Child Support

[Bodi]

Should the man have to pay Child Support if he does not want the child and the woman decides to not opt to have an abortion as a means of contraception?

I think that he should not be legally liable if he does not want the child. The woman has all the choice and can not only keep the baby and make him pay, but she can keep the baby, not tell him about the baby and then hit him up 18 years later for back Child Support. It is ridiculous and this whole legal backing should be reversed.

 

[Red Flag]

How many threads do we need to discuss this in?

 

[Bodi]

How many threads do we need to discuss this in?

This is a specific issue that is being discussed and another thread and I want to highlight this issue.

 

[ARealConservative]

Should the man have to pay Child Support if he does not want the child and the woman decides to not opt to have an abortion as a means of contraception?

I think that he should not be legally liable if he does not want the child. The woman has all the choice and can not only keep the baby and make him pay, but she can keep the baby, not tell him about the baby and then hit him up 18 years later for back Child Support. It is ridiculous and this whole legal backing should be reversed.

I would agree to "financial abortion" powers under certain circumstances.

 

[molten_dragon]

No. Men should have a window (I'd say something like 5-10 weeks) after finding out that they got someone pregnant in which they can legally abdicate all parental rights and responsibilities towards the child.

 

[ARealConservative]

No. Men should have a window (I'd say something like 5-10 weeks) after finding out that they got someone pregnant in which they can legally abdicate all parental rights and responsibilities towards the child.

I agree in principal, but I think the decision is required 1-2 weeks after notification. the primary benefit is to reduce the incentive to trick a wealthy person into having an unwanted child for the economic benefits it can provide.

 

[RiverDad]

No. Men should have a window (I'd say something like 5-10 weeks) after finding out that they got someone pregnant in which they can legally abdicate all parental rights and responsibilities towards the child.

Can society, via the social welfare departments, also have the same right to void all responsibilities for these children?

To put it bluntly, if a dude impregnates a woman and can divorce himself from having to pay to raise that child, then why should I, who never even got any of the "fringe benefits" involved in conceiving the child, be on the hook, in conjunction with all of my fellow citizens, for paying the welfare costs associated with that child? If I object to paying taxes which go to welfare can I also legally abdicate paying taxes?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Can society, via the social welfare departments, also have the same right to void all responsibilities for these children?

To put it bluntly, if a dude impregnates a woman and can divorce himself from having to pay to raise that child, then why should I, who never even got any of the "fringe benefits" involved in conceiving the child, be on the hook, in conjunction with all of my fellow citizens, for paying the welfare costs associated with that child? If I object to paying taxes which go to welfare can I also legally abdicate paying taxes?

A lot of people would like to only pay taxes for things that they approve of.

 

[RiverDad]

A lot of people would like to only pay taxes for things that they approve of.

True indeed, but not quite the angle I'm advancing.

In life we generally link responsibility to involvement, or participation. Here we have a guy who impregnates a woman being able to divorce himself from the responsibility of caring for the logical outcome of sexual intercourse and instead we're transferring the responsibility for providing care for that child to all of society.

If society is to stay out of the bedrooms of citizens, then isn't it fair that the citizens in those bedrooms accept responsibility for the outcome of their own decisions and actions?

 

[Bodi]

Can society, via the social welfare departments, also have the same right to void all responsibilities for these children?

To put it bluntly, if a dude impregnates a woman and can divorce himself from having to pay to raise that child, then why should I, who never even got any of the "fringe benefits" involved in conceiving the child, be on the hook, in conjunction with all of my fellow citizens, for paying the welfare costs associated with that child? If I object to paying taxes which go to welfare can I also legally abdicate paying taxes?

If she chooses to have the child without the help of the father then she should also be electing to not recieve any benefit from the government... problem solved.

 

[molten_dragon]

I agree in principal, but I think the decision is required 1-2 weeks after notification. the primary benefit is to reduce the incentive to trick a wealthy person into having an unwanted child for the economic benefits it can provide.

I support elective abortion up to 20 weeks. If the man has 5 weeks to make his decision, that gives the woman 15 to make hers. I think that's enough.

And I disagree that the primary benefit is to protect the wealthy.

I think the primary benefit would be to move closer to equality between men and women by giving men the choice whether or not to be a parent, even after conception, the same as a woman has.

 

[RiverDad]

If she chooses to have the child without the help of the father then she should also be electing to not recieve any benefit from the government... problem solved.

Problem solved until the moment that the bleeding hearts in society see that the child is suffering from deprivation and then all bets are off. Now we're on the hook again. Problem unsolved.

 

[molten_dragon]

Can society, via the social welfare departments, also have the same right to void all responsibilities for these children?

To put it bluntly, if a dude impregnates a woman and can divorce himself from having to pay to raise that child, then why should I, who never even got any of the "fringe benefits" involved in conceiving the child, be on the hook, in conjunction with all of my fellow citizens, for paying the welfare costs associated with that child? If I object to paying taxes which go to welfare can I also legally abdicate paying taxes?

Well, he doesn't get completely off the hook. He still has to pay taxes, some of which go to the child's welfare as well.

 

[Bodi]

Problem solved until the moment that the bleeding hearts in society see that the child is suffering from deprivation and then all bets are off. Now we're on the hook again. Problem unsolved.

I agree with that and some sort of laws would have to be enacted to solve that problem...

 

[Bodi]

I support elective abortion up to 20 weeks. If the man has 5 weeks to make his decision, that gives the woman 15 to make hers. I think that's enough.

I agree that this is a fair compromise...

I think the primary benefit would be to move closer to equality between men and women by giving men the choice whether or not to be a parent, even after conception, the same as a woman has.

That is it. It is about balancing equality and giving the man some control...

 

[OKgrannie]

I support elective abortion up to 20 weeks. If the man has 5 weeks to make his decision, that gives the woman 15 to make hers. I think that's enough.

And I disagree that the primary benefit is to protect the wealthy.

I think the primary benefit would be to move closer to equality between men and women by giving men the choice whether or not to be a parent, even after conception, the same as a woman has.

One problem is that abortion is safer the earlier it is done, and by 12 weeks is much safer. A woman certainly will not know she is pregnant before 6 weeks and more likely 8 weeks. If she realizes she is pregnant by 8 weeks, she must notify the potential father, he must make his decision, file papers, then she should have time to make a decision and make arrangement for abortion before 12 weeks. That's cutting it kind of close.

 

[RiverDad]

Well, he doesn't get completely off the hook. He still has to pay taxes, some of which go to the child's welfare as well.

Well, that's pretty weak tea. It's like going out for a night on the town with a bunch of friends and agreeing to split the bill evenly and then while all the friends order a beer and a hamburger, you order multiple thousand dollar bottles of wine, you treat yourself to dozens of lap dances, you call up a helicopter to fly you and the lap dancers to Vegas, you book a penthouse suite, and then after you've sated yourself you split the bill evenly with your friends.

 

[Bodi]

Well, that's pretty weak tea. It's like going out for a night on the town with a bunch of friends and agreeing to split the bill evenly and then while all the friends order a beer and a hamburger, you order multiple thousand dollar bottles of wine, you treat yourself to dozens of lap dances, you call up a helicopter to fly you and the lap dancers to Vegas, you book a penthouse suite, and then after you've sated yourself you split the bill evenly with your friends.

Sounds like a friend I used to have... we would order a round and food and he would partake round after round and when it was his turn, he would all of a sudden have a new fresh drink with nothing for us, and then we would take turns with the rounds again. After a few of those nights we stopped inviting him.

 

[molten_dragon]

One problem is that abortion is safer the earlier it is done, and by 12 weeks is much safer. A woman certainly will not know she is pregnant before 6 weeks and more likely 8 weeks. If she realizes she is pregnant by 8 weeks, she must notify the potential father, he must make his decision, file papers, then she should have time to make a decision and make arrangement for abortion before 12 weeks. That's cutting it kind of close.

For some reason I was thinking gestational age worked the other way around (counting from the first missed period rather than from the period before conception). 1-2 weeks just doesn't seem like very long to give the guy to make up his mind, but I do see how it is cutting it kind of fine. Maybe give the guy 3 weeks. That way even if the woman doesn't find out til she's 8 weeks in, and the guy takes 3 weeks to decide, she's only 11 weeks along.

 

[OKgrannie]

For some reason I was thinking gestational age worked the other way around (counting from the first missed period rather than from the period before conception). 1-2 weeks just doesn't seem like very long to give the guy to make up his mind, but I do see how it is cutting it kind of fine. Maybe give the guy 3 weeks. That way even if the woman doesn't find out til she's 8 weeks in, and the guy takes 3 weeks to decide, she's only 11 weeks along.

So the guy need 3 weeks to decide and complete paperwork, but the woman only needs one week to decide and make abortion arrangements? Including arranging for time off work and travel? Face it, this plan is not workable for a number of reasons.

 

[ARealConservative]

I support elective abortion up to 20 weeks. If the man has 5 weeks to make his decision, that gives the woman 15 to make hers. I think that's enough.

And I disagree that the primary benefit is to protect the wealthy.

I think the primary benefit would be to move closer to equality between men and women by giving men the choice whether or not to be a parent, even after conception, the same as a woman has.

it has nothing to do with protecting the wealthy, it is removing the incentive to engage in a form of deceit.

 

[justabubba]

the guy actually had a choice
he could have chosen NOT to have unprotected intercourse
the guy knew the potential to procreate by his choice
don't do the crime if you can't pay the time
translation: man up

 

[Jerry]

Should the man have to pay Child Support if he does not want the child and the woman decides to not opt to have an abortion as a means of contraception?

I think that he should not be legally liable if he does not want the child. The woman has all the choice and can not only keep the baby and make him pay, but she can keep the baby, not tell him about the baby and then hit him up 18 years later for back Child Support. It is ridiculous and this whole legal backing should be reversed.

Oh wow, what an original, refreshing new topic. We've NEVER talked about this before.

 

[Red Flag]

don't do the crime if you can't pay the time

So we're back to babies being a punishment...

 

[justabubba]

So we're back to babies being a punishment...

nope. that's not what we are saying
what is being said is don't do the deed if you are unwilling to accept responsibility for the outcome