Child Support Laws Should Be Abolished <MOD ALERT>

Nope, all the warnings in the world will not stop nature/lust/sex.....just make sure they know they can use birth control if they wish, have an abortion if they wish or explain how expensive a kid is and how you can't support them on waitress wages and have a nice house and nice car and nice clothes and live in a nice neighborhood....it all goes away with the kid......

 

Real men understand that they have a responsibility to support their own child.

Whiners complain that supporting their own child is "unfair".

 

A man is just as culpable for his actions as the woman when creating a child out of wedlock. Even if the man is not granted any custody they still bear some responsibility to ensure the child has a proper upbringing, even if only monetarily.

Truth be told, if you want to avoid such headaches as a man, I suggest not risking knocking a woman up in the first place. Outside of using better judgement, come to amicable terms with the woman without the court's involvement. I know a couple of men who took this route, and, they're much, much happier.

 

I don't wish to discourage anyone from having children; just to warn them against indiscriminately choosing irresponsible partners for sex for ANY reason. Of course, I encourage birth control when not seeking to become pregnant, and to wait to have children until financially and emotionally ready. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I think it's preferable for two parents to raise a child.

I agree with Sharpie. . . . Any man who is not willing to accept UNCONDITIONAL responsibility for children he fathers should get a vasectomy.

 

As a bastard child, I come from a single mother household that survived in part due to my biological sperm-donor's undersized child support checks because he was getting most of his money underneath the table. I'm conflicted on how to answer this question. If a woman has the ability to have an abortion, which she does until the second trimester in most cases, the father should be able to as well. In fact, motherhood and fatherhood should both be an opt-in, rather than an opt-out, early in the pregnancy. Meaning, that if the biological parents want to raise their child, they need to let the government know of their intent. There are many childless, infertile or homosexual couples that baby could go to. Let the people who want to love them, love them. (This is primarily the reason why I'm pro-life, although still a Libertarian.)

Edit: Also, I had this thought about this issue a little more, and I thought child support should only be a case if someone opts-in to support and become legal guardian of the child and does not financially (or otherwise) support the child.

 

The woman's expenditures grow substantially while her ability to generate income is diminished. "Child Support" rarely provides enough income to the woman to fill the gap between the two and she's always left worse of economically than if she didn't have the baby.

Yes, woman is left with having to choose how to spend the money because she's typically balancing "what she can't afford to pay for" with "what she must pay for" on a daily basis.

A quick reference to the MIT Living Wage Calculator for my county (Yavapai County, Arizona) indicates that the difference in the cost of living for a single adult and a single adult with a child is about $24,000 per year. Few men are required to pay $2,000/mo in child support to cover the minimum additional expenditures of the woman and this doesn't even take into account that she's going be typically earning less money taking care of the child than she would without a child.

In all honesty we can say with general accuracy that the man rarely fully fulfills their responsibility based upon "cost" alone related to a child being born. That's why, in many of not most cases, the woman must also rely on government welfare programs to provide for the child. If the man even fulfilled the "minimum" necessity for financial assistance the woman requires it would dramatically reduce the costs to the taxpayers that fund the welfare assistance to the woman.

The taxpayers that didn't enjoy the pleasure of the sexual relationship are the one's that really get screwed because of the financial irresponsibility of father of the child.

I have no idea where this belief that child support results in the woman rolling in extra money comes from but it's not even close to being true.

 

I DO wish to discourage people from having kids whether they're single or married...it IS REALLY old fashioned and silly to think that once two people are married they're "safe" and can pop out kids like rabbits....but in real life things change, husbands that used to be stable breadwinners who wanted to be dads can change and no longer want the " little family life at home""... due to the economy they could lose their jobs and not be able to support anyone....unfortunately people don't wait until they're financially and emotionally ready to have kids...

 

""""" There are many childless, infertile or homosexual couples that baby could go to. Let the people who want to love them, love them. (This is primarily the reason why I'm pro-life, although still a Libertarian.)""""""

OK, the whole premise of this thread is about whiney men who don't think they have equality and you seemed to agree until the above paragraph.

You think it's "equal" ? Fair? ..for a woman to have to spend 9 months pregnant, suffer the damage and pain of pregnancy and childbirth, suffer financial/educational and possible job loss due to pregnancy all to give away their kid to someone else ????


No, that's not "fair" nor "equal"

 

Im complaining the laws are unfair not that supporting your child is unfair.

 

You have no idea of how many women I know how used that money for drugs and beer. I never said they were rolling in extra money

 

No its better to abort it right ?

Maybe we should consider letting women sell these babies. But then would the father be entitled to a share of the money ?

 

i respectfully disagree, the child support laws incentivize poor women to have children because they don't have access to living wage jobs, and this is the only way they can get money.

the failure of most gentleman to pay for child birth has no relevance on the taxpayer burden either, since he has no access to a living wage job to afford child support payments.

the broken family and gender division has always been the fault of the rich.

 

YES, for some women their position in life makes abortion a better option.

No, selling babies is against the law ....didn't you know that? Are you for selling people!!?

But, yes, if your weird scenario came true, and women sold their kids then the man should get the 10 or 15 cents his sperm was worth since he contributed NOTHING else....

 

You apparently do not want children (or any more children), and that is fine, but many people have an instinctive desire to have both children and family. SOME people welcome responsibility out of LOVE.

 

The law only exists because there are deadbeat dads who don't support their own child.

What is unfair about holding them accountable?

 

Nice Norman Rockwell sentiments that have nothing to do with the post of mine you quoted.

Quote Originally Posted by FoxHastings View Post

I DO wish to discourage people from having kids whether they're single or married...it IS REALLY old fashioned and silly to think that once two people are married they're "safe" and can pop out kids like rabbits....but in real life things change, husbands that used to be stable breadwinners who wanted to be dads can change and no longer want the " little family life at home""... due to the economy they could lose their jobs and not be able to support anyone....unfortunately people don't wait until they're financially and emotionally ready to have kids...""""




I NEVER expressed anything personal about whether I have kids or don't have kids and you shouldn't either. Personal anecdotes mean nothing.

 

My apologies for the perceived offense; I assure you it was not intentional.

My granddaughter says I'm often inadvertently rude. . . . She attributes that to senility. . . . OOPS! . . . . That's a personal anecdote, isn't it?

 

Change it. Is it better to be sold to qualified parents or to be killed ? Im not suggesting they be put up at auction but that they be sold to people who really want a child of their own to raise and love.

 

What about dead beat mothers?

 

I didn't take offense but an apology is gracious anyway.

I am usually "advertently " rude and it has nothing to do with my advanced age...

...and no matter what we think "should" be is meaningless anyway since humans will be humans forever...they just won't do what we think they "should"....

 

WHO is advocating killing babies???? Answer: NO one.....

 

The LAW applies to them, too.

 

Maybe women who want to be independent should bear the full responsibility for their choices.

 

Many do. However that has nothing to do with the law that says men have to support their children.

Maybe men who want to be independent should bear full responsibility for their choices.

 

Well, it is halloween. In this case its a trick with no treat. The notion that women should bear the full responsibility for their independent choices has nothing to do with child support laws IS NOTHING BUT IGNORANCE AND DECEIT. Any damn moron can see that.