Sorry, but life isn't fair. If a woman wants the baby that bad, more power to her, but a guy who dosen't want it when she does shouldn't get sucked into a terrible situation because he can't abort. Bringing up "oh but she's pregnant" isn't some magical trump card.
You do realize that we (or I, at least) have been saying over and over again:
If you don't want a pregnancy, don't have sex.
That's a stupid argument. It doesn't apply to women or men. If you want to attack silicon's argument, attack it on the grounds that 'terrible situation' is a total furphy, especially compared with the burden on the mother. Oh, and lets note yet again for the slow members of the class that women pay child support too, and the incidence of that is increasing as gender equity progresses. Looks a lot less unfair when both parents regardless of gender are required to input some effort.
Wiminz should be forced to carry children full term unless it is rape. When they have secks they are agreeing that they will carry children full term.
I means, its unfair, but life is too! So it is perfect logicalness!
That is not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that we don't, nor should we, have control over all aspects of our lives. For men, one of the areas that we have no control over is the decision of our pregnant sex partner to keep or abort a baby.
And what's more? We all know this in advance.
Exactly! And cuz we know it in advance itz fair, mirite?
Like yeah, the wimmin can't choose weather after having the kidz if they want to pay $$$, and they don't get the decision of if they get 2 c the kidz just like menz!
____
Wait, women can give children up for adoption? They get to choose whether men can see the baby? Oh no, it seems like a double standard!
Men shouldn't have the right to walk away, because my argument is that creates more broken children, and thus more broken people, then if child support isn't mandatory.
Sorry, but life isn't fair. If a woman wants the baby that bad, more power to her, but a guy who dosen't want it when she does shouldn't get sucked into a terrible situation because he can't abort. Bringing up "oh but she's pregnant" isn't some magical trump card.
You do realize that we (or I, at least) have been saying over and over again:
If you don't want a pregnancy, don't have sex.
That's a stupid argument. It doesn't apply to women or men. If you want to attack silicon's argument, attack it on the grounds that 'terrible situation' is a total furphy, especially compared with the burden on the mother. Oh, and lets note yet again for the slow members of the class that women pay child support too, and the incidence of that is increasing as gender equity progresses. Looks a lot less unfair when both parents regardless of gender are required to input some effort.
I don't think we're arguing child support period, we're arguing child support when the woman wants the child and the man dosen't. Do you have stats based on how many women pay child support after having the child and then deciding they don't want it and giving it to the man? Cause I'm curious to see them.
So, did anyone in the last thirteen pages figure out that the only reason a minimum of two people's input are needed to raise a child in some kind of comfort is because our socioeconomic system thinks profit and productivity shouldn't be sacrificed to raise the next generation, or are we stuck on the same old "BUT I NEED THAT MONEY FOR A PS3" arguments made in total ignorance of how CS payment systems actually work?
How do Child Support payments actually work?
They're not designed to turn you into a fucking pauper, for one thing. The median payment in Aus is $5 a month, that's paid in 40% of cases. Median rates are more realistic in the US, but I've seen the stats and the percentage of income taken is not high. Its not a crippling burden. Also, its tailored to your income, and most states are flexible enough to do things like hold your payments while you're out of work or too sick to work, stuff like that. Its not a death sentence, and frankly anyone who whines about it, of either gender, is too immature to be fucking.
Sorry, but life isn't fair. If a woman wants the baby that bad, more power to her, but a guy who dosen't want it when she does shouldn't get sucked into a terrible situation because he can't abort. Bringing up "oh but she's pregnant" isn't some magical trump card.
You do realize that we (or I, at least) have been saying over and over again:
If you don't want a pregnancy, don't have sex.
That's a stupid argument. It doesn't apply to women or men. If you want to attack silicon's argument, attack it on the grounds that 'terrible situation' is a total furphy, especially compared with the burden on the mother. Oh, and lets note yet again for the slow members of the class that women pay child support too, and the incidence of that is increasing as gender equity progresses. Looks a lot less unfair when both parents regardless of gender are required to input some effort.
I normally agree with you 100%, but I don't here. Silicon is saying that men have no choice in whether or not pregnancy occurs; that's obviously not true, but the only guarantee of it is not having sex.
There is a double standard, but, as a taxpayer and a man who isn't a fucktard, its to my benefit that there is one, so I'm quite fine with it.
So, you never once had sex before you were financially capable of supporting a child? Just curious. That goes for everybody else, too.
While I'd still have sex whether I was financially capable or not, however I think if you're not using protection and the girl isn't also using protection, then you're an idiot. If you still use protection and she still gets pregnant, you tried your best to avoid it, but you still need to carry the responsibility of the life you created. Whether that's by paying for an abortion, waiting 9 months and then putting the infant up for adoption, or raising the kid: it is the responsibility of both parents to do one of the above.
Yeah, see and I don't agree. Since it's entirely the woman's choice once she's pregnant, it should be entirely her responsibility. With help from the government, because I honestly believe we're better off spreading this particular burden around. Especially when you run into dads that won't and/or can't pay much/enough...and because the programs we have are inadequate the kid ends up fucked anyway.
Child of a deadbeat dad here, in case you didn't know.
Mostly though I was responding to his characterization of men who find themselves involved in an unwanted pregnancy as "fucktards," implying that they're somehow stupid for finding themselves in that predicament. When, you know, a majority of us have rolled those dice.
* - "Dice" of course referring to sex in general, not unprotected sex. Because I know of at least two people who took all reasonable precautions and are dads right now.
I still don't see how my argument doesn't work, can someone explain to me how men walking away doesn't lead to more messed up kids, or how more messed up kids is a good idea?
Wiminz should be forced to carry children full term unless it is rape. When they have secks they are agreeing that they will carry children full term.
I means, its unfair, but life is too! So it is perfect logicalness!
That is not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that we don't, nor should we, have control over all aspects of our lives. For men, one of the areas that we have no control over is the decision of our pregnant sex partner to keep or abort a baby.
And what's more? We all know this in advance.
Exactly! And cuz we know it in advance itz fair, mirite?
Like yeah, the wimmin can't choose weather after having the kidz if they want to pay $$$, and they don't get the decision of if they get 2 c the kidz just like menz!
____
Wait, women can give children up for adoption? They get to choose whether men can see the baby? Oh no, it seems like a double standard!
They don't get to choose whether the father can see the child. A court does.
Sorry, but life isn't fair. If a woman wants the baby that bad, more power to her, but a guy who dosen't want it when she does shouldn't get sucked into a terrible situation because he can't abort. Bringing up "oh but she's pregnant" isn't some magical trump card.
You do realize that we (or I, at least) have been saying over and over again:
If you don't want a pregnancy, don't have sex.
That's a stupid argument. It doesn't apply to women or men. If you want to attack silicon's argument, attack it on the grounds that 'terrible situation' is a total furphy, especially compared with the burden on the mother. Oh, and lets note yet again for the slow members of the class that women pay child support too, and the incidence of that is increasing as gender equity progresses. Looks a lot less unfair when both parents regardless of gender are required to input some effort.
I don't think we're arguing child support period, we're arguing child support when the woman wants the child and the man dosen't. Do you have stats based on how many women pay child support after having the child and then deciding they don't want it and giving it to the man? Cause I'm curious to see them.
Docken quoted 9% at current in the UK back in the other thread - but the cases you describe will be lumped into that category with post-divorce cases as well. Its still a small percentage, but only twenty-odd years ago fathers were banned from having custody in places like Ireland, so its a major shift really. There was a movie about the fight for paternal custody in ireland a while back, Pierce Brosnan starred. As single fatherhood becomes normalised, along with the idea of fathers in committed relationships playing a primary carer role, I'd expect that percentage to rise.
I still don't see how my argument doesn't work, can someone explain to me how men walking away doesn't lead to more messed up kids, or how more messed up kids is a good idea?
Walking away might allow the mother to make the decision to terminate the pregnancy (with the biological father's funding), or put the baby up for adoption. Thus making NO kids to mess up.
How is NO kids worse than messed up kids (who will arguably be such despite payments)?
Men shouldn't have the right to walk away, because my argument is that creates more broken children, and thus more broken people, then if child support isn't mandatory.
Your argument would hold a lot more water if you knew what it was like when you're living on an economic bubble, and your girlfriend decides one day she wants to have a baby and dosen't care about your input.
Also, its tailored to your income, and most states are flexible enough to do things like hold your payments while you're out of work or too sick to work, stuff like that. Its not a death sentence, and frankly anyone who whines about it, of either gender, is too immature to be fucking.
I believe we're talking about the US here, and I personally know more than one person who has been crippled by child support. If anything, the fact that judges can crush people with child support payments probably leads to more social ills than waivering rights, as men turn to crime and under the counter jobs to supplant the fact that they're losing half of what they make, and then their transmission falls out.
Yeah, "don't have sex" isn't quite an argument to that, nor is insisting that if you don't want a child that you're "too immature to be fucking".
McDermott, I realize that I'm an inarticlulate douchebag. "Fucktards" is a bad, bad word to use. Some of the people who are in the situation are fucktards, some are not. I'm sorry.
I still don't see how my argument doesn't work, can someone explain to me how men walking away doesn't lead to more messed up kids, or how more messed up kids is a good idea?
Walking away might allow the mother to make the decision to terminate the pregnancy (with the biological father's funding), or put the baby up for adoption. Thus making NO kids to mess up.
How is NO kids worse than messed up kids (who will arguably be such despite payments)?
'swhati'msayin'
less people, more sex
Randomtask on
Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it.
- Soren Kierkegaard
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
[They're not designed to turn you into a fucking pauper, for one thing. The median payment in Aus is $5 a month, that's paid in 40% of cases. Median rates are more realistic in the US, but I've seen the stats and the percentage of income taken is not high. Its not a crippling burden. Also, its tailored to your income, and most states are flexible enough to do things like hold your payments while you're out of work or too sick to work, stuff like that. Its not a death sentence, and frankly anyone who whines about it, of either gender, is too immature to be fucking.
I don't think it's like that in Canada. Google Darrin White to see what I mean. He's probably the most egregious case, but he's not unique. I should probably have a look at Canadian law....
I normally agree with you 100%, but I don't here. Silicon is saying that men have no choice in whether or not pregnancy occurs; that's obviously not true, but the only guarantee of it is not having sex.
Okay, the woman concieves.
What option does the man have short of finding a flight of stairs if he dosen't want the child?
I'll wait. And no, "don't have sex" isn't an answer here, champ.
I normally agree with you 100%, but I don't here. Silicon is saying that men have no choice in whether or not pregnancy occurs; that's obviously not true, but the only guarantee of it is not having sex.
Okay, the woman concieves.
What option does the man have short of finding a flight of stairs if he dosen't want the child?
I'll wait. And no, "don't have sex" isn't an answer here, champ.
He doesn't have one. His opportunity to choose has come and gone. Now he has to live with the consequences of his prior choices.
[They're not designed to turn you into a fucking pauper, for one thing. The median payment in Aus is $5 a month, that's paid in 40% of cases. Median rates are more realistic in the US, but I've seen the stats and the percentage of income taken is not high. Its not a crippling burden. Also, its tailored to your income, and most states are flexible enough to do things like hold your payments while you're out of work or too sick to work, stuff like that. Its not a death sentence, and frankly anyone who whines about it, of either gender, is too immature to be fucking.
I don't think it's like that in Canada. Google Darrin White to see what I mean. He's probably the most egregious case, but he's not unique. I should probably have a look at Canadian law....
The system isn't perfect, but the horror stories are statistically rare - and getting rarer in jurisdictions that get off their asses and write proper guidelines for judges. So sorry, "I NO A DUDE WHOS TOTALLY POOR" isn't an argument. Especially if he was daft enough to get into a situation where he's supporting multiple children, especially by different women. That doesn't make a guy a victim, it makes him a fucking idiot.
[They're not designed to turn you into a fucking pauper, for one thing. The median payment in Aus is $5 a month, that's paid in 40% of cases. Median rates are more realistic in the US, but I've seen the stats and the percentage of income taken is not high. Its not a crippling burden. Also, its tailored to your income, and most states are flexible enough to do things like hold your payments while you're out of work or too sick to work, stuff like that. Its not a death sentence, and frankly anyone who whines about it, of either gender, is too immature to be fucking.
I don't think it's like that in Canada. Google Darrin White to see what I mean. He's probably the most egregious case, but he's not unique. I should probably have a look at Canadian law....
And are any of these "crushing" examples the norm, or the extremes?
I suggest we file them under "not relevant because someone somewhere will always find a way to screw things up."
If someone can point to stats that child support is routinely a "crushing burden," then we should see them.
I still don't see how my argument doesn't work, can someone explain to me how men walking away doesn't lead to more messed up kids, or how more messed up kids is a good idea?
