Child Support

[year2late]

Argument fail noted.

Yes, your argument did fail and repeatedly fails.

There will never be any opt out- at least where taxpayers are concerned.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

It is INSIDE OF AND ATTACHED TO her body. It's HER body, not his, that is at risk for a myriad of things that could go wrong. HER body that will be stretched out of proportion, HER body that will be put at great pain/discomfort etc. Therefore, it is HER choice, NOT his.





Abortion exists and she can avail herself of it if she so chooses. Perhaps HE should abstain if he has a problem with that. Or perhaps he should find out her intentions regarding unintended pregnancy BEFORE unzipping his pants. He can also wrap it up before playing Hide the Weinie.

edit: quoted the wrong post

 

[GhostlyJoe]

A lot of the arguments here are just blatant sexism. Let's look :

Biology: it's her body, therefore it's her choice. I don't disagree with that. But biologically, a man can walk away without consequence. Biologically, there is no imperative for a man to support a child, so if you want to make this about biology, you've already lost the argument.

Consent: You're arguing that the act of unprotected sex (I assume you think it's OK for a man to opt out if a condom fails, based on your argument) is consent to parenthood. But you're not applying that equally to both men and women or it's clearly a sexist stance. If sex is consent for a man, then it's consent for a woman. No abortion. No adoption.

Personally, I believe a woman should have a right to choose abortion or adoption, so the only way to achieve equality under the law is to allow a man the option to withdraw support. Easy. Fair.

 

[it's just me]

It is INSIDE OF AND ATTACHED TO her body. It's HER body, not his, that is at risk for a myriad of things that could go wrong. HER body that will be stretched out of proportion, HER body that will be put at great pain/discomfort etc. Therefore, it is HER choice, NOT his.





Abortion exists and she can avail herself of it if she so chooses. Perhaps HE should abstain if he has a problem with that. Or perhaps he should find out her intentions regarding unintended pregnancy BEFORE unzipping his pants. He can also wrap it up before playing Hide the Weinie.

What an indelicate way of putting it. If "she" thinks "she" can abort her husband's child on a whim then "he" would be better off without her, and "she" can keep her "body" all to herself or find some other sucker.

 

[Bodi]

Yes, your argument did fail and repeatedly fails.

There will never be any opt out- at least where taxpayers are concerned.

I literally expected better from your analytical skills...

 

[soylentgreen]

A lot of the arguments here are just blatant sexism. Let's look :

Biology: it's her body, therefore it's her choice. I don't disagree with that. But biologically, a man can walk away without consequence. Biologically, there is no imperative for a man to support a child, so if you want to make this about biology, you've already lost the argument.

The problem with this is that you have not made it about biology.
The biology part is that a women can become pregnant. In that you are correct. But the biology part for the man is that he impregnates her.

Any decision to walk away without concern for consequence is an ethical decision and nothing to do with biology. It is not as if you can point to any biological imperative for a man to walk. Technically the same ethical option to walk is open to the woman every time she takes the pill or does have an abortion. Biologically there is no imperative for a woman to support a child they too can and have walked away from a child after giving birth and of course every time a woman takes a contraceptive that stops reproduction she is making a choice to walk away from her biological ability.

The correct argument for biology here is only to state what abilities different genders have, not what their choices of parenting are. Your attempt to continue the argument on towards male biology is nothing more than the fallacy of Reductio ad absurdum. By adding on information about a male and trying to pass that off as if were relevant when it is not.

Consent: You're arguing that the act of unprotected sex (I assume you think it's OK for a man to opt out if a condom fails, based on your argument) is consent to parenthood. But you're not applying that equally to both men and women or it's clearly a sexist stance. If sex is consent for a man, then it's consent for a woman. No abortion. No adoption.

That is such a convoluted statement.
I understand, although disagree with your thought that unprotected sex is consent to parenthood. I understand that you apply the consent equally. It is the leap from that to no abortion, no adoption. Why are you applying the same consent to one act that precedes the act of sex and another that happens after the act of sex?

Personally, I believe a woman should have a right to choose abortion or adoption, so the only way to achieve equality under the law is to allow a man the option to withdraw support. Easy. Fair.

Except that it contradicts itself. You say it is a womans right and then add the qualifier but only if the man agrees.

