• 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!

Hedge Funder Offered $75,000 to His Girlfriend for Abortion

LaylaWindu

One with the Force
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2015
Messages
5,435
Reaction score
1,675
Location
PA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
https://www.yahoo.com/style/hedge-funder-offered-75000-to-his-girlfriend-for-abortion-190608173.html


If this is true, real classy there Ron. If the baby is his and she wins full sole custody there should be no forced support though.
 
My apologies for this story so far. While it comes from Yahoo, the story is from the NY Post and I haven't found another source yet. That doesn't mean it's not true but I don't trust the NY post any more than any other tabloid. If I find more sources I will post them.
 
Bodhisattva said:
She should take the money... you can always have another kid.
Click to expand...

From the article
 
I always find it interesting in these cases when the woman wants full custody as well as the man to pay "child support" every month. Due to his job, it is probably a large amount too.

Also, I see nothing wrong with what this man did. Women can spend a fraction of that to avoid responsibility of a child and are commended for it. He was simply doing the same.
 
MaggieD said:
Why is this news? It's probably done all the time.

Nice that you question the source, though. We should do more of that. Every one of us.

I disagree re no support. Support isn't for her; it's for his child.
Click to expand...

Thanks and I agree about thee questioning. I understand who the support is for but if she wins full sole custody she shouldn't get any. IMO I think it's counter productive to force support, if he has no other rights to the child and she controls everything there shouldn't be forced support unless it was taken from him because of a crime or something like that later in the relationship between the three of them. I have never supported a paternity test then a granting of full sole custody and support unless there are other reasons. Nothing seems right about forcing a mother or father to pay money and negate any legal rights they have to the child.
 
ajn678 said:
I always find it interesting in these cases when the woman wants full custody as well as the man to pay "child support" every month.
Click to expand...

I have to say I agree with that part, but this could be a matter of poor reporting. WHich I admit I am assuming myself. I believe legally the terms are full sole custody and primary custody. I'm not sure what "full custody" means legally.
 

I WOULD agree with you if your interpretation is correct...that he has no visitation or anything with the child. Frankly, I seriously doubt that's going to happen. Further, if your interpretation is correct, that she wants full unfettered custody with no visitation, I no longer believe her,story. I don't trust baby mommas in situations like this.
 

Well that's good we agree then. What I said isn't an interpretation though. I have no clue how the cases is going to work out I simply made the statement "if" she gets full sole custody she shouldn't get support. But I agree with you on your point, it's probably unlikely and I doubt it also. . . . . . .haha "at baby mamas"
 
The overarching topic that I see is this - if Roe v Wade says it's okay for the mother to decide to abort or not, then why does the father not have a voice in that choice? I know it's not his body that will be carrying the baby for 9 months, but he damn sure is going to be held responsible for the next 18 years that follow.

Truthfully, I'm torn by this.
 
LaylaWindu said:
https://www.yahoo.com/style/hedge-funder-offered-75000-to-his-girlfriend-for-abortion-190608173.html
If this is true, real classy there Ron. If the baby is his and she wins full sole custody there should be no forced support though.
Click to expand...
It's actually kinda Niggling/CHEAP.

You know what Paternity would cost this Citadel Hedge fund guy? MILLIONS. Maybe double digit Millions.
He needs to add a Zero, or Two.
Even if no paternity is attached, he's a cheap SOB.
2.5 YEAR Girlfriend, and both known to each others families?
I say $5-$10 Million.

The top 25 Hedge Fund managers AVERAGED making $1 Billion EACH in 2007. That's right, in ONE year.
 
Last edited:
IF this story is true, he is a piece of **** scumbag and in a better world he would be going to prison for this, but at least in this one the kid's mother is at least a moral human being.

IF the story is true, yes he absolutely should pay child support through the nose and no he should never ever have visitation rights with the kid he tried to kill.

I am skeptical of the worst details given the nature of this thing but the core details of the story aren't falsifiable.
 
I think his girlfriend acted inappropriately and completely in her own self-interest.

If I were the hedge-fund manager, I would quit my job and spend everything I have on disposable goods/services. After I have consumed ALL of my wealth, I would also go on food-stamps. My logic is that if you are going to leech off of me for the next 18 years, I might as well die.
 

He has a voice. He is welcome to speak his peace. But she gets final say about what happens to her body.
 
year2late said:
But she gets final say about what happens to her body.
Click to expand...

You know that's dishonest in the abortion debate year2late. If it was merely about her body, pro lifers would be given no objections to abortion.
 
GEIxBattleRifle said:
You know that's dishonest in the abortion debate year2late. If it was merely about her body, pro lifers would be given no objections to abortion.
Click to expand...
Nobody is saying that its only about her body but that’s clearly a significant element. Ultimately, regardless of how many people can and should have a say or influence, somebody needs to make the definitive final decision one way or another and, excluding special circumstances like mental incapability or a coma, I don’t see how that could be anyone other than the pregnant woman herself.
 
HonestJoe said:
Nobody is saying that its only about her body but that’s clearly a significant element.
Click to expand...

The significant element is to decide if the woman should have the right to destroy the body of another human through the act of abortion. I'd say yes since I'm quite 100% sure philosophically and ethically that unborn human is not a person.


I agree. The abortion debate is merely a fight over if unborn humans should be allowed to be legally killed for whatever reason by women.
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
.

I disagree re no support. Support isn't for her; it's for his child.
Click to expand...


I may be more inclined to agree if support amounts were more reasonable in a lot of cases and based off what it takes to care for a child instead of a % of the parents income. I am convinced that in many cases only a portion of the money is spent on the child per say and the rest being used as "other parent" support. Some of the wealthy pay over $50K-100K per month for a single child. Tell me what child needs 50k per month to be taken care of? I bet the parent with custody isn't doing without regardless of their personal incomes, or lack of.
 
GEIxBattleRifle said:
You know that's dishonest in the abortion debate year2late. If it was merely about her body, pro lifers would be given no objections to abortion.
Click to expand...

Can you expand on this train of thought, I want to make sure I know what you are implying.
 

This is why I do support giving the father the ability to "opt-out" if you will, before a certain time limit.
 
Mandatory child support payments from fathers are completely illogical and sexist under the paradigm which a mother can just kill the kid and the father has no recourse.

That said I do believe in mandatory child support payments, because I do not believe in the legality of the human rights abuse of abortion. That is a logically consistent position.

I do find it amusing that pro-aborts are essentially obliged to support this scumbag abandoning his girlfriend and child.


Whereas I can, with no reservation, condemn him as someone who tried to bribe his partner to conspire to kill a human being and will be happy to see him pay through the nose for that, though there really should be criminal charges.
 
TheGoverness said:
This is why I do support giving the father the ability to "opt-out" if you will, before a certain time limit.
Click to expand...

Where my difficulty lies is with the born child. Support is for the child, not custodial parent.

And of course, my thoughts are with the taxpayers. I cannot wrap my head around the taxpayers being used (via the welfare system) until both parents are attempting to use their own resources to raise the child.
 
year2late said:
Where my difficulty lies is with the born child. Support is for the child, not custodial parent.
Click to expand...

But there have been plenty of instances where that child support money is not being used on the child.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…