Current Events > If men have no legal say in if women keeps baby, should they HAVE to pay C.S.?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Frolex posted...

imagine how much more it hurts to raise a child with a deadbeat dad

Yeah I know, that's why if I was a women I'd go full Lena Dunham and proudly abort dat shit

---

haloiscoolisbak posted...

Yeah I know, that's why if I was a women I'd go full Lena Dunham and proudly abort dat shit

not even Lena Dunham believes in the dichotomy of "deadbeat dad" or "forced abortion"

---

See that's 2 things. I just want power over 1(the right to be a deadbeat dad ideally)

1 + 1 = 2 = equality

---

If men do not wear a condom, they cannot complain about the outcome.

---

Im like.... 90% sure the issue with child support is that its seemingly proportional to the guys income. Not that theyre forced to pay.

That seems like leeching. There should be a fixed amount decided based on the womans income and state, and thats that. But women shouldnt be getting enormous amounts of money because they had a baby from a rich or wealthy guy. Likewise, a guy of poor economic status shouldnt be fucked for 18 years whenever he gets a boost in income.

Like. If a woman doesnt need financial help, why would the guy still have to pay? Its child support. Not parent support :/

---

haloiscoolisbak posted...

See that's 2 things. I just want power over 1(the right to be a deadbeat dad ideally)

The right to let the mother and child languish after you you fail to force the mother into abortion is indeed just one thing

---

Frolex posted...

The right to let the mother and child languish after you you fail to force the mother into abortion is indeed just one thing

Meh, I barely have enough money to afford my own food and rent so whatever. Dog eat dog world I guess

---

haloiscoolisbak posted...

Meh, I barely have enough money to afford my own food and rent so whatever. Dog eat dog world I guess

I have no idea what child support costs over 18 years, since I have never been silly enough to put myself in that position.

However, a pack of 30 Durex Feather Lites costs $16 AUD. At around 50c per occasion, that seems like quite excellent bang for ones buck.

---

For the uninitiated, child support is about the child.

---

haloiscoolisbak posted...

Meh, I barely have enough money to afford my own food and rent so whatever. Dog eat dog world I guess

dog eat dog world is at least a semi-honest justification for your desire to punish women and children so that you can shield men from responsibility. a more honest justification is that you personally are only concerned for yourself, but we're making progress

cuttin_in_farm posted...

Im like.... 90% sure the issue with child support is that its seemingly proportional to the guys income. Not that theyre forced to pay.

That seems like leeching. There should be a fixed amount decided based on the womans income and state, and thats that. But women shouldnt be getting enormous amounts of money because they had a baby from a rich or wealthy guy. Likewise, a guy of poor economic status shouldnt be fucked for 18 years whenever he gets a boost in income.

Like. If a woman doesnt need financial help, why would the guy still have to pay? Its child support. Not parent support :/

Strange to advocate for what is essentially a flat tax on child-rearing and somehow try to spin it as pro poor, when it necessarily "leeches" more from them than it does from the rich. Almost as strange as trying to paint "supporting the financial needs of the your child" as "leeching" really.

---

The_Creep_2020 posted...

I have no idea what child support costs over 18 years, since I have never been silly enough to put myself in that position.

However, a pack of 30 Durex Feather Lites costs $16 AUD. At around 50c per occasion, that seems like quite excellent bang for ones buck.

I used a condom as I always do - a couple of weeks later she had spotting - she convinced herself it was due to implantation bleeding and got me convinced it was as well because fuck what do I know it's her body. So I started questioning if the condom slipped off or broke one of the times we had sex

The spotting/bleeding ended up being something unrelated - but in the short time where we didn't know that it lead to some pretty frank discussion and by the end I felt like the current system in place is kind of bullshit. But whatever. I wasn't going to force an abortion nor scamper out of payment - I would have just felt fucking miserable about it.

My situation was just a bit of odd coincidence/luck (originally i thought extremely bad luck, then it ended up kinda just being nothing) but it made me analyse this stuff to a degree I hadn't before.

I think i'll genuinely consider the snip in the future

---

Frolex posted...

Strange to advocate for what is essentially a flat tax on child-rearing and somehow try to spin it as pro poor, when it necessarily "leeches" more from them than it does from the rich. Almost as strange as trying to paint "supporting the financial needs of the your child" as "leeching" really.

Geez, yall are hostile.

All Im suggesting is that more factors should be considered than what the guy makes. Because as it stands, child support has a negative stigma as women taking advantage of men. Which is unfortunately true sometimes. Its more about the parents than the kid.

And I dunno if you read my post, but the leeching is when the money taken for the child support changes over time because of the guys income. If its determined what the guy is contributing is enough for the five year old, why does it go up when the guy gets a pay increase?

I dont have the exact number, but celebrities pay annual salaries to women for child support. That seems ridiculously unnecessary.

If the woman is well off, and can financially support herself (while having disposable income still), she shouldnt get anything.

I never claimed anything is pro-poor. Poor people already get screwed in general. Thats the whole downside of being poor. But having them always have the same percentage of their income siphoned definitely doesnt help.

---

cuttin_in_farm posted...

Geez, yall are hostile.

All Im suggesting is that more factors should be considered than what the guy makes. Because as it stands, child support has a negative stigma as women taking advantage of men. Which is unfortunately true sometimes. Its more about the parents than the kid.

And I dunno if you read my post, but the leeching is when the money taken for the child support changes over time because of the guys income. If its determined what the guy is contributing is enough for the five year old, why does it go up when the guy gets a pay increase?

I dont have the exact number, but celebrities pay annual salaries to women for child support. That seems ridiculously unnecessary.

If the woman is well off, and can financially support herself (while having disposable income still), she shouldnt get anything.

I never claimed anything is pro-poor. Poor people already get screwed in general. Thats the whole downside of being poor. But having them always have the same percentage of their income siphoned definitely doesnt help.

Child support payments are based on what a court decides are in the best interests of the child, and the ability of the parent paying child support to pay. It is not and should not be based on accommodating wealthy men who think it's unfair they have to pay money to support their child if the mother isn't destitute.

---

Frolex posted...

Child support payments are based on what a court decides are in the best interests of the child, and the ability of the parent paying child support to pay. It is not and should not be based on accommodating wealthy men who think it's unfair they have to pay money to support their child if the mother isn't destitute.

Okay, dude. Stop that. Read my posts again.

cuttin_in_farm posted...

Likewise, a guy of poor economic status shouldnt be fucked for 18 years whenever he gets a boost in income.

cuttin_in_farm posted...

If its determined what the guy is contributing is enough for the five year old, why does it go up when the guy gets a pay increase?

cuttin_in_farm posted...

I never claimed anything is pro-poor. Poor people already get screwed in general. Thats the whole downside of being poor. But having them always have the same percentage of their income siphoned definitely doesnt help.

Respond to any of these please. You keep bringing up one point in my posts and attacking it when I dont really give a shit about rich dudes. Their well being isnt the point.

---

Cleo_II posted...

See this is where you and I disagree. I dont believe taxpayers should be stepping up to pay for every unwanted kid any more than we already do. The father should also have responsibility. And yeah the idea that we would have to sign contracts every time we have sex is just not something anyone wants to do. Too many possible appeals as well. People can sign whatever when theyre in the heat of the moment, drunk, etc

Except you are already essentially expecting people to sign a contract every time they have sex, a contract to potentially raise a child for 18 years.

---

cuttin_in_farm posted...

Respond to any of these please. You keep bringing up one point in my posts and attacking it when I dont really give a shit about rich dudes. Their well being isnt the point.

My post addresses all of these. if you need me to make it even simpler let me break it down for and spell it out in as easy to understand terms as I can.

1:Child support payments are based on the child's needs and how able you are to meet those needs. If you have a greater financial ability, guess what? You'll be expected to make a greater contribution to the child's well-being.

2:Child support payments are not meant to be insignificant financial burden for the parent. Supporting a child is a serious personal and financial responsibility. Child support decisions are not made with the priority to protect the parent from experiencing any economic impact on their personal finances. The priority is to provide the maximum benefit to the child possible that the parent is reasonably able to provide.

If you think a poor parent is having their income "siphoned" unfairly and that transaction is a major hardship to them, imagine how much more hardship the "leeches" you call children face on their end of the transaction. Yes, being poor in america is a horrorshow. But even in countries with better social programs and lower levels of poverty, parents are STILL expected to take financial responsibility for their kids.

Now, lemme know if you need me to spell it out even further for you

---

Foppe posted...

Dont spread your seed if you are not ready to take care of the result.

Another neo puritan exposed.

---

Frolex posted...

1:Child support payments are based on the child's needs and how able you are to meet those needs. If you have a greater financial ability, guess what? You'll be expected to make a greater contribution to the child's well-being.

But theres no cap on this? You say childs needs. Obviously that varies on several factors, but the mere fact theres no cap already brings up an issue. Like, you can make too much money for government aid. Or your parents can make too much money for financial aid for school. So a precedent for you make enough. No more help is already there for other things. Why not child support?

Frolex posted...

2:Child support payments are not meant to be insignificant financial burden for the parent. Supporting a child is a serious personal and financial responsibility. Child support decisions are not made with the priority to protect the parent from experiencing any economic impact on their personal finances. The priority is to provide the maximum benefit to the child possible that the parent is reasonably able to provide.

I would like to change the last sentence if true. Nevermind what someone being able to provide is ultimately subjective. I thought the whole reason child support is even a thing is so that single parents dont get screwed in the ability to support their child (please correct me if Im incorrect). If they can support their child just fine after a certain amount of aid, why can they continue to receive more child support?

Frolex posted...

If you think a poor parent is having their income "siphoned" unfairly and that transaction is a major hardship to them, imagine how much more hardship the "leeches" you call children face on their end of the transaction.

This isnt a two conclusion issue. Youre ignoring the wide array of situations where the guy is struggling because of child support, while the child would be fine with even a minor decrease to his contribution. This strawman is disingenuous or had little thought in its creation.

Please stop being condescending.

---

No wonder why that one poster kept saying some of you sounded like right wingers on this issue.
Ah well.

---

cuttin_in_farm posted...

But theres no cap on this? You say childs needs. Obviously that varies on several factors, but the mere fact theres no cap already brings up an issue. Like, you can make too much money for government aid. Or your parents can make too much money for financial aid for school. So a precedent for you make enough. No more help is already there for other things. Why not child support?

Financial aid is a means tested form of state provided welfare. Child support is a legal mandate outlining an individual's minimum level of responsibility for their own children. Being a rich parent doesn't absolve you of that responsibility

cuttin_in_farm posted...

I would like to change the last sentence if true. Nevermind what someone being able to provide is ultimately subjective. I thought the whole reason child support is even a thing is so that single parents dont get screwed in the ability to support their child (please correct me if Im incorrect). If they can support their child just fine after a certain amount of aid, why can they continue to receive more child support?

It is subjective. Which is why each case is decided in court individually, rather than your "lul jus charge a flat fee" idea. And no, as much as you think "support" should mean "just fine", the best interests of the child, the state, and society in general means maximizing the child's well-being relative to their parents ability to pay. It doesn't lie in letting kids scrape by with the bare minimum so that daddy can spend his money watches in clothes instead of paying for his kid since he's making more money than he was 10 years ago
cuttin_in_farm posted...

This isnt a two conclusion issue. Youre ignoring the wide array of situations where the guy is struggling because of child support, while the child would be fine with even a minor decrease to his contribution. This strawman is disingenuous or had little thought in its creation.

No. It's a one conclusion issue. It's about the best interests of the child. Period. Not about minimizing the financial responsibility of the parent so that they can keep feeding their kid a diet of bread and water so they aren't forced to provide their kid the better outcomes their higher level of income affords them.

cuttin_in_farm posted...

Please stop being condescending.

then engage with the arguments instead of accusing me of not responding to you

---

Darmik posted...

Apparently if the decision from their perspective is 'Abort. You'll never see me again either way' they don't seem to.

Is that the stance of every man though? I personally don't remember ever giving my wife that ultimatum.