 

[soylentgreen]

double post

 

[notquiteright]

A say in being a parent that will support the kid. She obviously has a say and that is right. She can abort no matter what against his wishes or she can keep the baby against his wishes. She has 100% procreation power. The argument that scares so many into becoming lying Straw Man filled cry babies is this. He should be able to refuse being a support giving parent just like she can. As long as there are no complications or strange circumstances... she notifies she is pregnant and he makes a decision within an accepted time frame. Before 10 weeks for example. She then can make her choice to abort or to keep the kid and raise it herself. The counter arguments as i have seen have been stupid. Guys will run around impregnating women willy nilly... the poor women. Well i give women more respect than these people. Use protection. Sleep with guys you know. Etc. Guys should too... Another is... he made his choice once he came. That does not address the inequality of post conception choice. Also... a counter argument that is logical is she made her choice to have the baby once she slept with him... but we know only pro.lifers use that and yhe same people arguing that it is fair for him but not for her are hypocrites and often feminist raving sexists. Anyway... thats the basic version.

Yours is a flawed argument. It is akin to claiming a drunk can't be charged with DUI if hours after the accident he tests under the legal limit. You have to accept the ENTIRE scenario not just the part you feel shows inequality.

The bottom line is a new person is created at birth. Attempting to say THAT (or when the pee stick turns blue) is the start time for responsibility is bogus. You wish to ignore HOW that baby was created (unprotected sex) and dwell on once she is knocked up she has far more say in the continuance of the pregnancy is a bit like locking the gate after the cattle get out. (FYI she doesn't have 100% as most women who get abortions will say the boy friend was quite ahhh 'supportive' (Insistent) about the abortion. Theory vs practice my good man.

If a man fails to take the proper safeguards before sex then he can't very well refuse to accept the consequences. fail to check your oil and the car engine locks up, don't fix the roof and a rain storm ruins your Xbox...

You get the idea, you can't play victim when it was well within your powers to prevent the situation.

To misquote Franklin- a fraction of an ounce of latex prevents 18 years of garnished wages... eace

 

[ludin]

Then what did you mean by this?

read what I was responding to.

It is pretty much a fact in all studies done that kids who have an active invested father in their lives are:
Less likely to have behavior issues
less likely to be addicted to drugs
less likely to drop out of school
less likely to get pregnant or get someone pregnant.
the list goes on just like the list of benefits.

they do better in general
are more emotionally stable
do better in school and do better in their jobs.

 

[ludin]

A lot of the arguments here are just blatant sexism. Let's look :

Biology: it's her body, therefore it's her choice. I don't disagree with that. But biologically, a man can walk away without consequence. Biologically, there is no imperative for a man to support a child, so if you want to make this about biology, you've already lost the argument.

as someone already pointed out biological has to do with the process. once the process is done it is no longer biological.

Consent: You're arguing that the act of unprotected sex (I assume you think it's OK for a man to opt out if a condom fails, based on your argument) is consent to parenthood. But you're not applying that equally to both men and women or it's clearly a sexist stance. If sex is consent for a man, then it's consent for a woman. No abortion. No adoption.

actually you are wrong. the act of sex comes with an inherent set of risks for both individuals. when you engage in sexual activity you are automatically giving consent to all the implied risks no matter what they are.
that ranges from pregnancy to STD's, and even psychological.

if she gets pregnant then you have agreed to that risk by sleeping with her. intentions are meaningless. going well sorry I wasn't interested in getting you pregnant doesn't work. to late you already did.

Personally, I believe a woman should have a right to choose abortion or adoption, so the only way to achieve equality under the law is to allow a man the option to withdraw support. Easy. Fair.

no you don't get to dump your child on society to support. that is why we have child support laws.

 

[Removable Mind]

Yours is a flawed argument. It is akin to claiming a drunk can't be charged with DUI if hours after the accident he tests under the legal limit. You have to accept the ENTIRE scenario not just the part you feel shows inequality.

The bottom line is a new person is created at birth. Attempting to say THAT (or when the pee stick turns blue) is the start time for responsibility is bogus. You wish to ignore HOW that baby was created (unprotected sex) and dwell on once she is knocked up she has far more say in the continuance of the pregnancy is a bit like locking the gate after the cattle get out. (FYI she doesn't have 100% as most women who get abortions will say the boy friend was quite ahhh 'supportive' (Insistent) about the abortion. Theory vs practice my good man.

If a man fails to take the proper safeguards before sex then he can't very well refuse to accept the consequences. fail to check your oil and the car engine locks up, don't fix the roof and a rain storm ruins your Xbox...

You get the idea, you can't play victim when it was well within your powers to prevent the situation.

