with a person stems from biological imperative to reproduce. So indirectly it is. Just because the urge to have children isn't a conscious one doesn't give you a free pass on the responsibility and consequences of sex.

Its not a consequence of sex. Its a choice by the women to be/get pregnant and stay that way. Back in the day when nobody knew about where babies came from sure it was a consequence but in todays age as implied in the OP....there are a multitude of options leading up to and including abortion to avoid procreation or prevent it in the first place. A women chooses "CONSCIOUSLY" to bypass those options. A man has no say in the matter and is held at the whim of "her choice"

Just because you can take preventative measures when you have sex, and the woman has the legal (and practical) right to an abortion doesn't mean it isn't a consequence, nor solely the woman's choice. No preventative measure, aside from not having sex, is 100% effective, so pregnancy is a possible CONSEQUENCE. Abortion is another thing to consider. For some, it isn't really a choice whether that be due to legal/moral/financial or other considerations.

lol .......ok so you are basing your argument solely on the 0.01% chance a that pregnancy occurs when a women is on birth control and a condom is used. get real.

There are PLENTY of counterexamples to the statement you initially provided, despite the percentages you claim. This is a FACT. Hence, you saying that pregnancy isn't a possible consequence of (protected or otherwise) sex is false.

PLENTY? FACTS? Where? oh and i dont make up facts the drug companies that make BC are required to do controlled studies and pass FDA trials and trojan is also required to test effectiveness of its condoms so...i mean.....if science is made up percentages so be it.

oh and furthermore this isn't a discussion about consequences. The arguement was if women exclusively are in control of all choice regarding a baby why is it that men are still held responsible for the women choice.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
just because a man wants to have sex with doesn't mean he wants to have a baby with you.

Consciously? Yeah, that might be the case. However, the urge to have sex with a person stems from biological imperative to reproduce. So indirectly it is. Just because the urge to have children isn't a conscious one doesn't give you a free pass on the responsibility and consequences of sex.

Its not a consequence of sex. Its a choice by the women to be/get pregnant and stay that way. Back in the day when nobody knew about where babies came from sure it was a consequence but in todays age as implied in the OP....there are a multitude of options leading up to and including abortion to avoid procreation or prevent it in the first place. A women chooses "CONSCIOUSLY" to bypass those options. A man has no say in the matter and is held at the whim of "her choice"

Just because you can take preventative measures when you have sex, and the woman has the legal (and practical) right to an abortion doesn't mean it isn't a consequence, nor solely the woman's choice. No preventative measure, aside from not having sex, is 100% effective, so pregnancy is a possible CONSEQUENCE. Abortion is another thing to consider. For some, it isn't really a choice whether that be due to legal/moral/financial or other considerations.

lol .......ok so you are basing your argument solely on the 0.01% chance a that pregnancy occurs when a women is on birth control and a condom is used. get real.

There are PLENTY of counterexamples to the statement you initially provided, despite the percentages you claim. This is a FACT. Hence, you saying that pregnancy isn't a possible consequence of (protected or otherwise) sex is false.

PLENTY? FACTS? Where? oh and i dont make up facts the drug companies that make BC are required to do controlled studies and pass FDA trials and trojan is also required to test effectiveness of its condoms so...i mean.....if science is made up percentages so be it.

oh and furthermore this isn't a discussion about consequences. The arguement was if women exclusively are in control of all choice regarding a baby why is it that men are still held responsible for the women choice.

Damn...typed up a whole reply to this and lost it.

Anyway, you said it yourself, the FDA tests these forms of BC and has conclusively found that none of them are 100% effective. So, for those cases that fail, the only outcomes are pregnancy, miscarriage, or abortion. Hence, pregnancy is always a possibility even when BC measures are used.

But you are right in this drifting OT. This thread is supposed to be about choice and responsibility. This is only tangential to the argument. The woman may have the ultimate veto power (abortion), but that doesn't rid the male of responsibility. A lame (but accurate enough) parallel exists between Congress and the POTUS on the creation of laws. Both must be held accountable when they do not do their jobs, and neither should be exhonorated because the final decision didn't rest with them. Both need to take responsibility for what they do. Each side has controls/processes to be sure that legislation does what they want without any unintended consequences, but when those do happen they must take responsibility. (In the mean time, we all get screwed. )

However, this fails in that if a birth does occur, a new entity in its own right exists. Since it is incapable of taking care of itself for a number of years, we as a society have it so that its needs take precedence over the wants/intentions of the parents. This is how it should be. Anything else is just fine tuning...

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Women control sex, women control their birth control, women control carrying to term or not. Frankly if a woman has a baby in this day and age how is it anyone's responsibility but hers?

If two people decide to have a child and sometime later split up both of them should bbe responsible for half the cost and hopefully half the time needed for the child's upbringing.

What's so hard about this?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Women control sex, women control their birth control, women control carrying to term or not. Frankly if a woman has a baby in this day and age how is it anyone's responsibility but hers?

If two people decide to have a child and sometime later split up both of them should bbe responsible for half the cost and hopefully half the time needed for the child's upbringing.

What's so hard about this?

I meant that in the context of "accidents" which has pretty much been the tone of the thread. I don't disagree with your scenario.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
You answered with "case by case" - that is a dodge - not an answer.

So you agree that it's "choice" for a woman to either abort or later give up for adoption?

Again, you don't seem to be able to separate the situation here - you seem to only look at it all through the scope of the end result. Part of thinking through a position is to make sure there is rationality and consistency at each step. Would bypassing these potential snags in consistency not be akin to the "results justify the means"? Or otherwise posed as - you know the outcome you wish so you rationalize or skip what might not fit?

I answered with "case by case" because that is precisely what I believe. I don't look at this stuff so black and white. Generally speaking though, my beliefs on the matter side with what I think is best for the kid should it be decided by the woman to not get an abortion or give it up for adoption. I put that as a priority over "choice" in this case.

lol, what's best for the kid determines whether to abort or not in your mind? Please tell me how it's best for a kid to be killed before being born? No wonder you won't/can't give a straight answer - you think not being born could possibly be better for a kid than being born - that's F'n messed up. ... and you think you're all smart and shit by claiming not "black and white" - you're a joke.

Oh, and again (which isn't surprising) you can't separate your logic - the result(your feelings) determine what rationale you use or ignore... like I stated before - you are entitled to your opinion but just don't pretend to be consistent or principled.

 

[Geekbabe]

Given the high cost of daycare, I wonder if the average child support
award even covers 50% of just that cost. The vast majority of men aren't
CEO's.

I also wonder how many abortions already happen now because the man flat out tells
the woman he doesn't want the kid and won't be involved..most normal women on hearing
that they will be going it alone chose to abort or adoption if they figure they can't afford the child
or lack family supports to help them. The prospect of facing a couple decades of chasing an unwilling
parent for money and/or direct care assistance is rather daunting.

I don't agree with men being ordered to pay for children that aren't their's but I also think the issue
is complex. I also think an unplanned,unwanted pregnancy is a tragedy for all involved, not the least
of whom is the potential child.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

This should be a simple question with a simple answer, unfortunatnly there are so few MEN in this forum so it turns into a debate.

Women get pregnant, men don't it's as fucking simple as that, if you have to feel superior or women and feel that you have the right to decide what they do with their own bodies then move to fucking Saudi Arabia where you can get that.

Trust me on this, no free society wants ignorant twats anyway.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
This should be a simple question with a simple answer, unfortunatnly there are so few MEN in this forum so it turns into a debate.

Women get pregnant, men don't it's as fucking simple as that, if you have to feel superior or women and feel that you have the right to decide what they do with their own bodies then move to fucking Saudi Arabia where you can get that.