Walking away might allow the mother to make the decision to terminate the pregnancy (with the biological father's funding), or put the baby up for adoption. Thus making NO kids to mess up.
How is NO kids worse than messed up kids (who will arguably be such despite payments)?
So, you argue that most of the women who don't value the father's opinion will turn around and make him pay afterwards? And that these women will go through a magical revelation when he leaves whe she already doesn't give a rats ass about him anyway? It solves the gold digger problem, but does it solve the whole problem?
There is a double standard, but, as a taxpayer and a man who isn't a fucktard, its to my benefit that there is one, so I'm quite fine with it.
So, you never once had sex before you were financially capable of supporting a child? Just curious. That goes for everybody else, too.
While I'd still have sex whether I was financially capable or not, however I think if you're not using protection and the girl isn't also using protection, then you're an idiot. If you still use protection and she still gets pregnant, you tried your best to avoid it, but you still need to carry the responsibility of the life you created. Whether that's by paying for an abortion, waiting 9 months and then putting the infant up for adoption, or raising the kid: it is the responsibility of both parents to do one of the above.
Yeah, see and I don't agree. Since it's entirely the woman's choice once she's pregnant, it should be entirely her responsibility. With help from the government, because I honestly believe we're better off spreading this particular burden around. Especially when you run into dads that won't and/or can't pay much/enough...and because the programs we have are inadequate the kid ends up fucked anyway.
Child of a deadbeat dad here, in case you didn't know.
Mostly though I was responding to his characterization of men who find themselves involved in an unwanted pregnancy as "fucktards," implying that they're somehow stupid for finding themselves in that predicament. When, you know, a majority of us have rolled those dice.
* - "Dice" of course referring to sex in general, not unprotected sex. Because I know of at least two people who took all reasonable precautions and are dads right now.
I am also the product of a deadbeat dad.
Currently the government does not do enough to help single-mothers, and until they carry the burden the absent parent refuses to carry, the absent parent should be made to pay.
Wash on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
edited April 2007
Well, all right then. $2097 a month in child support/alimony on gross earnings of $2200 IS rare, statistical blip, and perhaps no longer relevant as there is a table of payments on the government website that says that award was stupid, but I fail to see how it makes him an idiot.
I normally agree with you 100%, but I don't here. Silicon is saying that men have no choice in whether or not pregnancy occurs; that's obviously not true, but the only guarantee of it is not having sex.
Okay, the woman concieves.
What option does the man have short of finding a flight of stairs if he dosen't want the child?
I'll wait. And no, "don't have sex" isn't an answer here, champ.
None. Absolutely none. He has no guarantee that his desire, either keep or abort, will be fulfilled.
And why?
Because the only body he has the right to control is his own.
And that these women will go through a magical revelation when he leaves whe she already doesn't give a rats ass about him anyway?
REGARDLESS of what he says, I think being unable to count on supplemental income might shift a pregnant woman's perception of the situation, and possibly change her decision, yes. I don't think that assumption unreasonable, either.
[They're not designed to turn you into a fucking pauper, for one thing. The median payment in Aus is $5 a month, that's paid in 40% of cases. Median rates are more realistic in the US, but I've seen the stats and the percentage of income taken is not high. Its not a crippling burden. Also, its tailored to your income, and most states are flexible enough to do things like hold your payments while you're out of work or too sick to work, stuff like that. Its not a death sentence, and frankly anyone who whines about it, of either gender, is too immature to be fucking.
I don't think it's like that in Canada. Google Darrin White to see what I mean. He's probably the most egregious case, but he's not unique. I should probably have a look at Canadian law....
The system isn't perfect, but the horror stories are statistically rare - and getting rarer in jurisdictions that get off their asses and write proper guidelines for judges. So sorry, "I NO A DUDE WHOS TOTALLY POOR" isn't an argument. Especially if he was daft enough to get into a situation where he's supporting multiple children, especially by different women. That doesn't make a guy a victim, it makes him a fucking idiot.
Uh, we're not talking about multiple children, or any other parameters you keep bringing up in regards to this. So I don't know how that's really relevant to the following.
The debate is about when the man dosen't want the child, and the woman does, what options does he have other than to pay child support? And its not just "the price of a PS3", as you seem to think, which if you can't afford a PS3 every fucking month to begin with might just drive you down further into the hole. And that's not a story, that's a fact.
He doesn't have one. His opportunity to choose has come and gone. Now he has to live with the consequences of his prior choices.
Okay, neither does the woman. She can carry it to term barring medical problems. I've gone over this like 10 times already with you, and you're being thick on purpose. I'm done with you.
Wiminz should be forced to carry children full term unless it is rape. When they have secks they are agreeing that they will carry children full term.
I means, its unfair, but life is too! So it is perfect logicalness!
That is not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that we don't, nor should we, have control over all aspects of our lives. For men, one of the areas that we have no control over is the decision of our pregnant sex partner to keep or abort a baby.
And what's more? We all know this in advance.
Exactly! And cuz we know it in advance itz fair, mirite?
Like yeah, the wimmin can't choose weather after having the kidz if they want to pay $$$, and they don't get the decision of if they get 2 c the kidz just like menz!
____
Wait, women can give children up for adoption? They get to choose whether men can see the baby? Oh no, it seems like a double standard!
They don't get to choose whether the father can see the child. A court does.
And unless the children are already very used to two parents or the mother is on drugs she usually gets custody.
I do find The Cats statement of a median payment of $5 per month sort of interesting although it seems low.
My main complaint with the current state of the system is how a father can be forced to pay for a child he isn't allowed to see.
I normally agree with you 100%, but I don't here. Silicon is saying that men have no choice in whether or not pregnancy occurs; that's obviously not true, but the only guarantee of it is not having sex.
Okay, the woman concieves.
What option does the man have short of finding a flight of stairs if he dosen't want the child?
I'll wait. And no, "don't have sex" isn't an answer here, champ.
None. Absolutely none. He has no guarantee that his desire, either keep or abort, will be fulfilled.
And why?
Because the only body he has the right to control is his own.
This isn't about her body jackass. He's not forcing her into an abortion. He's signing away his rights to the child.
Nice strawman.
Well this discussion has been fun, but the logical fallacies are just getting bigger and bigger, so I'm out.
[They're not designed to turn you into a fucking pauper, for one thing. The median payment in Aus is $5 a month, that's paid in 40% of cases. Median rates are more realistic in the US, but I've seen the stats and the percentage of income taken is not high. Its not a crippling burden. Also, its tailored to your income, and most states are flexible enough to do things like hold your payments while you're out of work or too sick to work, stuff like that. Its not a death sentence, and frankly anyone who whines about it, of either gender, is too immature to be fucking.
I don't think it's like that in Canada. Google Darrin White to see what I mean. He's probably the most egregious case, but he's not unique. I should probably have a look at Canadian law....
The system isn't perfect, but the horror stories are statistically rare - and getting rarer in jurisdictions that get off their asses and write proper guidelines for judges. So sorry, "I NO A DUDE WHOS TOTALLY POOR" isn't an argument. Especially if he was daft enough to get into a situation where he's supporting multiple children, especially by different women. That doesn't make a guy a victim, it makes him a fucking idiot.
Uh, we're not talking about multiple children, or any other parameters you keep bringing up in regards to this. So I don't know how that's really relevant to the following.
The debate is about when the man dosen't want the child, and the woman does, what options does he have other than to pay child support? And its not just "the price of a PS3", as you seem to think, which if you can't afford a PS3 every fucking month to begin with might just drive you down further into the hole. And that's not a story, that's a fact.
He doesn't have one. His opportunity to choose has come and gone. Now he has to live with the consequences of his prior choices.
Okay, neither does the woman. She can carry it to term barring medical problems. I've gone over this like 10 times already with you, and you're being thick on purpose. I'm done with you.
No, I'm not. The woman has a right to choose what happens to her body. The man has no such right over the woman's body.
Every time a man has sex he is taking a calculated risk that might become a parent. Every time a woman has sex she is taking a calculated risk that she might get pregnant at which point she, alone, has a choice to make regarding whether she will keep the baby.
It isn't the system's fault that women's rights interfere with some men's desire to not accidentally be fathers. You don't have a right to a fat wallet, but women have, and rightly so, the right to choose.
He doesn't have one. His opportunity to choose has come and gone. Now he has to live with the consequences of his prior choices.
Okay, neither does the woman. She can carry it to term barring medical problems. I've gone over this like 10 times already with you, and you're being thick on purpose. I'm done with you.
Neither of us is "being thick on purpose."
Both parents of any child share an equal legal portion of the burden of rearing that child.
No, I'm not. The woman has a right to choose what happens to her body. The man has no such right over the woman's body.
Every time a man has sex he is taking a calculated risk that might become a parent. Every time a woman has sex she is taking a calculated risk that she might get pregnant at which point she, alone, has a choice to make regarding whether she will keep the baby.
It isn't the system's fault that women's rights interfere with some men's desire to not accidentally be fathers. You don't have a right to a fat wallet, but women have, and rightly so, the right to choose.
[They're not designed to turn you into a fucking pauper, for one thing. The median payment in Aus is $5 a month, that's paid in 40% of cases. Median rates are more realistic in the US, but I've seen the stats and the percentage of income taken is not high. Its not a crippling burden. Also, its tailored to your income, and most states are flexible enough to do things like hold your payments while you're out of work or too sick to work, stuff like that. Its not a death sentence, and frankly anyone who whines about it, of either gender, is too immature to be fucking.
I don't think it's like that in Canada. Google Darrin White to see what I mean. He's probably the most egregious case, but he's not unique. I should probably have a look at Canadian law....
The system isn't perfect, but the horror stories are statistically rare - and getting rarer in jurisdictions that get off their asses and write proper guidelines for judges. So sorry, "I NO A DUDE WHOS TOTALLY POOR" isn't an argument. Especially if he was daft enough to get into a situation where he's supporting multiple children, especially by different women. That doesn't make a guy a victim, it makes him a fucking idiot.
Uh, we're not talking about multiple children, or any other parameters you keep bringing up in regards to this. So I don't know how that's really relevant to the following.
No, its totally relevant, the guys paying the most proportionate to their income will be the ones with multiple children. So when you quote extreme figures putting some dude in the poorhouse, you're highly unlikely to be talking about the situation this thread centers around at all.
The debate is about when the man dosen't want the child, and the woman does, what options does he have other than to pay child support? And its not just "the price of a PS3", as you seem to think, which if you can't afford a PS3 every fucking month to begin with might just drive you down further into the hole. And that's not a story, that's a fact.
If you can't afford that much, you pay less; sometimes you don't have to pay at all. Everyone else in the thread knows this already.
Okay, neither does the woman. She can carry it to term barring medical problems. I've gone over this like 10 times already with you, and you're being thick on purpose. I'm done with you.
If you still think that gestating and raising a kid isn't a burden at all, I'm certainly done with you :roll:
The Cat on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited April 2007
Wikipedia is currently unhelpful, as the article concerning wages needs to be edited. However, it looks like typically, CS is a maximum of 50% of the net paycheck. (At least in California) But that could be wrong.
And so basically we're back to the fact that every argument that's totally invalid when talking about abortion is now crucial to making men pay child support. Spiffy. Because, you know, they're different.
Of course, they really are different. But that still doesn't make all these calls to "responsibility" and "choosing not to have sex" sound less empty.
Oh well. I still support my idea of allowing fathers to legally and bindingly walk away, and replacing whatever child support they may have paid with additional government aid. I think it does the least harm all around; the harm to the child is minimal, the harm to the woman as well, the harm to the father is minimized, and the harm to any individual taxpayer would likely be small enough as to be negligible.
Seriously, compared to our defense budget [EDIT: and other social programs] how much do you really think a "deadbeat dad" fund would cost?
EDIT: Also, this would minimize harm in the form of dads that do decide not to pay and instead decide to fall off the fucking planet for 16 out of the kid's 18 years (personal experience here) because the safety net would already be in place.
And unless the children are already very used to two parents or the mother is on drugs she usually gets custody.
Wrong. Overwhelmingly, when a father applies for custody, he gets it. Its just that most fathers don't, for various reasons.
I do find The Cats statement of a median payment of $5 per month sort of interesting although it seems low.
Its easy to hide your real income under the Aus family law system *shrug*. That's a widely quoted figure though, just run a google news search on child support in Aus.
My main complaint with the current state of the system is how a father can be forced to pay for a child he isn't allowed to see.
Fathers are only restricted from seeing children when they're abusive O_o If they want contact and aren't bastards, they get it.
The Cat on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
edited April 2007
TheCat, all I was trying to get at was something this thread hasn't dealt with, which is, WHAT is that responsibility that the man has? I agree that the father should support the child regardless. It's fair because a woman's choice to abort or not doesn't have any relevance to the man if he's not interested in the child. It's a false dichotomy to say that he's responsible for her choice, because he's not. He made his choice.
However, what I believe is unfair is the courts bias against men when it comes to determining what that responsibility is. So for those advocating that responsibility, what should that responsibility be?
Posts
That's a stupid argument. It doesn't apply to women or men. If you want to attack silicon's argument, attack it on the grounds that 'terrible situation' is a total furphy, especially compared with the burden on the mother. Oh, and lets note yet again for the slow members of the class that women pay child support too, and the incidence of that is increasing as gender equity progresses. Looks a lot less unfair when both parents regardless of gender are required to input some effort.
No, it isn't. Never was. Because dick in pussy DOES NOT equal "baby", not without a lot of other choices being made.
Until its dick in pussy *BAM* baby immediately after? That will NEVER be what we've been talking about!
Like yeah, the wimmin can't choose weather after having the kidz if they want to pay $$$, and they don't get the decision of if they get 2 c the kidz just like menz!
____
Wait, women can give children up for adoption? They get to choose whether men can see the baby? Oh no, it seems like a double standard!
I don't think we're arguing child support period, we're arguing child support when the woman wants the child and the man dosen't. Do you have stats based on how many women pay child support after having the child and then deciding they don't want it and giving it to the man? Cause I'm curious to see them.
They're not designed to turn you into a fucking pauper, for one thing. The median payment in Aus is $5 a month, that's paid in 40% of cases. Median rates are more realistic in the US, but I've seen the stats and the percentage of income taken is not high. Its not a crippling burden. Also, its tailored to your income, and most states are flexible enough to do things like hold your payments while you're out of work or too sick to work, stuff like that. Its not a death sentence, and frankly anyone who whines about it, of either gender, is too immature to be fucking.
I normally agree with you 100%, but I don't here. Silicon is saying that men have no choice in whether or not pregnancy occurs; that's obviously not true, but the only guarantee of it is not having sex.
Yeah, see and I don't agree. Since it's entirely the woman's choice once she's pregnant, it should be entirely her responsibility. With help from the government, because I honestly believe we're better off spreading this particular burden around. Especially when you run into dads that won't and/or can't pay much/enough...and because the programs we have are inadequate the kid ends up fucked anyway.
Child of a deadbeat dad here, in case you didn't know.
Mostly though I was responding to his characterization of men who find themselves involved in an unwanted pregnancy as "fucktards," implying that they're somehow stupid for finding themselves in that predicament. When, you know, a majority of us have rolled those dice.
* - "Dice" of course referring to sex in general, not unprotected sex. Because I know of at least two people who took all reasonable precautions and are dads right now.
They don't get to choose whether the father can see the child. A court does.
Docken quoted 9% at current in the UK back in the other thread - but the cases you describe will be lumped into that category with post-divorce cases as well. Its still a small percentage, but only twenty-odd years ago fathers were banned from having custody in places like Ireland, so its a major shift really. There was a movie about the fight for paternal custody in ireland a while back, Pierce Brosnan starred. As single fatherhood becomes normalised, along with the idea of fathers in committed relationships playing a primary carer role, I'd expect that percentage to rise.
Walking away might allow the mother to make the decision to terminate the pregnancy (with the biological father's funding), or put the baby up for adoption. Thus making NO kids to mess up.
How is NO kids worse than messed up kids (who will arguably be such despite payments)?
Your argument would hold a lot more water if you knew what it was like when you're living on an economic bubble, and your girlfriend decides one day she wants to have a baby and dosen't care about your input.
I believe we're talking about the US here, and I personally know more than one person who has been crippled by child support. If anything, the fact that judges can crush people with child support payments probably leads to more social ills than waivering rights, as men turn to crime and under the counter jobs to supplant the fact that they're losing half of what they make, and then their transmission falls out.
Yeah, "don't have sex" isn't quite an argument to that, nor is insisting that if you don't want a child that you're "too immature to be fucking".
'swhati'msayin'
less people, more sex
- Soren Kierkegaard
I don't think it's like that in Canada. Google Darrin White to see what I mean. He's probably the most egregious case, but he's not unique. I should probably have a look at Canadian law....
Okay, the woman concieves.
What option does the man have short of finding a flight of stairs if he dosen't want the child?
I'll wait. And no, "don't have sex" isn't an answer here, champ.
He doesn't have one. His opportunity to choose has come and gone. Now he has to live with the consequences of his prior choices.
Reward the slut. Then all of your dreams will come true.
The system isn't perfect, but the horror stories are statistically rare - and getting rarer in jurisdictions that get off their asses and write proper guidelines for judges. So sorry, "I NO A DUDE WHOS TOTALLY POOR" isn't an argument. Especially if he was daft enough to get into a situation where he's supporting multiple children, especially by different women. That doesn't make a guy a victim, it makes him a fucking idiot.
And are any of these "crushing" examples the norm, or the extremes?
I suggest we file them under "not relevant because someone somewhere will always find a way to screw things up."
If someone can point to stats that child support is routinely a "crushing burden," then we should see them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsvV-sa6kXQ
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
I am also the product of a deadbeat dad.
Currently the government does not do enough to help single-mothers, and until they carry the burden the absent parent refuses to carry, the absent parent should be made to pay.
None. Absolutely none. He has no guarantee that his desire, either keep or abort, will be fulfilled.
And why?
Because the only body he has the right to control is his own.
If there is a disagreement making it to the court levels? I think that is a reasonable assumption, yes.
REGARDLESS of what he says, I think being unable to count on supplemental income might shift a pregnant woman's perception of the situation, and possibly change her decision, yes. I don't think that assumption unreasonable, either.
Uh, we're not talking about multiple children, or any other parameters you keep bringing up in regards to this. So I don't know how that's really relevant to the following.
The debate is about when the man dosen't want the child, and the woman does, what options does he have other than to pay child support? And its not just "the price of a PS3", as you seem to think, which if you can't afford a PS3 every fucking month to begin with might just drive you down further into the hole. And that's not a story, that's a fact.
Okay, neither does the woman. She can carry it to term barring medical problems. I've gone over this like 10 times already with you, and you're being thick on purpose. I'm done with you.
I do find The Cats statement of a median payment of $5 per month sort of interesting although it seems low.
My main complaint with the current state of the system is how a father can be forced to pay for a child he isn't allowed to see.
This isn't about her body jackass. He's not forcing her into an abortion. He's signing away his rights to the child.
Nice strawman.
Well this discussion has been fun, but the logical fallacies are just getting bigger and bigger, so I'm out.
No, I'm not. The woman has a right to choose what happens to her body. The man has no such right over the woman's body.
Every time a man has sex he is taking a calculated risk that might become a parent. Every time a woman has sex she is taking a calculated risk that she might get pregnant at which point she, alone, has a choice to make regarding whether she will keep the baby.
It isn't the system's fault that women's rights interfere with some men's desire to not accidentally be fathers. You don't have a right to a fat wallet, but women have, and rightly so, the right to choose.
Neither of us is "being thick on purpose."
Both parents of any child share an equal legal portion of the burden of rearing that child.
Because jclast said it better:
If you can't afford that much, you pay less; sometimes you don't have to pay at all. Everyone else in the thread knows this already.
If you still think that gestating and raising a kid isn't a burden at all, I'm certainly done with you :roll:
Of course, they really are different. But that still doesn't make all these calls to "responsibility" and "choosing not to have sex" sound less empty.
Oh well. I still support my idea of allowing fathers to legally and bindingly walk away, and replacing whatever child support they may have paid with additional government aid. I think it does the least harm all around; the harm to the child is minimal, the harm to the woman as well, the harm to the father is minimized, and the harm to any individual taxpayer would likely be small enough as to be negligible.
Seriously, compared to our defense budget [EDIT: and other social programs] how much do you really think a "deadbeat dad" fund would cost?
EDIT: Also, this would minimize harm in the form of dads that do decide not to pay and instead decide to fall off the fucking planet for 16 out of the kid's 18 years (personal experience here) because the safety net would already be in place.
Its easy to hide your real income under the Aus family law system *shrug*. That's a widely quoted figure though, just run a google news search on child support in Aus.
Fathers are only restricted from seeing children when they're abusive O_o If they want contact and aren't bastards, they get it.
However, what I believe is unfair is the courts bias against men when it comes to determining what that responsibility is. So for those advocating that responsibility, what should that responsibility be?
1) signed contract relieving all legal responsibility before sex.
2) greater tax burden on the general population to raise kids so single parents don't have to do it alone.
Any others? Given those choices, I'd personally vote to leave things the way they are...
stout's Amazon Wishlist | my lastFM