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.
Status:
"Let this year be over..."
(set 18 days ago)
Location: Where my bills arrive
19,219 posts, read 17,083,204 times
Reputation: 15537
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by southwest88
I don't know if it's universal, but certainly the Federal & state legislatures encouraged it in 1996: When a single mother with dependent children applies to her state of residence for TANF funds (it may be called something else now), she assigns her child support money to the state, which then makes every effort to collect from the father of the child(ren).
Even if no formal child support agreement is on file, the state calculates a reasonable amount, based on the number & age of dependent children & the location of the family, & pursues the father for that amount. No state in the US, TMK, is willing to go to its voters & ask them to permanently bear the costs of raising children abandoned by either or both parents.
The law's POV is that financial responsibility, @ least, follows the penis. If there are no children, presumably there is no financial responsibility for non-existent children. & if there are no dependent children, the state can avoid a fair amount of expense.
& of course, in the real world, the man already chose to be involved in the body of the woman. If the man truly does not want to be a father, he should be sure to take pregnancy precautions himself. Otherwise, he's merely gambling with the odds - & the house always wins in the long run.
And for all you wrote you are right back to same old argument that the man is responsible, but as I wrote both parties should ensure precautions are in place and even then they don't always work. But why should the woman have the only say in the decision? If she doesn't want to find herself pregnant then she should utilize methods or abstain all together the responsibility is as much hers.
I agree the courts go after the guy but they have a hard time giving custody to the dad and making the mom pay even when he is a better parental choice or she is a better bread winner.... I'm sure I've touched on a sacred cow that only the mom can raise the child so i'll stop here....
Men do have full control, they can abstain from sex, or they can figure out how to have sex without her becoming pregnant. It's not all that difficult.
Men's undue burden on them to be forced to pay child support is the price of admission to the big leagues. There's a long history of how society has structured marriage & childbearing - you can look it up, if you're interested. & it's fairly brutal to women, especially early on. We're making up for that now, perhaps. But in no successful society that I'm aware of, do you get to walk away from your financial responsibilities towards your children.
Quote:
Women do have full control, they can abstain from sex, or they can figure out how to have sex without them becoming pregnant. It's not all that difficult.
Women's undue burden on them to be forced to raise children is the price of admission to the big leagues. There's a long history of how society has structured marriage & childbearing - you can look it up, if you're interested. & it's fairly brutal to women, especially early on. We're making up for that now, perhaps. But in no successful society that I'm aware of, do you get to walk away from your financial responsibilities towards your children.
Straight out of the mouth of an anti-choicer, you'd think, no?
Goose and gander again, the price of admission to the big leagues is gender specific. Thus inherently discriminatory.
It's only a government issue if the woman can't afford to raise the kid on her own. The number of women who can afford it on their own is not as large as many of us would like, but it's sure larger than it used to be.
Believe me, MANY women regret the financial necessity of having their child's father in their lives.
well no, it's a government issue regardless because a man is on hook for child support no matter if the woman can afford it or not. I do think this is very unfair, there needs to be some kind of opt out for the man very early in the stages of pregnancy. 18 years of your life is effectively 25% of your life expectancy. I rather be pregnant for 9 months than pay child support for 18 years. It's not a small burden to pay.
A financial abortion (also known as a paper abortion or a statutory abort) would essentially enable men to cut all financial and emotional ties with a child in the early stages of pregnancy.
This means he would opt out of all rights, privileges and responsibilities of parenthood in a binding and not reversible decision, similar to sperm donors.
LOL alot of men already do this. They're just not signing a contract. Number one reason why I refuse to get knocked up. I'm not going to be a struggling single mother. Nope. Not gonna happen.
well no, it's a government issue regardless because a man is on hook for child support no matter if the woman can afford it or not. I do think this is very unfair, there needs to be some kind of opt out for the man very early in the stages of pregnancy. 18 years of your life is effectively 25% of your life expectancy. I rather be pregnant for 9 months than pay child support for 18 years. It's not a small burden to pay.
Yes, if she pursues it.
My point is that women don't need to pursue it if they can afford it on their own, and the number of women who don't pursue it is not zero. Women are well aware that if they pursue child support, that means that the father gets at least some access to the child. Rapists have even sought rights to the child that was conceived as a result of the crime they committed and have been given those rights.
If men do not have a say in the abortion then they are not responsible for financial help.
Once the child is born the man should be responsible that's just the way it is that's part of what being a decent man is. Too many worthless useless men walking around that don't take care of their biological children. There should be more stigma for that sort of cowardice.
As an aside, while I support statutory abortion - known as 'financial abortion' here. I also support that the man needs to share medical bills of an abortion and/or pregnancy regardless if he's paying for the child post pregnancy or not.
The idea is, it's both the man's and woman's fault for the pregnancy so both need to shoulder the bills. However, seeing the pregnancy to term is another decision, and both have a say in that decision. This decision cannot (or should not) be fully in the domain of the woman. A man has a say here, not so much for her to keep it (that's her body) but if he will be responsible for it if she does keep it. But irregardless, he will need to pay 50% of the medical bills and lost wages as a result of the pregnancy itself.
Once the child is born the man should be responsible that's just the way it is that's part of what being a decent man is. Too many worthless useless men walking around that don't take care of their biological children. There should be more stigma for that sort of cowardice.
Turn that around replacing man with woman and born with conceived.
How's that looking to you?
You know what it's called when the expectations of one group differ from another group? A double standard, and it's discriminatory.
As an aside, while I support statutory abortion - known as 'financial abortion' here. I also support that the man needs to share medical bills of an abortion and/or pregnancy regardless if he's paying for the child post pregnancy or not.
The idea is, it's both the man's and woman's fault for the pregnancy so both need to shoulder the bills. However, seeing the pregnancy to term is another decision, and both have a say in that decision. This decision cannot (or should not) be fully in the domain of the woman. A man has a say here, not so much for her to keep it (that's her body) but if he will be responsible for it if she does keep it. But irregardless, he will need to pay 50% of the medical bills and lost wages as a result of the pregnancy itself.
Nope once she is pregnant the man has absolutely no say that's pure fantasy your talking there that's just the way it is and isn't going to change.
Once the child is born the man should be responsible that's just the way it is that's part of what being a decent man is. Too many worthless useless men walking around that don't take care of their biological children. There should be more stigma for that sort of cowardice.
So is a woman useless, a coward, or some other derogatory word, if she aborts? After all, that fetus is her biological child (or child to be)? Are you consistent with your petty judging?
In reality, people have sex with multiple partners. Many man have sex with women they don't care to be tied to and they don't want to have children with. When they have sex with her they never plan on a pregnancy but accidents happen. Especially to people who have lots of sexual partners.
We live in the 21st century. Gone are the days we are morally bullied into raising a child for the sake of appeasement of the Church. Now, we can terminate this pregnancy, etc. A man should not have 25% of his life impaired because of some small irresponsibility.
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.
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.
