• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Child Support Payback

roguenuke said:
But how many would it actually cover then? How many people do you really think would a) choose to "opt out" within the proper amount of time and b) also accept giving up all "relationship rights" with their children? My guess would be very few. So then what would even be the point in such a law?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. It offers equality to those that want it.
 
roguenuke said:
Lol. No, they shouldn't. There is no "right" to opt out of supporting for a child, especially one that is yours and already born. And unless you can convince a helluva lot of people that it should be, might as well give it up. Pretty sure this isn't going to go over well anywhere in the US.
Click to expand...

This is not about opting out....

This is about being paid back.
 
Lursa said:
Exactly. They are trying to 'use' the concept of equality and it's more like an abuse.

It abuses all those that would be relieved of the burden they directly and knowingly created....burdening others with your responsibilities is not equality and the state is tasked with protecting the kids and the taxpayers...this argument just cheapens the idea of equality. There is no legal or ethical motivation to move that burden away from those directly responsible for creating it.

Imagine...all the hundreds of thousands of men that would be able to opt out. And then imagine that most/many would take it. It's ludicrous to think that there would be no noticeable additional burden on taxpayers....yet that's been claimed. Apparently we are sucking it up for welfare and other entitlements...so what's one more?

Er...that opinion holds no moral High Ground at all.
Click to expand...

Then maybe women should not be having all this sex with guys they are not married to... for ****s sake :roll:
 
Bodhisattva said:
This is not about opting out....

This is about being paid back.
Click to expand...

It's still opting out. He is opting out of being a father, which is the only reasoning you even have for this proposal, is that the guy did not want to be a father, and that he doesn't have a biological opt out like the mother does.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Then maybe women should not be having all this sex with guys they are not married to... for ****s sake :roll:
Click to expand...

The same exact could and should be said for men. If they don't want to be paying child support, they should not be having sex with women they are not married to. (Of course, we all know that even this is no guarantee to be raising a child as a single mother or father or paying child support.)
 
Bodhisattva said:
Irrelevant. It offers equality to those that want it.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Because the mother has to find out she is pregnant within a certain time frame to get an abortion. Not all do. So how is that "equal"?
 
vegas giants said:
Yeah they said that about civil rights all thru history. In the end they are always wrong
Click to expand...

LOL. This is not a civil rights issue. While men certainly should have a higher consideration when it comes to custody of their children, there is no comparison between this and civil rights. This is certain men just trying to get out of paying for their child because they (along with the mother) were irresponsible.
 
roguenuke said:
LOL. This is not a civil rights issue. While men certainly should have a higher consideration when it comes to custody of their children, there is no comparison between this and civil rights. This is certain men just trying to get out of paying for their child because they (along with the mother) were irresponsible.
Click to expand...

No it is about pro choice. A woman has a choive post conception to opt out. So should a man. Do you think consent to sex is consent to parenthood?
 
roguenuke said:
LOL. This is not a civil rights issue. While men certainly should have a higher consideration when it comes to custody of their children, there is no comparison between this and civil rights. This is certain men just trying to get out of paying for their child because they (along with the mother) were irresponsible.
Click to expand...

For some reason, they seem to think their version of 'equality' comes down to what looks like a mathematic equation AND that that is something the state is concerned about regarding *this issue*. It's not. It's not a civil rights issue, as you say.

It's about protecting the best interests of the child and society and being responsible to the taxpayers. There is no legal reason for the state to view this based on equality...they are just "using" it to try and get out of child support.

And again...give men that opt out and hundreds of thousands A YEAR would take that option....and yet I've been told here that there would be no noticeable additional burden on taxpayers. :roll:
 
Lursa said:
For some reason, they seem to think their version of 'equality' comes down to what looks like a mathematic equation AND that that is something the state is concerned about regarding *this issue*. It's not. It's not a civil rights issue, as you say.

It's about protecting the best interests of the child and society and being responsible to the taxpayers. There is no legal reason for the state to view this based on equality...they are just "using" it to try and get out of child support.

And again...give men that opt out and hundreds of thousands A YEAR would take that option....and yet I've been told here that there would be no noticeable additional burden on taxpayers. :roll:
Click to expand...

The best interests of the child are to help ensure that it has parents that can afford to raise it. The best interests of the child are not servred by encouraging a mother to raise a child on her own and bilk money every moneth out of an absentee dad. She could wait to find a partner who is WILLING to parent or she could make enough money to do it herself. We need to stop incentivizing irresponsible behavior by women.
 
SDET said:
The woman doesn't have to take responsibility for her actions regardless. Once the kid gets to be about 10 years old, she can become a lady of leisure, living off an ex-husband and the state.
Click to expand...

You obviously don't have experience in child rearing. 10 year olds don't drive. Usually they don't cook or do laundry. There's a lot of work in caring for a child, ever after the bottle and diaper stage.
 
vegas giants said:
The best interests of the child are to help ensure that it has parents that can afford to raise it. The best interests of the child are not servred by encouraging a mother to raise a child on her own and bilk money every moneth out of an absentee dad. She could wait to find a partner who is WILLING to parent or she could make enough money to do it herself. We need to stop incentivizing irresponsible behavior by women.
Click to expand...

So then another admission that this opt out is really not about equality, but about men (hoping to) manipulate women's decisions.

Thanks!
 
Lursa said:
So then another admission that this opt out is really not about equality, but about men (hoping to) manipulate women's decisions.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Not manipulate. Just put them on a equal footing with men. Is consent to sex consent to parenthood?
 
vegas giants said:
Not manipulate. Just put them on a equal footing with men. Is consent to sex consent to parenthood?
Click to expand...

No backtracking. Eventually the truth comes out. Just like it did when Bhod finally wrote it.
 
Lursa said:
No backtracking. Eventually the truth comes out. Just like it did when Bhod finally wrote it.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. Don't run. You can't hide. LOL
 
vegas giants said:
No it is about pro choice. A woman has a choive post conception to opt out. So should a man. Do you think consent to sex is consent to parenthood?
Click to expand...

Because of biology. This has been explained to you. She also takes on a lot of biological consequences from having a child that they both wish to have that a father does not. So there is no fairness in biology at all. Additionally, the woman only has a very limited window of opportunity, by both biology and law and even circumstances in order to even be able to "take advantage" of their prochoice option.

So you cannot say that biology is unfair when it comes to just this particular thing and not recognize that it is disadvantageous to the mother in many other areas that it is not similarly disadvantageous to the father.
 
vegas giants said:
The best interests of the child are to help ensure that it has parents that can afford to raise it. The best interests of the child are not servred by encouraging a mother to raise a child on her own and bilk money every moneth out of an absentee dad. She could wait to find a partner who is WILLING to parent or she could make enough money to do it herself. We need to stop incentivizing irresponsible behavior by women.
Click to expand...

You would have to show that the majority of mothers expect to raise the child on her own without the dad just for the purpose of getting child support. Do you have any evidence to support that? From personal family experience, and anecdotal evidence I know of, most mothers and father are together at least until past when a woman could have an abortion. So then that expectation is there that she won't be raising the child alone, but rather with the father present.
 
roguenuke said:
Because of biology. This has been explained to you. She also takes on a lot of biological consequences from having a child that they both wish to have that a father does not. So there is no fairness in biology at all. Additionally, the woman only has a very limited window of opportunity, by both biology and law and even circumstances in order to even be able to "take advantage" of their prochoice option.

So you cannot say that biology is unfair when it comes to just this particular thing and not recognize that it is disadvantageous to the mother in many other areas that it is not similarly disadvantageous to the father.
Click to expand...
She does not need to take any significant risk. That is her CHOICE. An early abortion has almost no risk. She is making a choice and with choice comes responsibilities. That is the pro cjhoice argument.
 
roguenuke said:
You would have to show that the majority of mothers expect to raise the child on her own without the dad just for the purpose of getting child support. Do you have any evidence to support that? From personal family experience, and anecdotal evidence I know of, most mothers and father are together at least until past when a woman could have an abortion. So then that expectation is there that she won't be raising the child alone, but rather with the father present.
Click to expand...

I don't need to show anything. If the father is present he should be paying support. But if he chooses to have not to be involed at all she should make the responsible choice and not have the child if she can not afford it. That is ultimately best for children, women and men.
 
vegas giants said:
She does not need to take any significant risk. That is her CHOICE. An early abortion has almost no risk. She is making a choice and with choice comes responsibilities. That is the pro cjhoice argument.
Click to expand...

She is taking significant risks, and it is usually due to the expectation that a father will be there. And there is risk from having an abortion too.

The irresponsible choice is actually having sex to begin with. But it is made by both people. You ignore that particular choice. I'm not even going to get into my personal feelings on abortion here. You are the one using that as some sort of stepping point for your argument related to men when it has nothing to do with their responsibility.
 
roguenuke said:
She is taking significant risks, and it is usually due to the expectation that a father will be there. And there is risk from having an abortion too.

The irresponsible choice is actually having sex to begin with. But it is made by both people. You ignore that particular choice. I'm not even going to get into my personal feelings on abortion here. You are the one using that as some sort of stepping point for your argument related to men when it has nothing to do with their responsibility.
Click to expand...

Yes, they insist this is about abortion...but it's not.

Again, they just want to use knee-jerk emotional type words to make this seem like they have a higher purpose...when they dont.

Equality unfairly applied (when kids and taxpayers involved) is not anything to aspire to.
 
vegas giants said:
I don't need to show anything. If the father is present he should be paying support. But if he chooses to have not to be involed at all she should make the responsible choice and not have the child if she can not afford it. That is ultimately best for children, women and men.
Click to expand...

Again, prove that he chose not to be involved at all.

What is best for children and men and women is to have children together, planned for, and to either raise their children together or have a plan that incorporates a way they both agree on to take care of the needs, both financial and psychological, growth, of the child. What you are advocating for is simply what you think is best for men who simply don't want to take responsibility for their choice to have sex with someone they were not ready to have a child with, despite the potential for that outcome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom