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.
IMO, this thread hasn't been any kind of "great debate" since about page 2, but simply the OP's attempt to get some attention by positing extreme solutions to imaginary situations, some of which have absolutely no relevance to the original topic, ie equating donating a kidney to having sex.
IMO, this thread hasn't been any kind of "great debate" since about page 2, but simply the OP's attempt to get some attention by positing extreme solutions to imaginary situations, some of which have absolutely no relevance to the original topic, ie equating donating a kidney to having sex.
Sadly the o.p. turns what is actually a valid premise into a ridiculous caricature of logical reasoning. An earlier poster opined that (paraphrase) "not too many women are living high on the hog on child support after separation". Maybe, maybe not, but they must have missed another posters rather accurate observation that what many women do is find another man to support them and their child(ren) then the non-custodial parents child support can go towards small luxury items.
Why exactly is my argument here "a ridiculous caricature of logical reasoning," though?
Quote:
All this is beside the point that a man is at a double disadvantage in any matter of child support. It may not even be in the best interest of the woman to conceive and rear a child, with or without a partner, but, they have complete and total say in the final decision. They can terminate over a partners objections and they can go ahead with a pregnancy despite a partners objections. That kind of biological dis-empowerment should be offset in our much more complex modern society, by some kind of legal opt out!
OK.
Quote:
I see nothing wrong with a legal framework whereby a woman discovering that she is pregnant and failing to inform her partner of that fact (as actually happened to me) should not be able to sue him at a distance for child support. There is a very low bar as regards her case. She does not have to verify her income , she does not have to reveal the existence of a new partner or income. All of the onus is on the non-custodial parent. A request for paternity will be granted in a one night stand situation, but if there was any kind of ongoing cohabitation or marriage prior, good luck with getting a judge to sign off on a paternity test without first destroying you as a human being and then, should you actually be found to be the biological parent you can expect increases in support awards well beyond the established 17%, 24% and 30% guidelines.
Aren't some people in open marriages, though?
Quote:
The o.p. is taking a lot of push-back for their POV, and rightly so. But my experience as a non-custodial parent gives me a great deal of perspective that none of the rest of you have. The majority of you are women, and I get that. What is not to like about a status quo that allows you to go into sexual encounters secure that in the event of a pregnancy you are backed up by government sponsored garnishment of the baby daddy's wages.
Maybe if women did not have this assurance they might avoid sexual encounters if they do not have (adequate) birth control on hand. What really is so wrong about a paradigm that does not simply make a man financially responsible for offspring that he may have fathered, if he has given prior notice that he does not wish to be a father? There have been stories in the news of lesbian couples that enlist the aid of a male friend to conceive a child. The women later separate, and all of a sudden, despite prior assurances, the sperm donor is dragged into court and assessed for current, and back (with interest), child support.
I think after six pages of predictable bashing of the o.p.'s premise that some discussion be given to the responsibility imbalance between a man and a woman with respect to an unexpected pregnancy.
Frankly, let me say this--the sperm donor examples are certainly extremely repulsive examples of what is an unpleasant situation in general.
IMO, this thread hasn't been any kind of "great debate" since about page 2, but simply the OP's attempt to get some attention by positing extreme solutions to imaginary situations, some of which have absolutely no relevance to the original topic, ie equating donating a kidney to having sex.
My suggestion is that the mods close this thread.
Also, to clarify--I am specifically equating extending a person's existence to causing a person to come into a existence in the first place; indeed, sex and kidney donations are simply the means to achieve these outcomes.
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.
