Do we make the default: Men pay child support for any child born out of wedlock unless they contract out of it beforehand
-OR-
Do we make the default: Men may elect out of supporting any child born out of wedlock if they do so within 24 hours of being informed of the pregnancy
In a society where birth control is widely available and where sex outside of marriage is almost exclusively for pleasure and not procreation, it is not obvious to me that the first default is better than the second one.
Oh, I see. Maybe you don’t know what HIPAA is. A woman could still receive pre-natal care and still keep her pregnancy a secret from her boyfriend. But you know this right?
And any elected representative who determined that the state would step in to pay child support in place of a man who didn’t want to do so, would soon find himself out of a job. So yeah, I do determine how taxes are spent. The word “elected” is the operative word.
But we would never choose to pay more than we have to. There’s a reason why we have agencies dedicated to tracking down deadbeat parents and garnishing their wages. That’s because we know that if we didn’t do that, we’d have more children on the state’s dime. And we don’t want that.
Once again you are making things up. Why am I not surprised. No one supports making anyone “responsible for child support as soon as they ejaculate in a vagina.”
You know why?
Because there is no baby as soon as they ejaculate in a vagina.
Try being honest in this discussion, it will make it so much easier.
OK - I see the problem here. You still, after 14 or so pages, have not the first idea how child support works.
You honestly think the custodial parent isn’t responsible for providing support to the child.
Well, they are. It isn’t the non-custodial father held responsible for the entire upkeep of the child. Both parents are held responsible. Because (in the situation we are discussing) the father is non-custodial, he is required to provide his support in terms of a financial contribution. That financial contribution is not expected to be the sole source of support for the child.
Actually, no because then the father’s “grace period” would begin from the time he was legally informed of the pregnancy. If he signs the paper abortion severing himself of all parental rights and responsibilities, he’s free, she’s stuck with her lack of preparation. It would be to the mother’s advantage to inform him immediately, so that she can best access the situation and make a good decision. If she doesn’t choose to do, well, there is an old saying “The lack of planning on your part, does not constiute an emergency on my part.”
Most of the well-behaved children I know were raised by people other than their parents such as nannies, day-care workers, or distant (and largely unconcerned) relatives. So yeah, I think it’s a much better idea to let strangers (especially strangers trained to care for and educate children) than a mother who cannot be bothered to find a willing partner before creating a child.
Actually the intention is to see that the child not be born into poverty. Women realizing when they cannot afford to support a child and choosing not to continue a pregnancy is the best solution and the most fair solution. As far as the mother’s financial situation, I don’t think she should be allowed to steal money from the father end of statement. If she wants to be paid for having sex, she should go where prostitution is legal or marry a person on the understood terms that they provide financial support for sexual access.
Since she ain’t creating a child on her own and since we aren’t talking about rape, she’s sure enough finding a willing partner. And he’s sure enough not a victim if I say I want him to pay for his orgasms rather than me, a taxpayer, paying for them.
Now, I’m willing to pick up the slack because I think kids should be guaranteed a minimum standard of living and unlike you I don’t try to defend killing people to get out of paying. I’m a member of a society and part of the cost of being in society is paying taxes and caring for my fellow citizens. Men are a member of society, too, and part of their cost of being in society is paying for their own sexual habits. Women aren’t the only ones who can suffer consequences from having sex. Men get to share the burden, and get off easy because it’s only money.
So, spin your fantasies about killing children and pregnant women, about loving parents causing sociopathy (though how one could distinguish sociopathy from half of your statements is frankly beyond me), and about those lying whores getting what’s coming to them all you want and it won’t change anything.
And with that, I think I’ll give up on this particular thread lest I get creeped out further.
I was raised by my extended family. I would say the biggest influence was my maternal aunt and one of my paternal cousins. I’ve dislike my mother since as early as I can remember, but most people with I.Qs above room termperature dislike her company.
Er…sorry but yes they do. The moment that sperm is there, the rest of the equation is out of the “father’s” hands. Any decisions from that point on rest solely with the mother. The “father” cannot force her to do anything from that point on, so the moment he cums, he is responsible, should a child eventuate.
I was asking because your premise was that we could never tell whether a woman knew she was pregnant in time to make the abortion decision so a woman could pretend she didn’t know she was pregnant and get around the notice rules, right? How is she going to pretend she didn’t know she was pregnant if she has been getting pre-natal care?
No, I’m not that familiar with HIPAA. Would HIPAA prevent a doctor from divulging whether a woman was a patient and the dates when the woman had appintments if he was subpoenaed for the information? Can the law be amended allow for such disclosure?
Ultimately, what is your point? That a woman can evade the rules through fraud and deceit? Pffft, the fact that people can commit fraud or break the law, is that usually a convincing argument?
The issue wasn’t whether that elected official would pass the law that would allow the man to opt out, the question was whether that elected official would support the child once the man had in fact opted out and the woman had the baby anyways without the means to support it.
What does that have to do with anything? If we passed the law saying a father could opt out, would we or wouldn’t we support the child if the mother decided to give birth anyway even though the father opted out and she could not support the child on her own?
Are you under the impression that I was trying to say that men were responsible for child support for an unfertilized egg or for semen in a woman’s uterus? You were here when the argument was made that the man’s choice was made at ejaculation, that is when his responsibility was created to support any child that might be born.
Try looking past your blind rage and stop assuming that everyone is lying or has some nefarious motives. I don’t recall calling anyone on your side of the debate a liar.
The mother can have an abortion, the father cannot. Its hard to analogize the “punishment” of deciding to have a baby with the “punishment” of being forced to pay a percentage of your income in child support.
What would you do about those situations where a woman genuinely did not realize she was pregnant until she was well into her second trimester or later? There are not a lot of doctors that will perform discretionary abortions at that stage, or at least the access if fairly limited.
Not easily. We take medical privacy very seriously over here. Again, making society go through a whole lot of changes and jump through a lot of hoops–and for whom? deadbeat dads. Ha!–is never going to work for these so-called simple solutions to a biological inequality. It’s stupid and fanciful; no one can take these ideas seriously.
My point is that woman aren’t stupid. Neither are men. Your solution to men who don’t find out about pregnancy until an abortion is too late is to have the government step in and support those kids instead. So why would any man admitting to knowing about a pregnancy then–wanted or unwanted–when they know that all they have to do is say it’s unwanted and the woman didn’t tell him, please Uncle Sam take care of it? What you will end up is a whole bunch of kids being supported by the government who otherwise wouldn’t be. From a public policy standpoint, this is dead in the water.
But to have the ability to “opt out” there has to be a legal mechanism put in place for that. That means laws will have to change. No politician who wants to continue to work would put forth legislation to allow that to happen.
Lol. You act as though the passing such a law should be treated as an afterthought. My point all along is that that an opt out law would never be passed. So everything after that is moot.