Child Support

[Bodi]

Stop....you'll go blind.

Slap slap SLAP ./.. can't ... stop...

 

[mac]

Slap slap SLAP ./.. can't ... stop...

lol. You're alright...for a right-winger....

 

[Bodi]

lol. You're alright...for a right-winger....

... uuhhhhuh. Done.

 

[FactsNotEmotion]

Though this thread is off-topic, I would respond by saying that the man has the option of not paying child support by instead sharing custody. In fact, he could push for full custody and make the woman pay child support!

In seriousness though, there are cases where child support is justified and cases where it is not. It's more of a question of how do you prevent women from being screwed over for 18 years? How do you not screw over the child's childhood? Those are tough questions with no easy answer. Child support tries to address both issues (even if it does so poorly).

 

[AGENT J]

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 agree this is a huge grey area that needs fixed. Im not sure of what all the solutions should be but it is definitely broken. SEVERELY BROKEN anybody that denies that isnt to bright.

 

[Bodi]

I agree this is a huge grey area that needs fixed. Im not sure of what all the solutions should be but it is definitely broken. SEVERELY BROKEN anybody that denies that isnt to bright.

Agreed. I am not saying I have the best solution, but I am saying that the situation needs to be addressed and altered.

 

[AGENT J]

Agreed. I am not saying I have the best solution, but I am saying that the situation needs to be addressed and altered.

of course it does be cause its bias and hugely lopsided.

I like the time limit idea for the man to decide and then to avoid paying he should have to give up ALL parental rights.

 

[Bodi]

She will have no "choice" if he is not "FORCED" to pay for her "choice". Beautiful!!!

Allowing a man a say means that after finding out she is pregnant, she informs him that she wants the baby and he states his wishes.

If he wants the baby, great. That is the best for everybody and there is also no abortion.

If he does not want the baby, then he legally informs her and then it is on her. She then has a "choice" to make. She can choose to abort or she can choose to have the child. IF she cannot afford the baby then she aborts. Nothing is forced. She can still have the baby and have a tough time of it. The American way isn't to force others to pay for people's tough times. In no other situation is one person forced to directly pay another individual money to live other than child support and alimony. Alimony is fine since one partner might stay home and give up a career or education to "tend home" and all that. Child support in cases like mine are fine as well. I have no problem paying, and in fact, I pay far more to my ex so that my girls get what they need and want since I make tons more a year than she does.

 

[David D.]

She will have no "choice" if he is not "FORCED" to pay for her "choice". Beautiful!!!

Allowing a man a say means that after finding out she is pregnant, she informs him that she wants the baby and he states his wishes.

If he wants the baby, great. That is the best for everybody and there is also no abortion.

If he does not want the baby, then he legally informs her and then it is on her. She then has a "choice" to make. She can choose to abort or she can choose to have the child. IF she cannot afford the baby then she aborts. Nothing is forced. She can still have the baby and have a tough time of it. The American way isn't to force others to pay for people's tough times. In no other situation is one person forced to directly pay another individual money to live other than child support and alimony. Alimony is fine since one partner might stay home and give up a career or education to "tend home" and all that. Child support in cases like mine are fine as well. I have no problem paying, and in fact, I pay far more to my ex so that my girls get what they need and want since I make tons more a year than she does.

The man's choice is whether or not he will be supporting the child. The woman's choice is whether or not she will be killing the baby. In my opinion, there's a difference here than needs to be addressed.

 

[Bodi]

The man's choice is whether or not he will be supporting the child. The woman's choice is whether or not she will be killing the baby. In my opinion, there's a difference here than needs to be addressed.

A zygote is not a baby. A zygote does not have a functioning brain or the capacity to feel pain. A woman's bodily sovereignty is more imprtant than some random parasitic cells growing within her. Until these cells form something close to a fetus, then what is it really? A developing human at such an early stage that it certainly should not have rights that trump the woman's rights.

 

[David D.]

A zygote is not a baby. A zygote does not have a functioning brain or the capacity to feel pain. A woman's bodily sovereignty is more imprtant than some random parasitic cells growing within her. Until these cells form something close to a fetus, then what is it really? A developing human at such an early stage that it certainly should not have rights that trump the woman's rights.

You have a point, and I think we're missing each other here.

Few things:
A.) Agree that a zygote =/= baby, but I think calling it some "random parasitic cells" is a bit of a downplay. They aren't just any cells you know!
B.) Not really much of an abortionist, but if I were, I'd say that once a man impregnates a lady, it is fully her decision to keep or abort the child, and the male will have to deal with the consequences. Was trying to emphasize the point that a female had to make a much graver decision than the man in this case.

 

[Bodi]

You have a point, and I think we're missing each other here.

Few things:
A.) Agree that a zygote =/= baby, but I think calling it some "random parasitic cells" is a bit of a downplay. They aren't just any cells you know!
B.) Not really much of an abortionist, but if I were, I'd say that once a man impregnates a lady, it is fully her decision to keep or abort the child, and the male will have to deal with the consequences. Was trying to emphasize the point that a female had to make a much graver decision than the man in this case.

Thanks for the clarification. I pretty much agree with all of that. The only thing that I would add is that the man should not have to be responsible for the woman's choice to keep the baby unless they were in a significant and long-term relationship.

 

[American]

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.

And as long as abortion is legal, I think this should be the law of land. Why should women have more power than me over procreation. Let's put the burden on women, and see how they like it. That's real Pro-Choice.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

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?

Good point, however there are some single mothers who do not fall back on society, do not contact child support agencies for money and they struggle on and raise children because they want to. I have always advocated that men should be able to (for a limited period in 1st trimester) abdicate their financial and parental responsibilities if they do not wish to be fathers. It gives the mother enough time to make the decision whether to go ahead and give birth, whether to donate for adoption or whether to abort.

As I said above, there are already plenty of mothers of raise children alone and without financial support from others. There are also other mothers where the ex-partner pays nothing (through clever tax and self employment routes) and they still continue on to raise children.
There is no longer a real need for "wage-slaves" -especially when in some situations, the child support paid goes nowhere near the child.

 

[RiverDad]

Good point, however there are some single mothers who do not fall back on society, do not contact child support agencies for money and they struggle on and raise children because they want to. I have always advocated that men should be able to (for a limited period in 1st trimester) abdicate their financial and parental responsibilities if they do not wish to be fathers. It gives the mother enough time to make the decision whether to go ahead and give birth, whether to donate for adoption or whether to abort.

One of the inherent benefits of having two parents is the planned redundancy in that arrangement. If something happens to one parent, the other parent is still available.

The problem with your scenario, as I see it, is that the abdication by the man is permanent but the same cannot be said for society. The mother may do very well on her own for x number of years, but if something unexpected happens in the future and she needs help, then why should the father of the child be off the hook but society has to step up to the plate?

 

[Bodi]

Good point, however there are some single mothers who do not fall back on society, do not contact child support agencies for money and they struggle on and raise children because they want to. I have always advocated that men should be able to (for a limited period in 1st trimester) abdicate their financial and parental responsibilities if they do not wish to be fathers. It gives the mother enough time to make the decision whether to go ahead and give birth, whether to donate for adoption or whether to abort.

As I said above, there are already plenty of mothers of raise children alone and without financial support from others. There are also other mothers where the ex-partner pays nothing (through clever tax and self employment routes) and they still continue on to raise children.
There is no longer a real need for "wage-slaves" -especially when in some situations, the child support paid goes nowhere near the child.

Agreed......

 

[choiceone]

Two or three things. First, abortions cost money, too, although a lot less than continuation of a pregnancy and childbirth (and postpartum healing). Second, abortion is not always that accessible, which is a problem itself and also increases the cost. This means that, whichever option the woman chooses, she will still be paying financially. So I think that, if she chooses abortion and the man agrees, he should have to be at least 50% responsible for the costs of that procedure, helping with access and follow-up, to make sure the woman gets through the first few weeks after the procedure.

If the man would prefer that the woman have an abortion instead of continuing the pregnancy, while she wants to continue the pregnancy, I think he should be financially responsible at least for an amount equivalent to the costs of an abortion procedure, including the costs of follow-up and, where necessary, poor accessibility. He can then give up all future parental rights and responsibilities while paying this amount, and the woman will finance the rest of her pregnancy and childbirth, and choose whether or not to raise the child or have it adopted, and she will be its only parent.

Of course, the anti-choicers will bring up, what if she wants an abortion but he wants her to continue the pregnancy? Why should he have to pay for 50% of the abortion costs if he doesn't believe in abortion? The answer is that this amount is the price of the responsibility for taking a risk and having sex - at least 50% of the cost of the least expensive way of handling the consequences. So if you do not want to cough up 50% of the cost of an abortion at least, then keep zipped up.

Now, the issue of when the woman realizes she is pregnant and how long the man will have to decide that he wants no future parental rights or responsibilities --
I know it's true that some women don't even realize they are pregnant until they give birth - and shame on them!! Frankly, except in unusual circumstances, I think girls and women should be taught to be responsible about keeping track of their periods, and, if their periods are irregular, at least about keeping track of possible consequences of sex. Can we at least treat sex as serious enough that we take that much responsibility?

Meanwhile, when she knows, she should of course notify the guy if she knows who he is (unless he is a rapist or abuser), and I see no reason why it should take either one very long to decide how she or he wants to proceed. Can they at least take sufficient responsibility to decide within a couple of weeks?

A better system in which this could work out well would involve: 1) sex education in high school teaching responsible use of contraception and not just abstinence; and 2) insurance in fact covering quality contraception for women. This sort of result might then be rare enough that we would not freak over the exorbitant amount of money society spends on girls/women who carry pregnancies to term, give birth, and raise children by themselves.

 

[Bodi]

And as long as abortion is legal, I think this should be the law of land. Why should women have more power than me over procreation. Let's put the burden on women, and see how they like it. That's real Pro-Choice.

I agree. That would truly make the situation more fair and make a woman think more about her decisions...

 

[Bodi]

Two or three things. First, abortions cost money, too, although a lot less than continuation of a pregnancy and childbirth (and postpartum healing). Second, abortion is not always that accessible, which is a problem itself and also increases the cost. This means that, whichever option the woman chooses, she will still be paying financially. So I think that, if she chooses abortion and the man agrees, he should have to be at least 50% responsible for the costs of that procedure, helping with access and follow-up, to make sure the woman gets through the first few weeks after the procedure.

If the man would prefer that the woman have an abortion instead of continuing the pregnancy, while she wants to continue the pregnancy, I think he should be financially responsible at least for an amount equivalent to the costs of an abortion procedure, including the costs of follow-up and, where necessary, poor accessibility. He can then give up all future parental rights and responsibilities while paying this amount, and the woman will finance the rest of her pregnancy and childbirth, and choose whether or not to raise the child or have it adopted, and she will be its only parent.

Of course, the anti-choicers will bring up, what if she wants an abortion but he wants her to continue the pregnancy? Why should he have to pay for 50% of the abortion costs if he doesn't believe in abortion? The answer is that this amount is the price of the responsibility for taking a risk and having sex - at least 50% of the cost of the least expensive way of handling the consequences. So if you do not want to cough up 50% of the cost of an abortion at least, then keep zipped up.

Now, the issue of when the woman realizes she is pregnant and how long the man will have to decide that he wants no future parental rights or responsibilities --
I know it's true that some women don't even realize they are pregnant until they give birth - and shame on them!! Frankly, except in unusual circumstances, I think girls and women should be taught to be responsible about keeping track of their periods, and, if their periods are irregular, at least about keeping track of possible consequences of sex. Can we at least treat sex as serious enough that we take that much responsibility?

Meanwhile, when she knows, she should of course notify the guy if she knows who he is (unless he is a rapist or abuser), and I see no reason why it should take either one very long to decide how she or he wants to proceed. Can they at least take sufficient responsibility to decide within a couple of weeks?

A better system in which this could work out well would involve: 1) sex education in high school teaching responsible use of contraception and not just abstinence; and 2) insurance in fact covering quality contraception for women. This sort of result might then be rare enough that we would not freak over the exorbitant amount of money society spends on girls/women who carry pregnancies to term, give birth, and raise children by themselves.

Good post...

 

[MaggieD]

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.

Child support is not about the woman. It's about the child

Before a guy has unprotected sex, he should ask himself, "Am I willing to give up 20% of my earnings for the next 18-22 years?"

If the answer is, "No," he should put on a damned condom. If he doesn't? He's an idiot.

The consequences of bringing a life into the world and being responsible for it have nothing to do with fairness to anyone but baby.

 

[Bodi]

Child support is not about the woman. It's about the child

Before a guy has unprotected sex, he should ask himself, "Am I willing to give up 20% of my earnings for the next 18-22 years?"

If the answer is, "No," he should put on a damned condom. If he doesn't? He's an idiot.

The consequences of bringing a life into the world and being responsible for it have nothing to do with fairness to anyone but baby.

If she does not want to rasise the baby by herself then she can simply have an abortion. Bre you in favor of pro-choice or not? If she has an abortion then there is no baby and your entire argument is bunk. You are great Maggie but you know that I am right.

 

[MaggieD]

If she does not want to rasise the baby by herself then she can simply have an abortion. Bre you in favor of pro-choice or not? If she has an abortion then there is no baby and your entire argument is bunk. You are great Maggie but you know that I am right.

Oh, yes, I'm pro-choice.

But I'm even more adamently pro-baby.

And anti-stupidity.

Barring statistically tiny odds, there's not a guy in the United States who should be paying child support for a new baby unless he wants to. I'd call that plenty of power and plenty of choice.

Oh, and thank you!

 

[Bodi]

Oh, yes, I'm pro-choice.

But I'm even more adamently pro-baby.

And anti-stupidity.

Barring statistically tiny odds, there's not a guy in the United States who should be paying child support for a new baby unless he wants to. I'd call that plenty of power and plenty of choice.

Oh, and thank you!

Are you saying that men in the USA have a choice about paying child support? ...and always!

 

[cpwill]

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.

Equal Rights, baby. Fair's Fair.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Two or three things. First, abortions cost money, too, although a lot less than continuation of a pregnancy and childbirth (and postpartum healing). Second, abortion is not always that accessible, which is a problem itself and also increases the cost. This means that, whichever option the woman chooses, she will still be paying financially. So I think that, if she chooses abortion and the man agrees, he should have to be at least 50% responsible for the costs of that procedure, helping with access and follow-up, to make sure the woman gets through the first few weeks after the procedure.

If the man would prefer that the woman have an abortion instead of continuing the pregnancy, while she wants to continue the pregnancy, I think he should be financially responsible at least for an amount equivalent to the costs of an abortion procedure, including the costs of follow-up and, where necessary, poor accessibility. He can then give up all future parental rights and responsibilities while paying this amount, and the woman will finance the rest of her pregnancy and childbirth, and choose whether or not to raise the child or have it adopted, and she will be its only parent.

Of course, the anti-choicers will bring up, what if she wants an abortion but he wants her to continue the pregnancy? Why should he have to pay for 50% of the abortion costs if he doesn't believe in abortion? The answer is that this amount is the price of the responsibility for taking a risk and having sex - at least 50% of the cost of the least expensive way of handling the consequences. So if you do not want to cough up 50% of the cost of an abortion at least, then keep zipped up.

Why, exactly?

The woman has a unilateral right to decide what happens to the pregnancy. If she chooses to make that decision unilaterally, why should the man have to pay for a decision he had no part in? This is equivalent to saying the woman should be forced to continue the pregnancy because she consented to it when she had sex, and it's just as wrong.

If the man is given no say, he should not be expected to float the woman's decision, whether it's to abort, have a child, or adopt it out. If she makes that decision alone, she should be prepared to finance it alone.

I am one of those women who owns my unilateral right to make these decisions. I inform men that I date what will happen if an accidental pregnancy occurs. I don't ask their opinion, because their opinion will not affect my decision. I simply ask them if they accept that or not. If not, there's the door. If so, I will assume all costs should that ever occur.

I do not ask them to pay for any of it. In fact, if they offered, I would refuse. I gave them no say, so why should they pay for it?

If women have unilateral rights, then they also have unilateral responsibility. You can't say the woman has complete control of her body, but then foist the responsibility for that onto someone else who has no control. Really, choiceone, did you honestly use the classic anti-choice "then they should have kept it in their pants" argument as a reason why men should be forced to pay for the woman's decisions? You're better than that.

If the couple makes that decision together, then maybe it's reasonable for them to share the cost. But if they don't, the man has no obligations whatsoever.

How is forcing men into financial servitude any better than forcing women into physical servitude?