• 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

Thumper said:
Typical response for folks that cant see that their side of the argument is flawed.

Good job avoiding the actual debate at hand.
Click to expand...

It is what he does. Straw Man to death.
 
Removable Mind said:
Abortion isn't a crime either. But you all but claim that it should be. You're anti-abortion, are you not?

The point is: Men know that they laws regarding child support exist in every state in the nation. When they've co-conceived an unwanted pregnancy - many men will attempt to persuade by coercion or strongly encourage their sex partners to abort in order to avoid 18 years of child support.
Click to expand...

After all these years and you still create these falsehoods. I am for MORE ABORTIONS. That is the essence of my entire argument.
 
Thumper said:
Arguments like yours always remind me that experience doesnt equal profeciency.
Its very simple.

Man can not force woman through a court of law to have an abortion after they both consented to the act of making the child. Woman can choose to have abortion.

Once baby is born theres no reasonable way the man could go take the kid from mom to give it away under the baby moses law without her knowing baby is gone. But mom can give baby away without the father ever knowinf sje was pregnant with his kid. If mom wants to force dad to support the kid she can through the courts. She can also force him to see the kid through the courts.

Woman can force man into parenthood. But man can not force woman into parenthood. Inequality.
Click to expand...

You get this but year after year after year RM cant even begin to comprehend.
 
Henrin said:
There is no reason to expect that he consented by having sex. Furthermore, why is consent to sex consent to a child for men? Why in the hell doesn't that apply to women at all? Hell, even giving birth isn't consent to a kid for women.
Click to expand...

Winner Winner Chicken Dinner!!!

I am waiting for Y2L or some other compassionate person to call this whining.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Men need to be able to opt out of Child Support if they do not want to be a father (legally). The woman can use her legal Constitutiinal right to birth control if she does not want to or can not support the child on her own. (Of course there are some exceptions)

Discuss.
Click to expand...

I can understand the reasoning here but both participate equally in starting a baby on its way. The time to choose whether one wants the responsibility of parenthood for both is before having sex, not after. The man can choose vasectomy or she can have her tubes tied to ensure no possibility of that happening. Otherwise they both assume the risk.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Thumper -"Scenario. Woman gets pregnant. Decides to keep baby. Doesnt tell man for a couple years. Tells man goes after him for child support. He was never given the opertunity to opt out as she could have"



You are actually trying to compare the two??
Click to expand...

In many cases they end up using the courts to force men to pay support for children that have been proven to not biologically theirs. Yes. There are men paying child support for children they are in no way related to.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I can understand the reasoning here but both participate equally in starting a baby on its way. The time to choose whether one wants the responsibility of parenthood for both is before having sex, not after. The man can choose vasectomy or she can have her tubes tied to ensure no possibility of that happening. Otherwise they both assume the risk.
Click to expand...

I understand that is how it is now but why is my solution illogical?

She informs pregnant.
She aborts. Great.
She opts for kid. Great.
He opts in. Great.
He opts out. Agrees to child support. Great.
He opts out. No support. She has a decision to make.
If she can raise kid with no support. Have kid. Great.
If she later needs gov support she proves she did have means to support kid initially. Gets support. Great.
If she can't raise without support she aborts or gives up for adoption.

Find a flaw and I'll address it.

This is Equality regarding post conception parenting rights.
 
Thumper said:
In many cases they end up using the courts to force men to pay support for children that have been proven to not biologically theirs. Yes. There are men paying child support for children they are in no way related to.
Click to expand...

I knew a guy in that situation. I knew another guy who was preyed on by a woman who used him to get pregnant... dumped him and never told him. She moved away and told him later and the Court hit him up for child support and a couple of years of back child support.
 
Thumper said:
In many cases they end up using the courts to force men to pay support for children that have been proven to not biologically theirs. Yes. There are men paying child support for children they are in no way related to.
Click to expand...

They excuse that by saying that the man was in the kids life for X amount of years. X being the amount of years that the government imagined was the cut off.
 
Henrin said:
They excuse that by saying that the man was in the kids life for X amount of years. X being the amount of years that the government imagined was the cut off.
Click to expand...

There are several cases vurrently being fought where the father was not a part of the kids life before he was proven to not be the father. From what I read the judge ruled that eventhough he is not the father because he was in a prior relationship with the mother, and because the mother did not have the means to support the kid alone, the notfather had to pay.
 
Thumper said:
There are several cases vurrently being fought where the father was not a part of the kids life before he was proven to not be the father. From what I read the judge ruled that eventhough he is not the father because he was in a prior relationship with the mother, and because the mother did not have the means to support the kid alone, the notfather had to pay.
Click to expand...

Well, I didn't know about that. I'm not however surprised to hear that is what the courts are doing though.
 
Thumper said:
Arguments like yours always remind me that experience doesnt equal profeciency.
Its very simple.