To misquote Franklin- a fraction of an ounce of latex prevents 18 years of garnished wages... eace

You're conflating biological consequences with legal consequences. They are mutually exclusive.

The whole scenario, as you call it, isn't socially, politically, or judicially being recognized.

A woman's "legal choices regarding her reproductive role" exists solely at the pleasure of those who make political and/or judicial decisions. The Constitution is malable - and since Roe v Wade the state has surrendered its interest in pregnancies until the developmental stage of viability occurs. The most important result from Roe v Wade was the government surrendered its ability to decide "FOR WOMEN" how many children that they CHOOSE to have or not have.

The Constitutional clause that made "choice" legal for women was the Due Process Clause. This Clause includes "right to privacy" and "equal protection under the law".

So far so good. Or is it?

There's something missing in this "legal scenario". It should be obvious, but even if it is, the missing element is either ignored or considered to be irrelevant.

We have incredibly amounts of data that show that over 90% of abortions occur at 12 weeks and under. Actually of those 60% are preform 10 weeks and under. There are a significant number preformed at 8 weeks.

Today it's possible for pregnancies to be terminated chemically with very low risks for side effects. The medical induced abortions that are preformed today are safer than ever. In other words abortion preformed today have little risks for physical side effects for women.

Women are quite aware of the above risks and they know that the longer that they wait to have an abortion the higher the risks. Consequently women will make their choice to abort, or not, within a small window of time.

In other words, within the relevantly small window of time women will choose whether or not they will to be a parent to their first child or perhaps to give birth to an additional child. This is a period of time that they are least likely to experience any physical risks should they decide to abort.

While the above is a biological perspective - it also is enmeshed with a mutually exclusive legal perspective.

The legal perspective is as important as the biological perspective because it involves the personal freedom to make biological choices without government intervention.

But what's missing in the above legal scenario? If you can't flesh out the missing element - perhaps you need to be exposed to an additional legal perspective that is important to, at the very least, be recognized and conflate the biological and legal implications from a different, but equally as real scenario.

 

[Bodi]

1. Yours is a flawed argument. .

2. If a man fails to take the proper safeguards before sex then he can't very well refuse to accept the consequences.

3. fail to check your oil and the car engine locks up, don't fix the roof and a rain storm ruins your Xbox...

4. You get the idea, you can't play victim when it was well within your powers to prevent the situation.

1. Incorrect. It is a valid logical argument and your number 2 is why ...

2. . If a Woman fails to take the proper safeguards before sex then she can't very well refuse to accept the consequences.

Oh. But she can. She can abort and refuse to be pregnant. She can also abort even if the mans wants the responsibility of raising the baby on his own.

Unequal treatment under the law.

3. Have sex and possibly get pregnant.

4. She gets to "play victim" whatever that demeaning term means.

 

[Bodi]

.

if she gets pregnant then you have agreed to that risk by sleeping with her. intentions are meaningless.


õ.

the only time i agreed to have a baby was when we talked about purposely having a baby... your "agreeing to it" is yet another Straw Man.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

The problem with this is that you have not made it about biology.
The biology part is that a women can become pregnant. In that you are correct. But the biology part for the man is that he impregnates her.

Any decision to walk away without concern for consequence is an ethical decision and nothing to do with biology. It is not as if you can point to any biological imperative for a man to walk. Technically the same ethical option to walk is open to the woman every time she takes the pill or does have an abortion. Biologically there is no imperative for a woman to support a child they too can and have walked away from a child after giving birth and of course every time a woman takes a contraceptive that stops reproduction she is making a choice to walk away from her biological ability.

The correct argument for biology here is only to state what abilities different genders have, not what their choices of parenting are. Your attempt to continue the argument on towards male biology is nothing more than the fallacy of Reductio ad absurdum. By adding on information about a male and trying to pass that off as if were relevant when it is not.


That is such a convoluted statement.
I understand, although disagree with your thought that unprotected sex is consent to parenthood. I understand that you apply the consent equally. It is the leap from that to no abortion, no adoption. Why are you applying the same consent to one act that precedes the act of sex and another that happens after the act of sex?

Except that it contradicts itself. You say it is a womans right and then add the qualifier but only if the man agrees.

