• 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

molten_dragon said:
Saying she only gets a week is being a bit dishonest. You're assuming that she doesn't find out she is pregnant until 8 weeks in (which is 4 weeks later than the earliest that she's able to find out), that the man involved takes the full 3 weeks to make his decision, and that the woman takes no action whatsoever, and hasn't thought about what she'll do if he signs the papers during that three weeks.

And even then, she doesn't just have a week, she has 9. It'll just be a bit riskier if she takes her time.

What would you suggest though?
Click to expand...

I suggest just recognizing that life is unfair. The woman gets an extra choice because it's her body as well as her money and time involved. The man gets only one choice because it's only his money involved. The man must know that when he gives his sperm to a woman, it is then her choice what to do with it. He can be prudent about his gifts or reckless, THAT is his choice.
 
molten_dragon said:
No, I support a woman's right to choose up to a certain point. I'm just pointing out that your argument is rather hypocritical if you also support legal elective abortion.
Click to expand...

explain the hypocrisy
 
RiverDad said:
It wouldn't matter a whit if a man and woman sigh such an agreement. As soon as the woman changes her mind or if she goes on welfare, then courts would throw that agreement right out because one parent cannot sign away something that belongs to the child, in this case the child support payments due to the child. IOW, such a document is worthless if the issue ever needs to be contested.
Click to expand...

really? post the legal basis for the court's ignoring such a contract
if you were right, then there would be no basis to enter into a prenuptial agreement, since it would be subject to the same challenges you insist would undermine the contract releasing the father from any parental obligations
 
Bodhisattva said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes...but only while the woman is pregnant. If he doesn't decide before the point that it is no longer legally OK to have an abortion then he should pay child support.
 
The father should still have to pay child support regardless. Don't think about the issue just from the perspective of a father who didn't want to be one. The reason we have child support is to protect children. That outweighs any issue the parents have.
 
teamosil said:
The father should still have to pay child support regardless. Don't think about the issue just from the perspective of a father who didn't want to be one. The reason we have child support is to protect children. That outweighs any issue the parents have.
Click to expand...

why do we have adoptions?
 
Bodhisattva said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, he should have to pay child support. He had sex, he knew that a child could be a possibility, he should have to pay.
 
teamosil said:
Same reason- provide a better home for the kid.
Click to expand...

what evidence do we have that kids given up by their biological parents go to a better home? If what you claim is true, the adoption process would be contingent on what is best for the child, but parents don't have to meet any such burden.
 
ARealConservative said:
what evidence do we have that kids given up by their biological parents go to a better home? If what you claim is true, the adoption process would be contingent on what is best for the child, but parents don't have to meet any such burden.
Click to expand...

As a general rule of thumb I think parents who don't want their kid are not going to be very good parents to that kid if they were forced to keep them. I'm not sure what you are arguing for. Banning adoption?
 
teamosil said:
As a general rule of thumb I think parents who don't want their kid are not going to be very good parents to that kid if they were forced to keep them. I'm not sure what you are arguing for. Banning adoption?
Click to expand...

maybe you should take more time trying to understand the other persons position, it has been crystal clear.

I'm arguing for equality. a women can certainly wave her financial obligation by giving the kid up for adoption, and does not have to prove that it is in the best interest of the child to do so.

it is beyond sophomoric to simply say the guys only chance is prior to conception, while the women is given chances to reverse course over the next 18 years.
 
ARealConservative said:
maybe you should take more time trying to understand the other persons position, it has been crystal clear.

I'm arguing for equality. a women can certainly wave her financial obligation by giving the kid up for adoption, and does not have to prove that it is in the best interest of the child to do so.

it is beyond sophomoric to simply say the guys only chance is prior to conception, while the women is given chances to reverse course over the next 18 years.
Click to expand...