Trust me on this, no free society wants ignorant twats anyway.

I think you fail at understanding. This has NOTHING to do with the WOMAN'S right AT ALL.

 

[ultra laser]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
This should be a simple question with a simple answer, unfortunatnly there are so few MEN in this forum so it turns into a debate.

Women get pregnant, men don't it's as fucking simple as that, if you have to feel superior or women and feel that you have the right to decide what they do with their own bodies then move to fucking Saudi Arabia where you can get that.

Trust me on this, no free society wants ignorant twats anyway.

I've noticed that you get really emotionally involved in internet forums. Not a particularly manly quality, I must say.

Besides, the debate isn't even about abortion, it's about whether or not men should have to pay women for 18 years if they decide to have children.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
This should be a simple question with a simple answer, unfortunatnly there are so few MEN in this forum so it turns into a debate.

Women get pregnant, men don't it's as fucking simple as that, if you have to feel superior or women and feel that you have the right to decide what they do with their own bodies then move to fucking Saudi Arabia where you can get that.

Trust me on this, no free society wants ignorant twats anyway.

I think you fail at understanding. This has NOTHING to do with the WOMAN'S right AT ALL.

Not according to the OP, but I guess that is what this thread is trying to show: that abortion (right to choose) has no ultimate effect on issues regarding child support. Once a child is BORN (emphasis as we aren't talking about a fetus, etc. for the anti-abortion crowd), then the situation rests equally on both parents to ensure the successful upbringing and care of the child.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Excuse me, no it will never be outdated to answer the post question. Its one thing to permit abortion, I am not going to go into that debate, but when you have the fact of a living breathing child coming into the world, courts should and do protect the child's rights and hold both parents responsible. And truth be told, most divorces occur long after the first child is born.

I can agree somewhat with blackaignst1, those errors occur, courts are reluctant to long after declare the child a bastard, and unless the man is proactive, its often you snooze you lose. Its not fair but that is how court reasoning works.

I think the problem arises when women use having children as a means of income, they can get different guys to knock them up so they get different sources of child support plus they can live off welfare. Then you have the huge problem of, a lot of women that get child support don't use that money on the child, it goes to buy smokes, beer, and drugs.

There really needs to be an income threshold for women before they can have a kid.
People claim that the guy should have kept his pecker in his pants, well the woman should have kept her damn legs shut.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
This should be a simple question with a simple answer, unfortunatnly there are so few MEN in this forum so it turns into a debate.

Women get pregnant, men don't it's as fucking simple as that, if you have to feel superior or women and feel that you have the right to decide what they do with their own bodies then move to fucking Saudi Arabia where you can get that.

Trust me on this, no free society wants ignorant twats anyway.

I think you fail at understanding. This has NOTHING to do with the WOMAN'S right AT ALL.

Not according to the OP, but I guess that is what this thread is trying to show: that abortion (right to choose) has no ultimate effect on issues regarding child support. Once a child is BORN (emphasis as we aren't talking about a fetus, etc. for the anti-abortion crowd), then the situation rests equally on both parents to ensure the successful upbringing and care of the child.

No, the OP has to do with the lack of options for the men either pre or post birth. Even post birth, the women can bail on her responsibility and out the kid up for adoption. Again, it has to do with the numerous choices women have, and the zero options men have. Abortion is only one option. Morning after is another. Again, its not an abortion issue.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Excuse me, no it will never be outdated to answer the post question. Its one thing to permit abortion, I am not going to go into that debate, but when you have the fact of a living breathing child coming into the world, courts should and do protect the child's rights and hold both parents responsible. And truth be told, most divorces occur long after the first child is born.

I can agree somewhat with blackaignst1, those errors occur, courts are reluctant to long after declare the child a bastard, and unless the man is proactive, its often you snooze you lose. Its not fair but that is how court reasoning works.

I think the problem arises when women use having children as a means of income, they can get different guys to knock them up so they get different sources of child support plus they can live off welfare. Then you have the huge problem of, a lot of women that get child support don't use that money on the child, it goes to buy smokes, beer, and drugs.

There really needs to be an income threshold for women before they can have a kid.
People claim that the guy should have kept his pecker in his pants, well the woman should have kept her damn legs shut.

To expand your comments, I think the burden lies *mostly* with the women. SHE has all the choices. Even PRE fertilization, theres IUD, vaginal ring, pill, the patch, Depo-Provera, contraceptive implants, cervical cap, sponge, diaphram, foam, film, not to mention tubal ligation, morning after pill, and abortion.

Men have what...condoms? Please. The thought of "accidental pregnancy" is a joke.

 

[PingSpike]

I think its pretty clear that if abortion is legal, the paper abortion or whatever is the only way to make it fair for both sexes. Both women and men can use birth control (although I'd argue women seem to have the better options here, condoms really aren't that great or reliable). But in the event that BC fails for either or both parties involved, the woman still has a a fail safe escape. But the man has none at that point. The paper abortion would let him absolve himself of the situation while still letting the woman retain the choice of how to proceed.

The only other fair ways of handling it would be to outlaw abortions and force all children to be carried to term or to have both the man and the woman have veto power instead of just the woman. (AKA, the man could force her to get an abortion). The first option seems the most flexible while still retaining fairness.

Fat chance of this every happening though! The current policy is basically to find a man, preferably the father, but any slub is close proximity will do, and hand him the responsibility with none of the power. You better just hope for a male birth control pill to show up sometime soon or keep it in your pants. Hell, you can get stuck with the child support bill for getting a BJ so make sure you flush your condoms.

 

[Todd Gack]

I think it's time for men to organize politically the way that women, blacks, and gays have done. This appears to be the only path to justice.

 

[citan x]

I read all about "choice" this, "choice" that, but the premise for this argument is not "choice", but about equality of men and women. Women have second chances to get out from a pregnancy, while men do not. Therefore, men should get a second chance in order to be equal or fair with women.
However, men are not equal to women. I repeat, men are not the same as women. Men will never have the same choices as women because they are different. Women can choose to have an abortion because it is their body.

I, however, do not agree with woman support. If the woman cannot support herself, then custody should be given to the man.

I will agree to this. Just like there is a pre-nupt agreement, there could be a pre-sex agreement that both parties have to sign where it is outlined what will happen in the event of pregnancy. That way there are no surprises, no lies, no backstabbing. A woman will know the man only wants sex with her and nothing more. The man will know he won't be financially responsible for her.

 

[MikeyLSU]

just cause you don't want to be a part of the childs life doesn't absolve you from anything. You are still the biological father and nothing can change that.

The only thing about inequality I hate is that if the man is fully against abortion and wants to keep the child but the women doesn't, she can still get an abortion.

 

[budafied]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
i certainly sympathize that some men get themselves into some pretty unfair situations, but i have little sympathy for men who basically view women as the enemy because they just want to screw them but not have to put up with the consequences of it...get your head out of your ass you sick bastards...do you know how disgusting your viewpoint is?

you reduce life to a morbid nightmare where everyone is an en enemy and we just try to extract benefits out of each other while simultaneously looking for a way to not have to deal the results

THIS is why birth control and abortion started in the first place. Because men (and women) wanted to have sex without the 'consequence' of procreation. This is why we have these debates, because modern society has accepted abortion and contraception as progress for man... If not ,then the traditional family would still exist, and these questions (from the OP) would be irrelevant...

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Men have what...condoms?

Get snipped and use a condom. Problem solved.

Or you can continue to have sex with whoever is willing and complain about the possible outcomes..... which you were fully aware of beforehand.

 

[classy]

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.

This might be the most ignorant post I have ever read. I hope any woman who shows any interest in you reads this post and walks away. Children and the decision to have them goes beyond just paying for them. Idiot