Unfortunately life isn't always ideal. Or fair.

There is no fair and ideal scenario for unwanted pregnancies.

You're right, life isn't always fair which is why as a society we should do everything in our power to make it as fair as possible by giving everyone as close to the same rights as possible. Women have the right to decide if they want a baby, men can be given that same right by choice of sticking around and paying child support.

No. But I don't think abusive fathers are a defense to avoid child support.

Who said they were?

---

IfGodCouldDie posted...

You're right, life isn't always fair which is why as a society we should do everything in our power to make it as fair as possible by giving everyone as close to the same rights as possible.

Child support is the fairest option available. This has already been explained to you repeatedly.

Frolex posted...

No. It's a one conclusion issue. It's about the best interests of the child. Period. Not about minimizing the financial responsibility of the parent so that they can keep feeding their kid a diet of bread and water so they aren't forced to provide their kid the better outcomes their higher level of income affords them.

Lol were done here.

---

if you stuck it in you need to stick it out.

---

cuttin_in_farm posted...

Lol were done here.

Done before you started, actually. I'll admit tho, I did get a kick watching you go from your "iT's CaLlEd ChIlD sUpPoRt NoT pArEnT sUpPoRt" zinger to unironically claiming we should minimize the support a child receives so their parent only shoulders the minimum financial burden feasibly possible

---

Legit question, why such the asshole like way of responding? My original post presented my stance hesitantly, as theres a lot I dont know.

Why do you feel the need to be a sarcastic jackass about simple online discourse? What do you get out of it? Do you think people who have a different opinion as you are the enemy or something?

Because youre still misrepresenting what Im saying. As if youre envisioning the stereotypical my wallet, my choice person.

Youre still seeing a black and white issue. As if women cannot be financially stable enough to support their own children without the help of a mans money or something. Since apparently even only minor aid would only provide bread and water.

Or are you just trolling? Because its working if you are.

---

Cleo_II posted...

Yes, lets just have the courts sit around and review hundreds or thousands of texts over a 9 month period (or more), and spend countless hours going over testimonies. Lets just have big trials for every CS case. Im sure our already shitty court system can handle that. People wont mind if their cases get pushed back a couple of more years, right?

If it means not having to pay child support for the next 18-21 years.....yes. Why are you writing this off like it's not a big deal worth the courts or anyone's time?

---

Again, if you were actually capable of reading in this topic, i don't believe only men or only women bear financial burden for a child. They both do. You're the one who lead this argument off about women leeching vasts sums of money off men. Mothers and fathers both are obligated at providing for a child's best interests, and both should be held equally accountable to whatever child support judgements are handed down in court. It's not about some bullshit gotcha you're trying to pull about women being too weak support a child on their own, it's about the fact that a child receiving as much support as is feasible from both parents is the best outcome for both the child and society writ large . if you'd rather prioritize the sanctity of "a man's money", that's fine, but at least own up to that instead of trying to claim you're arguing for economic justice for fathers

---

Kolibri X posted...

I support child support payments. There needs to be something to keep deadbeat men in check when they're stupid enough to bust raw in a woman and think they can just walk out on the child. Don't want kids or pay child support? Snip it or wrap it up, losers.

This.

At the same time, deadbeat moms are most definitely a thing. Both parties need to be accountable. If you don't want to support someone don't bring them into the world. Use some damn self control and don't be so selfish.

---

cuttin_in_farm posted...

Why do you feel the need to be a sarcastic jackass about simple online discourse? What do you get out of it? Do you think people who have a different opinion as you are the enemy or something?

They just don't know how to talk to people, and have a civil conversation.

---

Prismsblade posted...

If it means not having to pay child support for the next 18-21 years.....yes. Why are you writing this off like it's not a big deal worth the courts or anyone's time?

You... realize not every court case is about CS... right? This would burden the entire system.

And no, I dont think granting the right to skip out on financially responsibility towards their own offspring is worth everyone elses time, effort and money. Wrap it up or be ready to pay up. Ive made my opinion on this pretty clear.

Dude, youre doing this on purpose. What is your intention? To persuade? Inform? Because either way, insulting others or their arguments will make it harder for you to do it. People will naturally ignore your points to spite because it lowers your credibility.

Frolex posted...

i don't believe only men or only women bear financial burden for a child. They both do. You're the one who lead this argument off about women leeching vasts sums of money off men. Mothers and fathers both are obligated at providing for a child's best interests, and both should be held equally accountable to whatever child support judgements are handed down in court. It's not about women being too weak support a child on their own, it's about the fact that a child receiving as much support as is feasible from both parents is the best outcome for both the child and society writ large . if you'd rather prioritize the sanctity of "a man's money", that's fine, but at least own up to that instead of trying to claim you're arguing for economic justice for fathers

If you had posted this, for example, it comes off as way more civil without the internet tough guy look. If your intentions are even the slightest bit just to annoy, then disregard. But just a word of advice for the future.

Moving on...

Frolex posted...

Mothers and fathers both are obligated at providing for a child's best interests,

This is subjective on whats a childs best interest. I think we both agree that bread and water means they need more. But to ise your analogy previously, what happens if the mother isnt even using the child support money for the child? Instead she is using to spend her money on watches and clothes instead? Now instead of child support, its parent support. The father is no longer paying for the child, but the mother. Do you not think this is an issue? Or do you think this doesnt happen?

What constitutes enough? Is the mothers happiness a factor? If she cant afford her child a new phone, but can get a two year old one, does that mean thats not maximizing a childs well-being?

What about a wealthy mother? What is taking money from a man who has less income improving?

Frolex posted...

if you'd rather prioritize the sanctity of "a man's money", that's fine, but at least own up to that instead of trying to claim you're arguing for economic justice for fathers

I dunno what the difference even is here. Youre arguing for men (or whoever) being forced to always contribute to the well being of the child they may not have wanted even if it doesnt make economic sense to do so, yes? Because if a guy is contributing his income, and the woman can provide things of quality to the child without issue, why should a guy have to contribute more if he gets a pay increase? Were arent talking about bread and water diets.

I agree fathers shouldnt be able to opt out of paying. Thats silly. You should be held responsible. But theres a point where the only use of child support past a certain threshold is to just harm the father.

---

cuttin_in_farm posted...

Because either way, insulting others or their arguments will make it harder for you to do it. People will naturally ignore your points to spite because it lowers your credibility.

If someone's willing to argue poorly out of spite because they don't like my tone, then I'm not too concerned about how cordial I should be with them in the first place.

cuttin_in_farm posted...

This is subjective on whats a childs best interest. I think we both agree that bread and water means they need more. But to ise your analogy previously, what happens if the mother isnt even using the child support money for the child? Instead she is using to spend her money on watches and clothes instead? Now instead of child support, its parent support. The father is no longer paying for the child, but the mother. Do you not think this is an issue? Or do you think this doesnt happen?

Every jurisdiction has different rules regarding how child support payments should be earmarked or what approved expenses they can be used for and so on. I doubt any significant amount of them callout the use of the money for parents purchasing jewelry as approved. But even if i'm to take the "welfare queen" argument for granted, the fact there may be hypothetical women out there squandering child support checks wouldn't justify re-orienting our priorities on child support from providing for children to minimizing how much money men are required to pay in child support.

cuttin_in_farm posted...

What constitutes enough? Is the mothers happiness a factor? If she cant afford her child a new phone, but can get a two year old one, does that mean thats not maximizing a childs well-being?

What about a wealthy mother? What is taking money from a man who has less income improving?

All excellent questions to consider, which is why child support payment amounts are judge on a case by cases basis, rather than assigning a flat fee for all parents to pay.

cuttin_in_farm posted...

I dunno what the difference even is here. Youre arguing for men (or whoever) being forced to always contribute to the well being of the child they may not have wanted even if it doesnt make economic sense to do so, yes?

Because whether or not you're responsible for a child isn't about whether that child is financially beneficial to you. Child rearing in general is going to be a financial detriment to parents. They're people, not investments. Once you bring a child into society, you take responsibility for them, whether you like it or not.

cuttin_in_farm posted...

