U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Would you support a child support opt-out for men *if* women promised to get an abortion and changed
Yes (I'm Politically Pro-Life) 5 11.11%
No (I'm Politically Pro-Life) 7 15.56%
Yes (I'm Politically Pro-Choice) 14 31.11%
No (I'm Politically Pro-Choice) 19 42.22%
Voters: 45. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-15-2015, 03:04 PM
 
Location: SoCal
5,722 posts, read 4,533,198 times
Reputation: 1865

Advertisements

My own question here is this: Would you support giving a child support opt-out to men if the women that they had sex with promised (as in, this promise can be proven) to get an abortion in the event of an unplanned pregnancy and lied or changed their minds in regards to this later on? In such a scenario, all other men will be forced to pay child support. Also, all men who will get a child support opt-out in this scenario will give up all of their parental rights and be required to avoid all contact with these children of theirs at least until their children will reach age 18.

As for me, my own response to this question is Yes. Why? Because in such a scenario, I see such a man is being no more responsible for the existence of an actual child (as opposed to a zygote) than I would be if I loaned someone my baseball bat and then found out that this individual unexpectedly beat several people to death with this baseball bat of mine. After all, in both of these cases, another person made a decision which is different to the decision that one expected that he or she would make.

As for taxpayer money, if it's fair game to use taxpayer money to help financially support the families of the beating victims in the my scenario with the baseball bat above, then it's fair game to use taxpayer money to help take care of these men's children as well. Plus, can't taxpayer money also be used to help financially support the children that single women have with the help of sperm donors? If so, then I would like to point out that the men in this scenario of mine should simply be considered to be non-anonymous sperm donors.

Also, if a woman who doesn't like both abortion and adoption has a problem with my idea here, then she can avoid having sex with men who are personally okay with opting-out of paying child support and/or avoid promising to get an abortion in the event of an unplanned pregnancy. Indeed, doing this should ensure that there wouldn't be very many needy children who will need to be supported by the government and the taxpayers in such a scenario.

In addition to this, no non-drastic method of contraception and sterilization is incapable of ever failing. Also, telling male-bodied people to abstain from penis-in-vagina sex for the rest of their lives is no more acceptable for them than it is for female-bodied people when pro-lifers give them this exact same advice. Indeed, I myself would strongly prefer to become a (literal) eunuch than to abstain from penis-in-vagina sex with all fertile and potentially fertile women for the rest of my life. Seriously--after all, it is certainly better than losing a lot of money and getting sluut-shamed, including by various people on this specific forum.

Anyway, any thoughts on this?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-15-2015, 03:13 PM
Status: ""Trolling for dollars"" (set 5 days ago)
 
Location: In the basket
10,380 posts, read 12,231,696 times
Reputation: 6714
Not that I would support it because there is nothing worse than a deadbeat parent, but if this ridiculous notion were to actually come to the table it would also have a clause that signs away any rights to the child until that child is an adult. If the woman can change her mind than so could the man, which would be the flip side of the original proposal.
Man opts out of support but then decides he wants to be in the child's life.

This would never ever happen though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2015, 03:15 PM
 
Location: Austin
12,238 posts, read 6,956,376 times
Reputation: 13495
You propose, it seems, a legal document both partners sign prior to having sex?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2015, 03:17 PM
 
6,635 posts, read 4,600,830 times
Reputation: 13350
In your scenario, the guy should never be allowed contact with the kid regardless of age. You don't want to support or participate in raising a kid, you don't ever get to have contact. That'd head off selfish old guys who would only want contact for help in their old age.

I'm OK with your scheme as long as women are informed and consent ahead of time to sex with only possible consequences to them and none for the guy. That'd really help weed out the dead beats.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2015, 03:20 PM
 
Location: SoCal
5,722 posts, read 4,533,198 times
Reputation: 1865
Quote:
Originally Posted by texan2yankee View Post
You propose, it seems, a legal document for both sex partners prior to having sex to sign?
Yes, that could work. Of course, perhaps something such as an e-mail from the woman to the man might be considered to be sufficient proof for this as well--after all, can't e-mails be considered to be valid evidence in court?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2015, 03:22 PM
 
Location: SoCal
5,722 posts, read 4,533,198 times
Reputation: 1865
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotkarl View Post
Not that I would support it because there is nothing worse than a deadbeat parent,
So women who give their children up for adoption are also selfish?

Quote:
but if this ridiculous notion were to actually come to the table it would also have a clause that signs away any rights to the child until that child is an adult. If the woman can change her mind than so could the man, which would be the flip side of the original proposal.
Man opts out of support but then decides he wants to be in the child's life.
Yes, I certainly agree with this.

Quote:
This would never ever happen though.
Agreed, which in turn is where a lot of the need for surgical castration on my own part comes from.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2015, 03:23 PM
 
6,635 posts, read 4,600,830 times
Reputation: 13350
One thought. On the flip side are you OK with women requiring guys to sign something saying they will bear the financial and emotional cost if a child is conceived? Seems like an equally valid idea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2015, 03:25 PM
 
Location: SoCal
5,722 posts, read 4,533,198 times
Reputation: 1865
Quote:
Originally Posted by UNC4Me View Post
In your scenario, the guy should never be allowed contact with the kid regardless of age. You don't want to support or participate in raising a kid, you don't ever get to have contact. That'd head off selfish old guys who would only want contact for help in their old age.
I would probably be willing to support that. However, what if the child is the one who wants to establish contact with his or her "deadbeat parent" in adulthood?

Also, though, I wonder if the rules are this strict for non-anonymous sperm donors or for people who give their children up for adoption.

Quote:
I'm OK with your scheme as long as women are informed and consent ahead of time to sex with only possible consequences to them and none for the guy. That'd really help weed out the dead beats.
Yes; agreed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2015, 03:25 PM
 
13,591 posts, read 7,424,969 times
Reputation: 12504
This reminds me of a similar thread that was closed recently.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2015, 03:26 PM
 
Location: SoCal
5,722 posts, read 4,533,198 times
Reputation: 1865
Quote:
Originally Posted by UNC4Me View Post
One thought. On the flip side are you OK with women requiring guys to sign something saying they will bear the financial and emotional cost if a child is conceived? Seems like an equally valid idea.
Why exactly would such a contract be necessary, though? After all, isn't that already the default position of the law in regards to this?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:42 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top