US men fight child support laws.

[Synch]

The second part of my post is no "threat" of any kind. It's simply reality.....more women will choose to abort if they know they will not get support from the father to raise the child. There will also be more children growing up in poverty. Why do you think we have the child support laws to begin with?

If woman are not able to take care of their children, they shouldn't have the pregnancy in the first place.

If the pregnancy is an accident, they can abort it. The child support law is being abused by woman to screw men and take away their money and hard earned cash from bodily fluid that is forcibly taken away from them to support a child they don't want.

If the woman gave birth to a child, she is solely responsible for the child because she has the power to kill it, while the men don't have consent over the death of his genetic fetus, while 9/10 times(some other person said), woman get custody.

When she is planning a pregnancy, she should be prepared to raise it without FORCING someone else to give up their money WITHOUT CONSENT, there are exceptions of course, when the father leaves right before the child is born or after, but the current state of child support laws are fundamentally flawed and needs major reforms to not make men the hapless victims.

I'm simply pointing out that it child support laws are blind to the sex of the custodial parent....whoever isn't raising the child is paying support. The court that deals with child support has nothing to do with assigning custody. Many times there is no formal agreement between the parents about custody at all...the mother has custody because the father OPTED OUT in many cases. That's why we have the laws....because of the deadbeat parents who walk away from their kids. Yes, most, not all, but most of them are fathers! To suggest that they WANT custody of their kids when they walked away and had to be dragged into court and forced to support their kids is disingenuous.

I'm saying woman have the choice to opt out for a very cheap price, and kill the fetus, child. Abortion laws are not blind to the sex, it discriminates against men.

There are just as many deadbeat mothers who don't walk away from their kids, but kill them.

So why do we have child support laws while abortion is legal? The woman have the choice to not have responsibility, simply having an abortion, while men must either take custody and support the child or be forced to give up money each month to support a child he does not want? Do I smell double standard?:shock:

The fact that such case exists is outrageous, and shows the deep abuse in this law.

 

[FallingPianos]

Lets say that a woman wants an abortion, the male does not. He should be able to go to court and let her have the child and he raise single parent.

you mean he should be able to go to court and make her have the child.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

There's so many issues to play with here...where do I start?

Forcing the sperm donor to pay up for the child provides and economic incentive for the female to play a riskier reproductive game.

Freeing the sperm donor from all economic consequences could easily have the consequence of a collective snapping together of female knees across the country.

But the sperm donor takes an equal risk creating a baby when he plays the game without armor. The steel plate he wears around his weapon makes the act less enjoyable, true, but it does help protect his bank account from voracious bitches. His decision to set aside his armor makes him as liable for the care of that child as the incubator he knocked up. What should be borne in mind is that the object of dissent in all this is a child, and those most responsible for it's existence should be held to support that child. Does it make sense to let the parents go free and then ding all the taxpayers to support the child instead? No, it does not.

The bimbo lied about being on the pill, having her tubes tied, or some other thing to get some action? My brother, genius that he isn't, picked a girl up who claimed to have an allergy to latex. He tried to run away from his duties, claiming the broad "entrapped" him. True enough, but the snare only worked because the head he was thinking with didn't have any grey matter...well, for my brother I have to admit that neither of his heads appear to have any grey matter, but trapped or not, it was his kid, his responsiblity. And now he has full custody of his daughter and the female is nowhere to be seen. We weren't going to let him off the hook, the kid was his duty as soon as he chose to do the broad. End of story.

There's the issue of kids that aren't the man's creation. The issue gets a little hairier because we're not discussing puppies, we're discussing children. Easily, if the existence of a cuckoo's egg is discovered before the child is born, there should never be a question but that the non-related male has no duties to the unborn child. But what of the case where the "father" only discovers the deception years later, when the child is emotionally bonded to him? Lots of moral dilemma there.

 

[Schweddy]

you mean he should be able to go to court and make her have the child.

Absolutely. That child living inside her is half his.

 

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

First let me say that child support is great "When enacted fairly!".
The courts a really hurting America by it's current methods of family court
justice ( injustice).

The courts SHOULD! start off with:
1) 50% - 50% Parental custody
2) No child support!

This is in the best interest of "THE CHILD" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(That's what should be paramount!)

From there it would become a case-by-case decision. Because there are
far to many unique family/mom-dad-child situations to discuss

Also here are a few new ideas to ponder.
1) If a man wants the child and the woman does not, can the man legally
make the woman have the baby?
2) If the man does not want the baby can he legally force the woman to
abort "HIS" Child?
3) If the woman won't abort the man's child can the man legally have no
financial ties to the child or woman?
4) Do you see how unfair the court is?