Because if a guy is contributing his income, and the woman can provide things of quality to the child without issue, why should a guy have to contribute more if he gets a pay increase? Were arent talking about bread and water diets.

I've already explained this to you multiple times, and i literally don't know how I can make it any more simple without explaining it to you in finger puppets. Child support is not about whether or not one parent can meet some bare minimum standard of care before the other parent is absolved of their parental responsibility. Child support is about deciding what a child's best interest is and how each parent is capable of fulfilling those needs. If you are more capable, your contribution will be expected to match that capability. Now please, when you ask me to explain this again, do me a favor and be specific about which word is giving you trouble

cuttin_in_farm posted...

But theres a point where the only use of child support past a certain threshold is to just harm the father.

Which is, once again, why we adjust payment amounts to income level so that economic "harm" fathers feel for feeding their kids isn't more than they can reasonably afford


---

TheOtherMike posted...

How exactly would men "have a say in abortion?"

It's already been said. Just let men opt out of any sort of child care if they didn't want it carried to term. She can still choose to keep it so this doesn't interfere with her choice. The man just gets a say. If the woman gets to unilaterally decide whether or not the baby happens, the man gets to unilaterally decide whether or not it gets his support. Biology is unfair.


---

tehzeldafanboy posted...

Biology is unfair.

Which is why the only choice men have is where and when to deposit their sperm. Everything after that is out of their control and he knew what could happen when he engaged in sex. Keep it in your pants if you don't want to potentially be on the hook for child support. Child support is the inviolable right of a child.

---

Well this just kills the whole "feminism is about equality" crap when men have no equal say in this.

Biology is unfair.

TheOtherMike posted...

guarantees an increase in unwanted pregnancies and single mothers,

Why do certain people insist on infantilizing women like this? Women can understand consequences, too, you know.

If men not having to worry as much about unwanted pregnancies will cause them to be more reckless, then why doesn't shifting the financial burden onto the woman make her behave more carefully? It's a very strange sort of bigotry, it's like you don't even think women have the capacity to regulate their own behavior.

---

To prevent pregnancy, aim for the chin.

---

VanananaHeyHey posted...

Which is why the only choice men have is where and when to deposit their sperm.

Ah, so men have the choice to poke a hole in the condom and cause an unwanted pregnancy, got it. Biology is unfair, indeed

---

tehzeldafanboy posted...

Ah, so men have the choice to poke a hole in the condom and cause an unwanted pregnancy, got it. Biology is unfair, indeed

Women aren't the fluid monsters that Dr. Strangelove's secondary antagonist told you they were, but if you mistrust women that much, not having sex with them shouldn't be too hard to avoid.

---

Child support is pretty harsh on the father. My Uncle got a divorce, and they have joint custody over their two daughters, he takes them for the school year, and the mother takes them on the holidays. And he still had to pay child support.....

---

VanananaHeyHey posted...

Women aren't the fluid monsters that Dr. Strangelove's secondary antagonist told you they were, but if you mistrust women that much, not having sex with them shouldn't be too hard to avoid.

Someone translate this from dweeb to english, please

Doing my best here to understand this, it seems like you think I said something about the woman? I didn't, I said the man can poke holes in the condom. If we're operating under the "his sperm, his choice" principle, that is.

---

Frolex posted...

All excellent questions to consider, which is why child support payment amounts are judge on a case by cases basis, rather than assigning a flat fee for all parents to pay.

Tbh, it seems like we agree then. I just disagree that court systems fairly decide what amount (mainly) fathers should be contributing. Mainly because of a difference of opinion on this point:

Frolex posted...

Child support is about deciding what a child's best interest is and how each parent is capable of fulfilling those needs. If you are more capable, your contribution will be expected to match that capability.

I disagree entirely with this belief. Both parents did something that created a child. However, from a financial standpoint, it is utterly lopsided on who contributes. The womans income should be a larger component for example. A woman who makes 20k a year gets a lot of aid from a dude who makes 50k a year. But in my opinion, if thats acceptable, a woman who makes 70k shouldnt get shit from a dude who makes 20k a year because as we see in the previous example, she makes an amount that is more than acceptable in another scenario. In the second scenario, were only hurting the dude who makes 20k.

Same thing if it was a woman with 30k and a man with 40k. The guy should not be contributing more than the guy in the first scenario just because he makes more. We should be determining what the child actually needs and ending it there. Not this never ending increase of contribution from mainly fathers. Because it doesnt even matter if the father still sees the kid. He STILL pays the mother child support despite spending time with the kid. Thats facilitates leeching. The child support doesnt go down if the mothers income increases does it? Serious question.

Were going to have to agree to disagree. Im curious to know if you had two working parents and if that factors into your mindset.

Frolex posted...

If someone's willing to argue poorly out of spite because they don't like my tone, then I'm not too concerned about how cordial I should be with them in the first place.

People are more likely to keep composure the less of an ass you act like. Which brings me to my initial question of what your intentions are. If its to persuade, not being cordial is stupid. Same if its to inform. Youre purposely hindering your success rate.

---

tehzeldafanboy posted...

It's already been said. Just let men opt out of any sort of child care if they didn't want it carried to term

That's not men having a say in abortion.

tehzeldafanboy posted...

Why do certain people insist on infantilizing women like this? Women can understand consequences, too, you know.

No one said women couldn't understand consequences.

tehzeldafanboy posted...

If men not having to worry as much about unwanted pregnancies will cause them to be more reckless, then why doesn't shifting the financial burden onto the woman make her behave more carefully?

Child support has literally nothing to do with who was more or less reckless, or who might be more or less reckless under what financial circumstances, so this is entirely moot.

Any coherent arguments from the anti-child support side yet?

---

cant afford a child then you better be able to afford a condom

cuttin_in_farm posted...

I disagree entirely with this belief. Both parents did something that created a child. However, from a financial standpoint, it is utterly lopsided on who contributes. The womans income should be a larger component for example. A woman who makes 20k a year gets a lot of aid from a dude who makes 50k a year. But in my opinion, if thats acceptable, a woman who makes 70k shouldnt get shit from a dude who makes 20k a year because as we see in the previous example, she makes an amount that is more than acceptable in another scenario. In the second scenario, were only hurting the dude who makes 20k.

Same thing if it was a woman with 30k and a man with 40k. The guy should not be contributing more than the guy in the first scenario just because he makes more. We should be determining what the child actually needs and ending it there. Not this never ending increase of contribution from mainly fathers.

For the 100th time, child support is about BOTH parents responsibility to provide for their child, and what their contribution is expected to be relative. In a case of extreme disparity between the income of the mother and father, it very well may be that one parent has no or minimal income contribution. but the mere fact that both parents have different levels of income contribution, even if the primary custodial parent is the one with the higher income, does not absolve the other parent of their financial responsibilities to their kid

cuttin_in_farm posted...

Because it doesnt even matter if the father still sees the kid. He STILL pays the mother child support despite spending time with the kid.

Correct, the fact that the father "still sees" their child doesn't mean they are only financially responsible for them on the days they see them. Their child support payment can be adjusted to account for the contributions they make on the days they do have custody, but that payment doesn't automatically go to zero just because of it.

cuttin_in_farm posted...

People are more likely to keep composure the less of an ass you act like.

The ability of random strangers on the internet to keep their composure is neither my responsibility nor my interest.

---

TheOtherMike posted...

That's not men having a say in abortion.

It is though. They can say "get an abortion or deal with raising the child yourself".

TheOtherMike posted...

Child support has literally nothing to do with who was more or less reckless, or who might be more or less reckless under what financial circumstances, so this is entirely moot.

Lol why'd you bring it up then by implying men will be more reckless if they don't have to pay up? Can you answer the question of why this logic doesn't apply to women?

---

tehzeldafanboy posted...

Lol why'd you bring it up then by implying men will be more reckless if they don't have to pay up? Can you answer the question of why this logic doesn't apply to women?

"He already has" yet he seems unable to rearticulate his argument and just defaults to one liners that dont actually address what you have said. He isn't interested in having a real discussion.

---