Allow me to clarify my post. Setting aside all morality and social obligation, biologically a woman is physically connected to a fetus until birth. Setting aside maternal instinct and the ingrained desire to nurture and raise offspring, a woman can physically abandon a child without consequence after birth that but not before. There is no such physical attachment for a man. He can impregnate a woman and walk away without biological consequence. When someone says "her body, her choice," that's a social argument based on biological factors. A woman should be able to do with her body what she wants in a free society and shouldn't be made to serve a father or a fetus. I'm arguing that, in a free society, men should have the same rights. They shouldn't be made subject to a woman's desires to be a mother. He can't force her to carry to term, and she can't force him to serve her economic needs. Right now, we have a system -- entirely artificial -- where she has full control over reproduction. He can't compel her to give birth. He can't compel her to abort. But she can compel him to labor for her economic needs.

Let's follow this further. The argument is that a child has been brought into the world, therefore the biological father should support the child. The child's needs come first. And yet we have a adoption. We allow a woman to give birth and then surrender her parental rights and responsibilities, making the child a ward of another family or the state. Why does a man not have that option? There is clear inequality under the law in our current system.

As far as consent, again, there is clear inequality. Under our current system, the act of sex is consent to fatherhood for a man. If she gets pregnant and chooses to give birth and chooses to keep the child, he has no choice but to provide support.

There are two ways to create equality under the law (a constitutional right in the United States): outlaw abortion and force pregnant women to carry to term or allow men a legal means to terminate parental responsibilities. Our current system is unjust.

 

[ludin]

the only time i agreed to have a baby was when we talked about purposely having a baby... your "agreeing to it" is yet another Straw Man.

nope you are wrong. having sex with her is accepting all the risks that are included that means getting her pregnant.
you really need to stop projecting.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

as someone already pointed out biological has to do with the process. once the process is done it is no longer biological.



actually you are wrong. the act of sex comes with an inherent set of risks for both individuals. when you engage in sexual activity you are automatically giving consent to all the implied risks no matter what they are.
that ranges from pregnancy to STD's, and even psychological.

if she gets pregnant then you have agreed to that risk by sleeping with her. intentions are meaningless. going well sorry I wasn't interested in getting you pregnant doesn't work. to late you already did.



no you don't get to dump your child on society to support. that is why we have child support laws.

So you're opposed to adoption? Should a biological mother have to pay child support to adoptive parents?

 

[notquiteright]

1. Incorrect. It is a valid logical argument and your number 2 is why ...2. . If a Woman fails to take the proper safeguards before sex then she can't very well refuse to accept the consequences. Oh. But she can. She can abort and refuse to be pregnant. She can also abort even if the mans wants the responsibility of raising the baby on his own. Unequal treatment under the law. 3. Have sex and possibly get pregnant. 4. She gets to "play victim" whatever that demeaning term means.

You play silly games now, you completely ignore your own argument to argue one that is an EXTREMELY rare occurrence. We were discussing FORCING a man to PAY for a child he didn't want... the 'cure' for that isn't letting him off the hook for the child's support. The 'cure' is wrapping his lil ranger... :doh

The law doesn't make it unequal- biology does. SHE has a monthly- no man wants that, she bears the child for 9 months- no man wants that, she screams for a few hours giving birth- OH HAIL NO, no man wants that. What the law recognizes, and you wish to ignore, is a huge burden is on the female (and state) if she can't get help from the guy who planted the flag. You can call it unequal, most of us call it recognizing the biological facts of life.

Attempting to use the strawman of a guy wanting to keep the child when the woman doesn't is so rare it makes the news, child support cases only when the rich and famous are locked in a divorce.

The discussion is about child support, please read the topic header. :2wave:

A guy wants the kid and the woman doesn't he can find another woman to carry to term a baby. He doesn't want to pay for a child he helped create then for 18 years the woman and most likely the state will pay for the offspring... not equal at all.

She doesn't play victim, she has every legal right to expect child support for her child. Again I doubt this occurs due to one night stands but rather relationships both parties enter into but if the pee stick turns blue the man wants to bail and say "Baby it's on you!" or bitter divorce cases- I kinda wonder which are you?

No Sir, it is the guy wailing about unequal rights, and no justice for a man who doesn't practice safe sex that attempts to play the victim card, and yeah that is pathetic... eace

 

[Bodi]

you really need to stop projecting.

Don't try to make it personal.

]nope you are wrong. having sex with her is accepting all the risks that are included that means getting her pregnantew

That is obviously incorrect. A man can do his best to have nothing to do with the baby or to support it. Deal with the facts.

 

[ludin]

So you're opposed to adoption? Should a biological mother have to pay child support to adoptive parents?

that has nothing to do with what I said. you can't force her to give up her baby.
the baby is her's and your's. you both have to agree to adoption.

if one party doesn't then you can't put the baby up for adoption.
my post however said nothing about adoption.

I said you don't get to dump your responsibility on the rest of society.
nice strawman argument though.

 

[ludin]

Don't try to make it personal.

You evidently don't know what a projection is.

That is obviously incorrect. A man can do his best to have nothing to do with the baby or to support it. Deal with the facts.

actually it isn't, however you can't actually address the argument and have to just make stuff up.
sure you can try and not support you kid we then haul you into court and throw you into jail for contempt of court
and ignoring a court order.

yes you need to deal with facts something you have yet to do every time you start one of these thread.

 

[notquiteright]

So you're opposed to adoption? Should a biological mother have to pay child support to adoptive parents?

UMMM adoptive parents sign on to take legal and financial responsibility for the child so no.... eace

 

[Bodi]

You play silly games now, you completely ignore your own argument to argue one that is an EXTREMELY rare occurrence. We were discussing FORCING a man to PAY for a child he didn't want... the 'cure' for that isn't letting him off the hook for the child's support. The 'cure' is wrapping his lil ranger... :doh

The law doesn't make it unequal- biology does. SHE has a monthly- no man wants that, she bears the child for 9 months- no man wants that, she screams for a few hours giving birth- OH HAIL NO, no man wants that. What the law recognizes, and you wish to ignore, is a huge burden is on the female (and state) if she can't get help from the guy who planted the flag. You can call it unequal, most of us call it recognizing the biological facts of life.

Attempting to use the strawman of a guy wanting to keep the child when the woman doesn't is so rare it makes the news, child support cases only when the rich and famous are locked in a divorce.

The discussion is about child support, please read the topic header. :2wave:

A guy wants the kid and the woman doesn't he can find another woman to carry to term a baby. He doesn't want to pay for a child he helped create then for 18 years the woman and most likely the state will pay for the offspring... not equal at all.

She doesn't play victim, she has every legal right to expect child support for her child. Again I doubt this occurs due to one night stands but rather relationships both parties enter into but if the pee stick turns blue the man wants to bail and say "Baby it's on you!" or bitter divorce cases- I kinda wonder which are you?

No Sir, it is the guy wailing about unequal rights, and no justice for a man who doesn't practice safe sex that attempts to play the victim card, and yeah that is pathetic... eace

Since you are ignoring the actual argument about equal post conception rights regarding a say in parenthood i will simply point out that I didn't talk about child support because I responded to your post which never mentioned it in the first place.

Yours is a flawed argument. It is akin to claiming a drunk can't be charged with DUI if hours after the accident he tests under the legal limit. You have to accept the ENTIRE scenario not just the part you feel shows inequality.

The bottom line is a new person is created at birth. Attempting to say THAT (or when the pee stick turns blue) is the start time for responsibility is bogus. You wish to ignore HOW that baby was created (unprotected sex) and dwell on once she is knocked up she has far more say in the continuance of the pregnancy is a bit like locking the gate after the cattle get out. (FYI she doesn't have 100% as most women who get abortions will say the boy friend was quite ahhh 'supportive' (Insistent) about the abortion. Theory vs practice my good man.

If a man fails to take the proper safeguards before sex then he can't very well refuse to accept the consequences. fail to check your oil and the car engine locks up, don't fix the roof and a rain storm ruins your Xbox...

You get the idea, you can't play victim when it was well within your powers to prevent the situation.

To misquote Franklin- a fraction of an ounce of latex prevents 18 years of garnished wages... eace

 

[year2late]

I am so tired of the unequal treatment crap.

Any adult that gets pregnant will be treated equally.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

that has nothing to do with what I said. you can't force her to give up her baby.
the baby is her's and your's. you both have to agree to adoption.

if one party doesn't then you can't put the baby up for adoption.
my post however said nothing about adoption.

I said you don't get to dump your responsibility on the rest of society.
nice strawman argument though.

No, you're saying that women can but men can't. I agree that he shouldn't be able to force her to give up the baby. She shouldn't be able to make him an indentured servant.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

I am so tired of the unequal treatment crap.

Any adult that gets pregnant will be treated equally.

If you want to base law on biological differences between men and women, then you're not for equality. I understand why you're getting frustrated. Because you know, rationally, that your argument is flawed. The cognitive dissonance hurts now, but you seem like a reasonable person. You'll come around.