Check out this website: http://www.cafcusa.org/

It succinctly sums up many of the problems currently surrounding family law. In fact, this this organization was instrumental in passing California Assembly Bill 1082 (AB1082) passed with overwhelming bi-partisan support.

One problem that is happening is Reservists who have been activated to serve in the war have faced numerous problems when they return home. For example, some find that their ex's have used their absence as a reason to take away custody of the children. Others have returned to face huge child support bills because the support order couldn't be modified to reflect the significant pay cut that activated Reservists often take. Some have even been arrested as soon as they returned home for this reason. CAFC organized AB1082 to alleviate this problem, but the other 49 states are vulnerable to this abuse.

Again, this is just one problem. There are many more.

 

[talloulou]

Forcing the sperm donor to pay up for the child provides and economic incentive for the female to play a riskier reproductive game.

Oh right the FATHER is just a sperm donor. Big deal the MOTHER is just an egg donor and incubator!

The steel plate he wears around his weapon makes the act less enjoyable, true, but it does help protect his bank account from voracious bitches.

Not if it breaks. Or some crazy lady takes it out of the trash and inseminates herself with a turkey baster. That's not a crime either!!!

 

[Synch]

First let me say that child support is great "When enacted fairly!".
The courts a really hurting America by it's current methods of family court
justice ( injustice).

The courts SHOULD! start off with:
1) 50% - 50% Parental custody
2) No child support!

This is in the best interest of "THE CHILD" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(That's what should be paramount!)

From there it would become a case-by-case decision. Because there are
far to many unique family/mom-dad-child situations to discuss

Also here are a few new ideas to ponder.
1) If a man wants the child and the woman does not, can the man legally
make the woman have the baby?
2) If the man does not want the baby can he legally force the woman to
abort "HIS" Child?
3) If the woman won't abort the man's child can the man legally have no
financial ties to the child or woman?
4) Do you see how unfair the court is?




Check out this website: http://www.cafcusa.org/

It succinctly sums up many of the problems currently surrounding family law. In fact, this this organization was instrumental in passing California Assembly Bill 1082 (AB1082) passed with overwhelming bi-partisan support.

One problem that is happening is Reservists who have been activated to serve in the war have faced numerous problems when they return home. For example, some find that their ex's have used their absence as a reason to take away custody of the children. Others have returned to face huge child support bills because the support order couldn't be modified to reflect the significant pay cut that activated Reservists often take. Some have even been arrested as soon as they returned home for this reason. CAFC organized AB1082 to alleviate this problem, but the other 49 states are vulnerable to this abuse.

Again, this is just one problem. There are many more.

1. Yes, the child is partially his and he has the right to have it LIVE, but he will have to take custody immediately after, no child support from the mother.
2. No, it's her body, and she can decide to keep the thing alive, however she shall have agreed by that to not attempt to get a court to recieve child support from the father.
3. Yes, if the woman won't abort, the father shouldn't be responsible. Some fathes are lived with their children for years then divorce, child support is viable and logically correct there, but being forced to raise a child you did not want at pregnancy is outrageous and bull.
4. The courts are pretty corrupt right now..

Freeing the sperm donor from all economic consequences could easily have the consequence of a collective snapping together of female knees across the country.

No it wouldn't, there would be more abortions and less poverty. Woman should only give birth when they have A CONSENTING PARTNER THAT AGREES TO RAISE THE CHILD WITH THEM AT LEAST FROM BIRTH. If the father/mother ditches the child after birth, but agreed to the pregnancy, I'm all for child support, BUT THIS ISN'T THE CASE IS IT?

The bimbo lied about being on the pill, having her tubes tied, or some other thing to get some action? My brother, genius that he isn't, picked a girl up who claimed to have an allergy to latex. He tried to run away from his duties, claiming the broad "entrapped" him. True enough, but the snare only worked because the head he was thinking with didn't have any grey matter...well, for my brother I have to admit that neither of his heads appear to have any grey matter, but trapped or not, it was his kid, his responsiblity. And now he has full custody of his daughter and the female is nowhere to be seen. We weren't going to let him off the hook, the kid was his duty as soon as he chose to do the broad. End of story.

He was lied to decieved, and should not be victimized in our courts for falling for this huge lie that will ruin his life, 500$ at a time. A woman can have an abortion, or give up their child for adoption, 9 month and gone, but this man will be pained for 18 years, it is simply unjust for our justice system to burden this man with a responsiblity not his, it is violating his Constitutional rights.

There's the issue of kids that aren't the man's creation. The issue gets a little hairier because we're not discussing puppies, we're discussing children. Easily, if the existence of a cuckoo's egg is discovered before the child is born, there should never be a question but that the non-related male has no duties to the unborn child. But what of the case where the "father" only discovers the deception years later, when the child is emotionally bonded to him? Lots of moral dilemma there.

If the mother lied or knew about the deception, or a possible deception, and knowingly tricked the man, he should not be obligated, and the mother should pay all responsibility.

It seems you have an extremely biased prespective, from only the mother or child, think of the emotional trauma delt to the man who knows that the child is not his, and then for many more years is forced to give up his money for someone genetically not his, something he consented to do under the assumption that the child is his, and only under that presumption.

 

[FallingPianos]

Absolutely. That child living inside her is half his.

I have absolutly no opposition to the state making a law that says no woman can have abortions, but I am absolutly opposed to making the decision be up to the father upon his whim. while I dont believe that pro-life is misogyny in general, giving the father the authority to decide whether the child is kept or not, is misogyny.

 

[talloulou]

I have absolutly no opposition to the state making a law that says no woman can have abortions, but I am absolutly opposed to making the decision be up to the father upon his whim. while I dont believe that pro-life is misogyny in general, giving the father the authority to decide whether the child is kept or not, is misogyny.

The day our country decides that a man can force a women to kill their unborn baby is the day we, as a society, completely fall to the darkside. But the current abortion laws which allow women to kill their unborn babies on a whim are driving us in that direction.

 

[Schweddy]

I have absolutly no opposition to the state making a law that says no woman can have abortions, but I am absolutly opposed to making the decision be up to the father upon his whim. while I dont believe that pro-life is misogyny in general, giving the father the authority to decide whether the child is kept or not, is misogyny.

I disagree, this has nothing to do with hating women or their ability to incubate a child to birth. This has to do with the fathers rights.

Earlier I said that it should go to the courts to decide this. This would elleviate or at least minimize the "whim" aspect of decisions. How many children are aborted each year on "whims"?

If anything, not allowing the same due process in the decision is embracing animosity toward the rights of men.

 

[Carl]

If anything, not allowing the same due process in the decision is embracing animosity toward the rights of men.

Well, I think in all candor we can concede that this action is aimed at pointing up the logical and moral inconsistency of the Roe v Wade decision. I'm not clear that the proposition, on its face, has any merits.

It's the illogic of construing abortion as a "womens rights" issue, when in fact it's a "person's rights" issue. An issue of the rights of very young Americans.

The fundamental problem is that mothers should not have the right to kill the unborn in the first instance, and that granting such a right in the name of privacy so contravenes logic that it creates an absurd legal playing field.

Both the mother and the father must be held accountable for the support of the infant they conceive. Killing the infant for convenience should not be an option at all.

 

[FallingPianos]

I disagree, this has nothing to do with hating women or their ability to incubate a child to birth. This has to do with the fathers rights.

women are under no obligation to produce children for men. men have no such rights.


when I oppose abortion, it is for the protection of the fetus, not for the fathers bogus right to have the child born.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

No it wouldn't, there would be more abortions and less poverty. Woman should only give birth when they have A CONSENTING PARTNER THAT AGREES TO RAISE THE CHILD WITH THEM AT LEAST FROM BIRTH. If the father/mother ditches the child after birth, but agreed to the pregnancy, I'm all for child support, BUT THIS ISN'T THE CASE IS IT?

They BOTH agreed to accept responsibility for the child when they decided to lay pipe in places where potential children lurk.

He was lied to decieved, and should not be victimized in our courts for falling for this huge lie that will ruin his life, 500$ at a time. A woman can have an abortion, or give up their child for adoption, 9 month and gone, but this man will be pained for 18 years, it is simply unjust for our justice system to burden this man with a responsiblity not his, it is violating his Constitutional rights.

He was lied to, decieved, and a damn fool, too. It's not the kid's fault. The kid needs food, clothing, shelter, and everything else. The broad should be jailed for lying...it is fraud, after all, but that doesn't do anything to negate the responsbility both parents agreed to when they hid the salami.

If the mother lied or knew about the deception, or a possible deception, and knowingly tricked the man, he should not be obligated, and the mother should pay all responsibility.

Nope. He shouldn't such a damn fool as to trust no ho. It's that simple.

Question: how does Mr. Trouser Snake prove the broad lied?

Oh. He probably can't. So how can he use that in a court of law as a reason dodging his parental responsibilities? You do realize that the responsibility isn't to the ****, but to the child, right?

It seems you have an extremely biased prespective, from only the mother or child, think of the emotional trauma delt to the man who knows that the child is not his, and then for many more years is forced to give up his money for someone genetically not his, something he consented to do under the assumption that the child is his, and only under that presumption.

Men are tough. Screw their "emotional trauma". If they don't want "emotional trauma", let'em not get married. That's the only way for any man to avoid "emotional trauma" inflicted upon them by the lesser sex. The child doesn't understand any of this, so like I said, the picture ain't clear at all. The kid abandoned totally by the cuckolded male then thinks only that "daddy" hates them, and there's "emotional trauma" magnified a thousand times, there.

That's why I declined to write a cookie cutter opinion on the matter. But I'm so glad you had the imagination to see what I declined to write, and let me know what it was that I thought.

 

[Schweddy]

women are under no obligation to produce children for men.

Interesting twist, but I see your point and I agree. My idea is *not* to force anything. The idea here is truely in line with protecting the fetus. We all know that there is no way that abortions would become completely illegal in our society. The old "back alley" argument truely has some merrit - not much though. Forcing a woman to have a baby is barbarian. Killing an unborn child is barbarian. Making a decision about the fate of an unborn child is equally barbarian.

men have no such rights.

You are more that correct. Hopefully this will change. Feminism and recent movements within the US has proven that women and men are indeed equal. It's time to put this on the table and prove it once and for all. Allow the man to claim half ownership of the fetus and allow the man to make half the decision in the process.

when I oppose abortion, it is for the protection of the fetus, not for the fathers bogus right to have the child born.

This is where we completely disagree. Forcing a descision from the courts will indeed protect more of the fetus. More often than not, a child would be born - which is a good thing.

 

[Navy Pride]

I think men should be forced to pay child support but they should also have some say in whether the child is aborted or carried to term.........This old crap that its the woman's body is bogus, it took 2 peoplke to make her pregnant.........

 

[Deegan]

I think men should be forced to pay child support but they should also have some say in whether the child is aborted or carried to term.........This old crap that its the woman's body is bogus, it took 2 peoplke to make her pregnant.........

"This old crap that its the woman's body is bogus":shock:

Surely you jest sir, you can't believe that?

 

[Carl]

Surely you jest sir, you can't believe that?

We're discussing the third body, the one that has to be supported. The fact that only women have wombs is an artifact of nature, over which neither men nor women had any say.

So the crux of the discussion cannot rationally depend on which gender has a womb. The father is not providing financial support for the womb, but rather the contents of the womb.

 

[Navy Pride]

"This old crap that its the woman's body is bogus":shock:

Surely you jest sir, you can't believe that?

It is not the only important factor involved in whether a child should be butchered or carried to term..............

 

[Deegan]

A man can not tell a woman what to do with her body with in reason, just as a woman can not tell a man he has to be a father/provider to her child. It's a delicate balance we seek, and this crosses the line. I want woman, and men to be able to choose their future direction, woman should be able to choose to have the child, or not, and the father to decide the same. This makes sense to me, I really don't see the problem with this, unless you think you can control another?

As I said, it's not reasonable to wait to the last minute to make this choice, abortions past twelve weeks make me sick, we need to be reasonable about this. We also can not allow a woman to decieve a man, tell him she can't have kids, then say to him, "surprise, it's a miracle, you're the daddy, and your life just changed for ever." You can't have it both ways, we can be reasonable, and our laws should express this.

 

[FallingPianos]

This is where we completely disagree. Forcing a descision from the courts will indeed protect more of the fetus. More often than not, a child would be born - which is a good thing.

the process is important too. making the decision up to the father is not the correct process for reducing abortions. the right of the fetus to be born belongs to the fetus, not the mother or the father.

 

[jamesrage]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4789090.stm




How dare these men are trying to fight for their own right so they won't be forced to give up their bodily resources to support a child which they might not want or consent to concieve in the first place.

How dare these neocon white supremacists want to free men from paying their obligated child support for their child regardless of intentions, who gives that the woman gave birth to leech money off the father, he deserves it, men shouldn't recieve the same rights granted to woman because we enslaved them for thousands of years..

They should be able to kill fetuses, but relieve themselves of having to give up bodily resources, but we men can't have that right because we're men, and our super affirmative action society forbids that.

Where's your feminine spirit, support woman.


:mrgreen:
...............................


Fu/ck that sh1t, I'm gonna be serious. I support abortion rights, although it may be for the wrong reasons.. but still, the great hypocritical policies in our country, affirmative action, national security, and our child support policy, which coerces the man into giving up his bodily resources for a child he does not want or did not consent to have.

Using the same logic that feminist use these men should not be forced to support a child they do not want to support.If they are not going to have any say in whether or not a woman keeps or murders her child why should they be forced to take care of the child?

Morally however he helped creat the child and there fore should be responsible for taking care of the child.The same applys to the woman too.However If they do not want the child and or they can not take of the child then they should give the child to a man and woman who can take care of the child.

 

[Synch]

Morally however he helped creat the child and there fore should be responsible for taking care of the child.The same applys to the woman too.However If they do not want the child and or they can not take of the child then they should give the child to a man and woman who can take care of the child.

The womans wants to keep the child and keeps custody, and the man did not want to child beginning from pregnancy, then what?\

If he never consented to the child, what then?

Should he still be "morally" obligated to take of the child?

No, it's not his, he never wanted it, he never consented to it, it's not his or his responsiblity, this country is already anti male enough with the bias in it's laws regarding children.

However, this point would be hard for those who are against abortion rights, because it would make them hypocrites in a sense that the woman has the carry the child,

However, I support abortion rights(for the wrong reasons), so I'm in the clear.

Using the same logic that feminist use these men should not be forced to support a child they do not want to support.If they are not going to have any say in whether or not a woman keeps or murders her child why should they be forced to take care of the child?

Exactly, but the liberals and feminists of america are hypocrites, so...

I think men should be forced to pay child support but they should also have some say in whether the child is aborted or carried to term.........This old crap that its the woman's body is bogus, it took 2 peoplke to make her pregnant.........

So you think in this case the man should pay the 500$ per month child support? Even if the woman lied to him about her fertility status? Or the fact that he never consented to the child? He should still pay the child support? No, it's amazing this is in court, I am shocked that the court didn't immediately rule in the man's favor, the double standard in this country is astounding.

No, the man was innocent but tricked into paying child support, being leeched from by a cruel bitch every month... it pains me to see our laws have sunken to this level of degeneracy.

 

[talloulou]

However, this point would be hard for those who are against abortion rights, because it would make them hypocrites in a sense that the woman has the carry the child,

I'm against abortion. I would love nothing more than for men to stand up and fight for equal rights when it comes to parenting. The current system is severely flawed in favor of the women in everyway.

Furthermore I think if men started arguing that they should be able to "poof" a child out of existence the same way a women gets to the abortion debate will be back on everyones minds and people will be shocked out of their complaceny. People are so desensitized to the fact that abortion kills a human being in its ealiest stages of development. Lets get men hollaring that they have the right to demand abortions to.....That will wake everyone up to the horror of the situation.

Why should men just be let off the hook financially? How is that fair when women get off the hook completely! They won't run into a child they aborted on the street. Even if the law allowed men to opt out of their financial responsibility it's still unfair in the sense that the main could run into his unwanted child on the street. So let men start arguing that babies shouldn't be born without their permission. Bring it on. That will get more people thinking and abortion will more likely become a barbaric thing of the past.

 

[jamesrage]

The womans wants to keep the child and keeps custody, and the man did not want to child beginning from pregnancy, then what?\

If he never consented to the child, what then?

Should he still be "morally" obligated to take of the child?

No, it's not his, he never wanted it, he never consented to it, it's not his or his responsiblity, this country is already anti male enough with the bias in it's laws regarding children.

However, this point would be hard for those who are against abortion rights, because it would make them hypocrites in a sense that the woman has the carry the child,

However, I support abortion rights(for the wrong reasons), so I'm in the clear.




Exactly, but the liberals and feminists of america are hypocrites, so...




So you think in this case the man should pay the 500$ per month child support? Even if the woman lied to him about her fertility status? Or the fact that he never consented to the child? He should still pay the child support? No, it's amazing this is in court, I am shocked that the court didn't immediately rule in the man's favor, the double standard in this country is astounding.

No, the man was innocent but tricked into paying child support, being leeched from by a cruel bitch every month... it pains me to see our laws have sunken to this level of degeneracy.

Logically if the woman is going to be allowed to murder her child at will before the child is born and the male has no say,logically he should not be obligated to take care of the child.

Morally a woman should not be a allowed to murder her child because she does not want a baby and morally the man should take care of that child that he helped create.If he did not want to take care of a child he should not be engaging in unportected sex or he should not be engaging in sex period just to be 100% sure he does not get a woman pregnate.

 

[Schweddy]

the process is important too. making the decision up to the father is not the correct process for reducing abortions. the right of the fetus to be born belongs to the fetus, not the mother or the father.

Absolutely! We are spot on in this.

If I had my way, abortions would not exist - period. Then again, I am a little extream in this. Not even for rape or mothers safety. I believe after it attaches itself to the inside of the mother it has become its own entity.

Seeing how it takes two to make, why is it so hard to fathom requiring two to abort?

Since it is too late to take away abortions, we can damn sure make it harder to do.