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.
I didn't say child support was punishment to the father. What I'm saying is that a lot of vindictive women use the system in order to milk the father for as much as they can. This is why you have people like P. Diddy paying 100k a month for child support. Let's be honest...is that really necessary? This is an example of what I'm talking about right here:
He should do like I stated earlier and like the singer Usher did and sue for custody of his childrenn. Then he won't have to deal with stuff like that.
Most fathers do not have the money that Sean Combs has. Most do not pay more than $50-$200 a week in support so mothers are not "milk"ing the fathers for a bunch of money.
In most states, a father cannot be made to pay more than 25% of his income toward child support as the non-custodial parent. Contrast that with the fact that the mother, custodial parent usually pays over 50% of her income toward taking care of the child. Non-custodial parents come out way on top versus custodial on a regular, everyday life scale.
FWIW, I have a brother who recently got full custody of his teenage son. He said paying child support was cheaper than having his son live with him. Teenage boys will eat everything in your house, you have to pay for their activities, they are always growing out of clothes/shoes (especially in our family) and the move required him to move to a larger place near his son's school. He is spending way more now on school fees, food, and daily necessities versus his $700 a month in child support he was paying prior to his son coming to live with him. Luckily though, he doesn't complain, he was just surprised that he was out of less money lol. I also have a teenage son and I could have told him that. Kids cost a lot of money, especially when they live with you. Teenage boys also break a lot of stuff and lose stuff and you have to repair/replace things often (at least in our family lol). Paying $700-$1000 a month for my son to live with someone else would be cheaper than all the stuff I pay for him on an annual basis.
To me that is not a difficult question at all. My stance is simple: whatever happens within the woman's body is her business and hers alone. If a man doesn't want to be a father, he should make sure there can't be any accidents.
Nature is not symmetrical, get over it guys
To me that is not a difficult question at all. My stance is simple: whatever happens within the woman's body is her business and hers alone.
Completely agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
If a man doesn't want to be a father, he should make sure there can't be any accidents.
Nature is not symmetrical, get over it guys
Which is both a sexist argument and insulting to women. Men can take responsibility for their contraception, as can women. If your belief is that men do not, then that is a sexist argument, if your belief is that women do not, then that is also a sexist argument. It is not the sole responsibility of men to ensure there are no accidents, do you believe that women are incapable of ensuring the same?
Nature has little to do with correcting accidents of unwanted conception, that being the case an appeal to nature for the inequality is fallacious. If we restricted unwanted conception choices to the natural, then women would have the same choice as men currently do. You can't claim nature for inequality, when the cause of the inequality is unnatural. Women only have unwanted conception options because of unnatural procedures or treatments, thus if we accept that the choices post conception are unnatural for women, why should choices not be extended to men post conception too?
By unsymmetrical I mean that men and women are not the same. Thus fetuses grow up in women alone, not in men as well. Women go through all the trouble and pain of being pregnant and giving birth, so I think it is only fair that they are also the ones who decide on the fate of a fetus.
And the lack of symmetry goes on after birth as well. In my view the mother is much more important that the father.
Regarding contraception, it is unnatural to begin with. I don't know of any animals that use contraception.
What I said was in response to a statement earlier that maybe the woman wants the child and the father wants an abortion. So, my view is simply that if a man for whatever reason does not want to become a father at a given time, he should not sleep with women, which is my idea of ruling out accidents.
By unsymmetrical I mean that men and women are not the same. Thus fetuses grow up in women alone, not in men as well. Women go through all the trouble and pain of being pregnant and giving birth, so I think it is only fair that they are also the ones who decide on abortion.
Which is why I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
And the lack of symmetry goes on after birth as well. In my view the mother is much more important that the father.
Which does not strengthen your argument as to why the father should be financially beholden, not only to a decision he has no part in taking, but also because he has less importance in the raising of any birth, whether or not he desired to be involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Regarding contraception, it is unnatural to begin with. I don't know of any animals that use contraception.
What I said was in response to a statement earlier that maybe the woman wants the child and the father wants an abortion. So, my view is simply that if a man for whatever reason does not want to become a father at a given time, they should not sleep with women, which is my idea of ruling out accidents.
Well by that token if women do not want to become mothers they should not sleep with men. We've solved the abortion debate in one easy logical leap. The sole reason, if people lived by those standards, for abortion is on medical grounds, which are not at all controversial. However reality is that it doesn't happen, and the choice of outcomes are unfairly biased to one side. I'm not proposing that men have the right to injunct a termination, all I'm suggesting is that they can cede rights and responsibilities legally for unwanted pregnancy.
Indeed, the same goes for women, of course. If they don't want to become mothers and make absolutely sure it doesn't happen, they should simply not sleep with men.
What do you mean by ceding rights?
In view of the lack of symmetry I am OK with the mother having more rights and the father having more duties.
That whole modern dilemma results from the way we have separated sex from reproduction. And of course from the invention of paternity testing
Child access in cases where the mother chooses to come to term, under the terms of a legal agreement, ceding any financial responsibility (a male abortion of you will).
You couldn't allow someone to sign a unilateral agreement to not have any responsibility, but demand that you still have rights to anything connected to that responsibility.
if men where real men, be less abortions... many women abort because the DUDE-- will not be there for them
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.