Being able to have babies is a mixed bag for women. There are huge up sides and huge down sides. They are held back in their careers because employers fear they may take maternity leave, they have to physically be pregnant and go through child birth, they often are in the position of being the primary caregiver for the baby, etc. But, on the flip side, they often get more out of the child rearing process emotionally than a lot of men do, they have more control over the reproductive process, they play a special role in shaping the people of the future, etc. You can't just take one of those things in isolation and get upset that it seems unfair. Any of them certainly would be unfair by itself, but the overall equation balances out about right I think.

That is what you're doing here. You're saying that it is unfair that women have more control over the reproductive process, but you can't evaluate whether it is fair or not without looking at the whole picture. Women make about 70% as much as men largely because of child bearing and rearing responsibilities. Women often times dedicate huge portions of their lives to raising children often while the guy really contributes very little to the process. You can't just ignore that side of the equation.

But, again, even if it were unfair to one of the parents, that would still take a back seat to the interests of the kid.
 
Last edited:
teamosil said:
But, again, even if it were unfair to one of the parents, that would still take a back seat to the interests of the kid.
Click to expand...

if all else takes a back seat to the interests of the kid, then abortion would absolutely be illegal.

but it isn't, showing how big of a double standard actually exists in this regard.
 
ARealConservative said:
if all else takes a back seat to the interests of the kid, then abortion would absolutely be illegal.

but it isn't, showing how big of a double standard actually exists in this regard.
Click to expand...

There is no kid to have interests when people are at the abortion stage...
 
teamosil said:
The reason we have child support is to protect children. That outweighs any issue the parents have.
Click to expand...
The same child the woman has free license to kill if she thinks having a baby will get in the way of her social life?
 
ARealConservative said:
maybe you should take more time trying to understand the other persons position, it has been crystal clear.

I'm arguing for equality. a women can certainly wave her financial obligation by giving the kid up for adoption, and does not have to prove that it is in the best interest of the child to do so.

it is beyond sophomoric to simply say the guys only chance is prior to conception, while the women is given chances to reverse course over the next 18 years.
Click to expand...

Actually this is wrong. While yes the woman can give the child up for adoption she must have the fathers consent to do so also. If she wants to leave the child with him she certainly can...but she will have to pay child support. So your implication of her being able to do it whenever she wants after the child is born is off.
 
it's obvious to recognize who among the posters are inclined toward personal responsibility ... and those who are not
 
justabubba said:
it's obvious to recognize who among the posters are inclined toward personal responsibility ... and those who are not
Click to expand...

It's also obvious who wants equality and who just wants to force people to do something that they don't want to do.
 
Kal'Stang said:
It's also obvious who wants equality and who just wants to force people to do something that they don't want to do.
Click to expand...

you have equality. BOTH parents are responsible for the child's welfare
 
justabubba said:
you have equality. BOTH parents are responsible for the child's welfare
Click to expand...

And yet we have adoption which absolves all responsibility for the child's welfare AND abortion which does the same...only the man has no say in that aspect. If the woman has the right to absolve her responsibility via abortion then the man should be able to do the same before the child is born.
 
Kal'Stang said:
And yet we have adoption which absolves all responsibility for the child's welfare AND abortion which does the same...only the man has no say in that aspect. If the woman has the right to absolve her responsibility via abortion then the man should be able to do the same before the child is born.
Click to expand...

when the man's body is carrying that zygote, then he would be entitled to determine whether abortion was going to be an option

the owner of the body gets to make that choice

the father has no excuse. he committed the deed knowing that it might result in an 18 year financial liability. and he did the deed with that knowledge. so, he has a equal responsibility to provide for the child he was responsible for bringing into this world
 
justabubba said:
when the man's body is carrying that zygote, then he would be entitled to determine whether abortion was going to be an option

the owner of the body gets to make that choice

the father has no excuse. he committed the deed knowing that it might result in an 18 year financial liability. and he did the deed with that knowledge. so, he has a equal responsibility to provide for the child he was responsible for bringing into this world
Click to expand...

So instead of making things equal (woman gets to abdicate responsibility...why not the man?) you want to make things unequal and force things on people. Gotcha. Good to know that what I said above in that post is true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom