Just because you repeatedly say a woman is taking a man’s rights away doesn’t make it true. It just makes you sound repetitive.
And SHE isn’t been compensated. Can this sink in, PLEASE. The right to child support is the right of the child. The child has a right to support from BOTH parents.
No, you didn’t understand the answer, because you are willfully blind on this. The state isn’t ensuring the basics, it is ensuring that the child doesn’t suffer unnecessarily. And a major drop in standard of living is suffering unnecessarily. The state doesn’t view this as necessary for married/cohabiting couples, because usually it isn’t. It views it as necessary for divorced couples, because, as this thread repeatedly proves, there are many who would use the excuse of being a non-custodial parent to harm their child in an attempt to punish their ex.
At the point the decision is reached, there is no legal entity known as a child. Let that sink in, PLEASE.
What decision? As soon as there is a child, both parents have a responsibility to support it. Both parents have the right to determine whether they are going to participate in making a child. Because the contributions are different, the time at which this decision is made is different.
Umm, the decision to either have the child or get an abortion.
I will grant you that we are both willfully blind to our sides though.
So bloody what? What possible relevance does that have?
Do you have a choice whether to participate in getting someone pregnant? Yes or no?
Once a child results, do you have a responsibility to support that child? Yes or no?
We’ve decided that the right of the child to expect support outweighs the makes right to get his rocks off. Both parents know they are risking pregnancy.
China has a one child law. I mentioned I was in favor of welfare limits, where you max out what you can receive at two children.
I really don’t understand people who can’t afford it having 5 or 6 kids in this modern society. I’d seriously consider more serious and invasive laws if studies showed serious abuse of the system on a large scale. I’ve known welfare mothers who had 5 or 6 children by several different men but I question how big a problem that is and exactly how to deal with it. There’s also males who have fathered more children than they can afford to raise. Do we make sterilization legal and mandatory for the habitually irresponsible?
** I guess that’s what we are arguing now, no?**
How other than if you are raped, is your answer to:
?
I realize that but that’s how you oversimplify and it destroys your point.
The laws are based on biological realities as they exist and men know what those are. Even without the law the moral obligation to support your offspring exists. You get to lobby for abortion or adoption if you, but you knew the deal going in. The woman carries the child in her body and so gets that choice.
People who have a few beers and drive don’t intend to get in an accident but if they do they have to face the consequences. Should, I didn’t mean to, be a good enough reason to avoid those consequences?
The choice to get someone pregnant does not necessarily follow from the choice to engage in intercourse.
Did I say choose to get someone pregnant or did I say choose to participate in getting someone pregnant?
The act was voluntary. You knew the possible consequences. And now you are crying that you shouldn’t have to live up to them. That’s a grown up world you live in.
Exactly.
“I, Mary Jones, on this day, Dec 16 2010, while 4 weeks pregnant, acknowledge that if I don’t get an abortion, in 8 months time a legal entity will be formed, my child, which will need support. I also acknowledge that the father of the fetus, Joe Smith, does not want a new child and has declared that he does not want to support one if born. I have the right to an abortion and I have the right to carry the fetus to term. I am willingly choosing carrying the fetus to term, and therefore, accept full legal responsibility for paying for 100% of the cost of supporting the resulting child”
Before the child exists as a legal entity, the mother can make an informed decision and sign a legal document, if she wants to keep the baby and the father doesn’t.
The practical problem with the above scenario is what can the state do with women who want to carry the baby to term but refuse to sign the above document at X weeks of pregnancy? I think almost everyone would be against forcing the woman to get an abortion unless she signs, but maybe the law can be such that if you carry the baby to term under those circumstances, you are implicitly legally bound to it.
Overall, as has been stated, the current setup is not fair, but it is the best we have come up with, taking into account the overall well-being of all involved.
She is not taking the man’s rights away n any form. She is exercising the rights given to her by biology. remember, biology prohibits that it can ever be fair or equal.
And let’s be clear, SHE is not being compensated for having a child. THE CHILD is being cared for by both parents.
What you’re saying is the child should not expect to be cared for by the father either financially or emotionally, if he decides he doesn’t want to. What you’re saying is that males get to have sex, knowing that it risks pregnancy and have a way to completely avoid any responsibility simply by saying “I didn’t mean to”
I doubt that kind of arrangement promotes equity
Please don’t attack me , it makes you seem little. We can disagree and still be grown-ups, together
Participating in getting someone pregnant is getting someone pregnant. You made no distinction. If we are back to talking about choices, we should just rewind the thread a few pages and start reading what we typed days ago.
At this point, I shall just agree to disagree with you.
read the thread above yours for the explanation.
biology does not confer rights to people.
We, as people, decide what rights people have.
It just happens than in our setup, a woman has the right to choose an abortion or not, but that is our decision as a people, it is not a universal right granted by “biology”.
Well what we have right now is that if you have sex with someone and a born baby results, you are implicitly legally bound to support it.
I’ve said in previous threads on this subject that I’d be okay with men not having to support the babies they help make if they get signed statements from every woman they ever have sex with that say, “I acknowledge that John Doe wants to fuck me but doesn’t want any risk or responsibility whatsoever if I get pregnant and that he’s saying it’s all my fault and my problem and I am still willing to have sex with him.”
I think there would be fewer unwanted pregnancies.
Except only one of us is being a grown up. You are arguing for the right to be a child - to walk away when things don’t go as you plan. And you, given your personal comments to me, are the last person to play the hurt and offended “be nice to me” card with any degree of credibility.
And while participating in getting someone pregnant is getting someone pregnant, choosing to participate in the activity differs from choosing to get someone pregnant. The voluntary choice is to participate in sex, knowing pregnancy may result. The pregnancy is the consequence, intended or not, of that voluntary action.
There is your choice. Once you make that choice, you take the consequences. Stamping your foot and saying “But she had longer to decide than I did” isn’t a particularly mature response.
But she is being compensated in the case of the impoverished mother that you mentioned above. She is using the child’s support for her own benefit. She’s skirting a lack of alimony and replacing it with child support. How is the child’s right to support from BOTH parents achieved in this case?