Man can not force woman through a court of law to have an abortion after they both consented to the act of making the child. Woman can choose to have abortion.

Once baby is born theres no reasonable way the man could go take the kid from mom to give it away under the baby moses law without her knowing baby is gone. But mom can give baby away without the father ever knowinf sje was pregnant with his kid. If mom wants to force dad to support the kid she can through the courts. She can also force him to see the kid through the courts.

Woman can force man into parenthood. But man can not force woman into parenthood. Inequality.
Click to expand...

You're post is further proof you haven't read quite a few of posts in this very thread, which you've only parroted the inequality issues that exist at both the state and federal levels. Your comments are redundant to my post.
 
Removable Mind said:
You're post is further proof you haven't read quite a few of posts in this very thread, which you've only parroted the inequality issues that exist at both the state and federal levels. Your comments are redundant to my post.
Click to expand...

No. I've read and understood them perfectly. You're simply wrong for the reasons I've given.
 
Henrin said:
I wouldn't bet it has though.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't surprise me a bit.

It really is insane how bias the system is.

I helped one of my guys fight for custody. After several years he was finally awarded primary custody.

What was really sad though. After he was awarded custody he went to get her to pay child support. She makes around 110k a year. He makes around 70. Hes been paying upwards of 1200 a month from tje time they divorced until he got custody and got the order to pay removed. That was actually two seperate battles.

Wanna guess what his ex was forced to pay?

If you guessed a dollar amount over zero you would be wrong.
 
Thumper said:
No. I've read and understood them perfectly. You're simply wrong for the reasons I've given.
Click to expand...

No, you haven't read them perfectly. If you had you would have responded to my post #458.

And I'm clearly not wrong.
 
ludin said:
again you have rights. you not exercising those rights is your choice.

You can give up your parental rights, but you still must support your kid.

so far I have yet to see a reason that you should be able to dump your financial responsibility on to the rest of society.
Click to expand...

One major error in you comments. Unless circumstances exist which a child's welfare is in imminent danger because of one or both parents. A parent can't voluntarily choose to forfeit parental rights or any specific obligations a parent is legally responsible for. That would render the state powerless to take future legal actions to seek financial restitution to the state for taxpayers monies used to supplement or pay the entire cost of support over a given time.

So far I haven't seen how taxpayers, via laws to protect to general welfare of children, gets a free pass, or has the power to force the state to abandon its responsibility to care for needy children who are powerless to provide for their own necessities.

Ending social services that directly or indirectly provide financial aid or other services will be extremely difficult to accomplish.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I understand that is how it is now but why is my solution illogical?

She informs pregnant.
She aborts. Great.
She opts for kid. Great.
He opts in. Great.
He opts out. Agrees to child support. Great.
He opts out. No support. She has a decision to make.
If she can raise kid with no support. Have kid. Great.
If she later needs gov support she proves she did have means to support kid initially. Gets support. Great.
If she can't raise without support she aborts or gives up for adoption.

Find a flaw and I'll address it.

This is Equality regarding post conception parenting rights.
Click to expand...

Notice how nobody ever actually addresses this?
 
Removable Mind said:
Maybe I'm not avoiding anything. In fact, I'm not. I've written a number of posts within this very thread which actually acknowledges numerous inequities in the law. But I'm sure you haven't bothered to read them, otherwise you wouldn't have posted the above.
Click to expand...

All you do is talk about how it is now... you never address the lack of equal rights regarding the choice to be a parent or not.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I understand that is how it is now but why is my solution illogical?

She informs pregnant.
She aborts. Great.
She opts for kid. Great.
He opts in. Great.
He opts out. Agrees to child support. Great.
He opts out. No support. She has a decision to make.
If she can raise kid with no support. Have kid. Great.
If she later needs gov support she proves she did have means to support kid initially. Gets support. Great.
If she can't raise without support she aborts or gives up for adoption.

Find a flaw and I'll address it.

This is Equality regarding post conception parenting rights.
Click to expand...

I have addressed this over and over and over and over.

I am a taxpayer. I do not want to support a child you created unless both parents are attempting to support the child first.

I (as a taxpayer) do not care that you and the woman you slept with had an agreement. You did not have an agreement with the taxpayers.

Please stop boohooing about how nobody will answer you. You have been repetitively given the same consistently. I understand and accept that you wholeheartedly disagree with me.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I knew a guy in that situation. I knew another guy who was preyed on by a woman who used him to get pregnant... dumped him and never told him. She moved away and told him later and the Court hit him up for child support and a couple of years of back child support.
Click to expand...

And that was wrong. If the father (or potential father) is known he should be notified. I am not sure what the penalty should be. If I were the man I would feel very deprived of years with my child.:( Again...not sure what the penalty should be.

But the situation you presented is why I say.....it does not matter what contraception (up to and including sterilization) your partner is using. If YOU do not wish to be a parent or financially responsible for a child use contraception each and every time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom