End Mandatory Child Support From Fathers

In a similar way, there was a case in England where a couple had ivf and were successful. The remaining fertilised eggs or eggs and sperm were frozen for the future.

So they had a baby. Subsequently the couple split up. The woman then decided she wanted another baby and her husband took her to court to prevent her using his sperm. He won the case and in my opinion, quite right too.

I can only say about abortion that a friend of mine had one 40 years ago and still grieves for that baby. Its a tough call.

Alexa

Exactly...

Yes, the deal was for lots of screaming.. not lots of kids.

Jack pays because he has to support that child.

Those are just the rules. When Jack starts bleeding once a month and shooting babies out of his ass, then he can change the rules. Until then, Jack will just have to deal with it.

I love you, Neehai.

Just because we recognize it as a sexist standard does not make it any better. When it comes to unborn children, men have absolutely no rights. Considering that the overwhelming burden of birthing that child lies with women, this is not surprising. What is surprising is that the law does not demand commensurate responsibility. If a female partner engages in unprotected intercourse, she should be responsible for the cost of raising any children which ensue. It's her body, thus all of the rights to decide the fate of the unborn child are afforded to the mother and not the father. As such, all of the responsibility should lie with the mother.

Considering the plethora of options available, it's utterly negligent on the part of the woman to accidentally conceive a child.

The mother does support the child. Child support is supplemental, and a repercussion of having been part of the act that created the child.

If this were not the case, it would only encourage men to have more unprotected sex with nary a forethought.

See, this argument is why society came up with the idea of marrage and only having sex after wedlock. It is to ensure the liniage of the child and to legaly denote responsibility for the care of the children resulting from that union. My view on this matter is if the woman has sex outside of marrage, then the state should not enforce child support on the male (or female if custody is reversed) since it was totally irrisponsible of her to allow it to take place. The societal convention of marrage was designed expressly to protect her from raising the children alone.

Now, reality intrudes and you have to consider the child. While Jack is off trying his best to spread his genetic material to as many other women he can get drunk, Jill is stuck pregnant then caring for a kid alone. The world has far too many Jack and Jills in this situation and the government has to either pay for the care of the child or make the father.. guess which one gets picked.

I am gonna have to call the BS flag on that play, Collette. Simply put, its not fair to leave all the choices up to the mother. If she decides to have the baby when she could have opted for an abortion, the father should not be liable for child support if he doesnt want the baby.

Abortionists just want their cake and eat it too, and thats currently what theyre doing and its wrong. No one is advocating that men should be able to force a woman to have an abortion, however, if it truly takes two to tango, then the man should be able to sign legally binding documents stating his full intent to raise the child and pay for the hospital expenses.

-Kiamat Dusk

It takes two to tango, but only one of them is the irresponsible idiot in the case of an unwanted pregnancy? I dont think so. And so long as women dont need to consult the father before killing the baby, they shouldnt be automatically entitled to child support if they decide not to. Time to even the playing field. Of course this would be a moot point if we just outlawed abortion.


-Kiamat Dusk

What about the choice whether or not to have sex? ^^


If someone truly believes abortion is wrong, then it's not exactly "an option", is it?


Pro-choicers don't often like to be referred to as "abortionists" i.e. people who endorse abortions... I have never heard someone say there ought to be an increase in abortions...


Legally, the man has voluntarily given his reproductive chromosomes to the mother.

And you dont think theres an emotional impact on the part of the father? If I found out that my partner aborted our child, I would be devastated. No one thinks about the father until its time to buy diapers.

-Kiamat Dusk
Father of 4

-Kiamat Dusk

Oh, you mean child support existed way back then? I don't think so. Men were allowed to father as many children as they liked in most civilations back then, many times by many different mothers. Some sort of right, I suppose, because women were OWNED. Women were just cows for men to either produce royal offspring, or, if they were not royal, then farmhands or metal workers, or what have you. Most of the time, if a woman bore a girl baby, they were blamed for this, as girls were deemed less than desirable. They still are in some parts of the world today.

There's a reason the word "husband" and "husbandry" are so close and share the same root. Women were basically livestock back then.

*high five*

which part of my post is BS?
*Men are more often then not the ones who push for sex from their partners before she is ready, has someone not dated in America in the last 30 years?
*It is insane to allow men to force women to have abortions .. period
*It is true that the child will need support if it is born.
*Fathers absolutely, if they can make a case, gain partial or full custody of children that are born without their "consent" - were I the trusting sort i could name names of men i know who have done so.
*child support IS based on income. Jack will have a proportional cost based on his income, this cost can be budgetted. Meenwhile Jill the custodial parent will most likely have costs Larger than the child support payments. It is well documented divorced men who are non-custiodial have an increase in standard of living as opposed to their wives raising their children. As a parent yourself you I am sure realize you spend more on your 4 children then if you were divorced and simply made child support payments.
*And of course child support isnt paid if both parents live with the child.


Or you mean my opinion is BS? well you are entitled to feel that way, but it would be more effective to refute my statements then blanket calling them BS.

OF course the choice is up to the mother .. Biology made it that way. If men gave birth then it could be up to them.

If the man doesnt like that he should find a woman that agrees with him before having sex.

You may be devastated emotionally but you are not the one whose life is endangered, or who suffers though 9 months of uncomfortable, raging hormones or the one who has to suffer the pain of ultimately giving birth. Couple all of that with the emotional impact that the woman has and frankly, many women would trade places and gladly allow you to give birth while they send a monthly check.

It's a simple fact - IT'S HAPPENING TO HER BODY. period.

.

BOTH are irresponsible idiots. Biology, however, guarantees that the woman will be dealing with the consequences one way or another. Either she will raise the child, or make the heart-wrenching decision to abort or to give the baby to others. The father of the child owes the child what he can give it to provide a good life. The child support laws help even the playing field and assign responsibility to both parties involved.

a) Yes, this is a difficult situation but unfortunetly Jack can't make that discission for Jane.

b) Yes, another difficult situation but it is Jack's responsibility to take care of that child.

In conclusion, you play, you pay.

Why should irresponsible idiots pay tax?

???
Will you die without it? I would say the opposite.
That it is very practical, but not such a great idea.



No. Jill isn't stuck doing anything. The government neither has to pay for the care of the child nor make the father do it. Leave the little brat on a rock. ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE.

Its about the child. You don't pay support for the mother, you pay support for the child. Accident or no accident, the child did not ask to be born. The law assumes that both parents have a hand in supoorting the child, and both parents will play a part in supporting the child. Everyone know contraceptives are not 100% effective. Everyone knows that babies are a consequence of sex. If you don't want kids, don't have sex. Other wise, you run the risk of having to support your child.

Additionally, a large amount of mandatory child suppor goes to reimbusring welfare costs for single mothers. In other words of you get a woman pregnant and she collects welfare, you are goin to be on the hook to pay back the taxpayers money you are forcing them to spend.

Asa guy you have as much input inot the abortion issues as she is going to allow you to have. She is the one who has the aborition, so ultimately it is done to her body, not yours. (ignoring all legal and ethical arguments about the Foetus' rights for the moment).
Frankly, if you are not responsible enough to step up to the plate and support your own child, I would not blame her for thinking you are not respsonsible enough to have any input in whether or not she has an aborition.

Unless we're talking rape, a woman ALWAYS maintains the right to say no.
NOWHERE have I said that a man should be able to force a woman to have an abortion.
However, so long as women have the choice to opt out of parenthood, so should the father. Time level the procreative playing field.

-Kiamat Dusk

Not really. It's about the possible burden on the taxpayer if the father is allowed to opt out. That's why the current system shows no respect for natural justice, as the thread starter pointed out. It isn't about justice, or fairness, or morality. Its about the practical need to get someone to pay for the childs upkeep. If the state, faced with supporting a child, could get away with demanding a contribution from grandparents or uncles, or even the company that sold the bed, they would.

I think the currently child support laws and the percentage of income a woman can recieve from the father are way out of line. I think there should be options for men to opt out of their parental rights, I think forced parenthood is shitty.


Women have all the choices (yay! feminism got us shitty birth control pills that make you ill and the right to kill! woot! we win. ) and men get stuck. Yes, there are alot of deadbeat men out there, but what about all the women that set out to trap men? Let's not pretend that women are entirely innocent in this. Women need to take more responsibility for themselves and their families and quit blaming every fucking thing on men, isn't that what feminism is about? I have never really understoof feminism, it just seems like a way to fuck yourself out of everthing.

You know what might be a better way ... if the concern is certain women being irresponsible with the father's money, why not give it some accountability?

Let the woman save receipts, show cost of purchases for clothing / rent / food / utilities / nice things for the kid, and this way it could be shown that the money was going to the kid. In one hand, it'd make the mother more accountable, and at the same time, the court would have more teeth going after deadbeat dads. ("Look at what she is paying for that you are not reimbursing! Shame on you!"