Is there a legit legal argument here?

[Vastator]

Is there an argument to be made for a man to not have to pay child support, if he can prove he encouraged the mother to get an abortion, and she went against his wishes?

If a woman willingly decides to end the marriage... Then yes. Any real man will still continue to support his child's needs anyway. But if she wants to punch out... Don't expect a severance package for your own descision. You want out? Get the fuck out. If you swear you don't "need him"; then you don't need his money either...
If automatic extortion wasn't handed out like Mardi Grad beads; the divorce rate in this nation would drop like a rock.

Marriage?

You sound like you're going through some personal baggage right now. As that has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

I'm just old fashioned. We used to get married before having children. Back in the old days...

 

[Vastator]

It is called "personal responsibility"

So only men are required to have said responsibility?

how do you figure? Who do you think is raising the child while the man just sends cash?

If a woman doesn't want the kid, she has an "out". Men don't have that "out"

We are talking legally here, not biologically.

Please note that this is a theoretical discussion.

Yes it theoretical, I thought that was obvious. Though it’s more ethical than legal, although if someone chose to pursue this legally and somehow won...that would have some pretty big consequences.

Ethically, the man should help pay to raise their child. I cannot think of many things lower than a man that lacks that basic morals to do that.

I can. A woman who births one for easy money...

 

[Skylar]

Is there an argument to be made for a man to not have to pay child support, if he can prove he encouraged the mother to get an abortion, and she went against his wishes?

If a woman willingly decides to end the marriage... Then yes. Any real man will still continue to support his child's needs anyway. But if she wants to punch out... Don't expect a severance package for your own descision. You want out? Get the fuck out. If you swear you don't "need him"; then you don't need his money either...
If automatic extortion wasn't handed out like Mardi Grad beads; the divorce rate in this nation would drop like a rock.

Marriage?

You sound like you're going through some personal baggage right now. As that has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

I'm just old fashioned. We used to get married before having children. Back in the old days...

Ah. I follow now.

 

[Vastator]

Why not?

You did the deed, now pay for your fun. Be a man, live up to your responsibility.

Love how people actually think that I knocked someone up and am coming to USMB to try to get out of it.

If the sexes are truly equal, and there is no ethical issues in getting an abortion...then a man should have the same opportunity to opt out of responsibility for the very same reasons a women would choose to get a perfectly ethical abortion. It’s the same decision being made, but just because one has a dong, he all of a sudden turns into a monster...even though he could easily cite the exact same reasons to not take responsibility as a women wanting to get an abortion. So either abortion is unethical, the sexes are not equal legally or ethically speaking...or a man shouldn’t have to be forced to pay child support unless he didn’t want the woman to abort.

That's precisely correct. I love threads like these. They highlight the abject failure of this so called "equality" movement; and display in full, and unabashedly so, the grand hypocrisy of its promoters.

 

[Vastator]

Is there an argument to be made for a man to not have to pay child support, if he can prove he encouraged the mother to get an abortion, and she went against his wishes?

Sorry buddy the kid could not even be yours and if you were married at the time of birth you still pay.

Yup. Even if she's a cheating whore, and you can prove the kid isn't yours. That's a fucked up, unjust system.

 

[Vastator]

Is there an argument to be made for a man to not have to pay child support, if he can prove he encouraged the mother to get an abortion, and she went against his wishes?

Nope. Not in any state. As the father's obligation to the child is based on the child's existence. Not the father's desires.

Not technically true. Fatherhood has less to do with it, than whom the woman happens to be married to.
She can cheat on her husband, get knocked uo, have a bastard child, divorce her husband, then extort him for support of the bastard child, all the while making a new life with the actual father. Supplemented of course by the husband she betrayeds income.
The best part for the woman? Its all perfectly legal....

 

[Skylar]

Why not?

You did the deed, now pay for your fun. Be a man, live up to your responsibility.

Love how people actually think that I knocked someone up and am coming to USMB to try to get out of it.

If the sexes are truly equal, and there is no ethical issues in getting an abortion...then a man should have the same opportunity to opt out of responsibility for the very same reasons a women would choose to get a perfectly ethical abortion. It’s the same decision being made, but just because one has a dong, he all of a sudden turns into a monster...even though he could easily cite the exact same reasons to not take responsibility as a women wanting to get an abortion. So either abortion is unethical, the sexes are not equal legally or ethically speaking...or a man shouldn’t have to be forced to pay child support unless he didn’t want the woman to abort.

That's precisely correct. I love threads like these. They highlight the abject failure of this so called "equality" movement; and display in full, and unabashedly so, the grand hypocrisy of its promoters.

That's precisely wrong as it creates either unequal control over one's own body. Or unequal obligation. While our current arrangement rightly establishes equality in both.

Under the current system, a man has control of his own body. A woman has control over her own.

That's equal rights.

Under the current system, a man and woman always have the same obligation. Either they're both responsible, or neither are.

That's equal obligation.

What is being demanded in the pseudo-legal argument of Saki is unequal rights. Where either a man has control of his own body AND control over a woman's while a woman has no control of her own body nor his.

Or where a woman is always responsible for every child she bears while a man is never responsible for any child he fathers.

Unequal obligation or unequal control of one's own body is not 'equality'. But the lack of it.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Who decided to file for divorce? 80% of filings are made by women. There's your responsibility. Who grants primary residence to the mother, automagically? The courts. There's your responsibility...

Yes, women file for most divorces as men are more than content to stay married while cheating on their spouse.

 

[Skylar]

Is there an argument to be made for a man to not have to pay child support, if he can prove he encouraged the mother to get an abortion, and she went against his wishes?

Nope. Not in any state. As the father's obligation to the child is based on the child's existence. Not the father's desires.

Not technically true. Fatherhood has less to do with it, than whom the woman happens to be married to.
She can cheat on her husband, get knocked uo, have a bastard child, divorce her husband, then extort him for support of the bastard child, all the while making a new life with the actual father. Supplemented of course by the husband she betrayeds income.
The best part for the woman? Its all perfectly legal....

In the context of our conversation, it is. As none of the laws you're citing have any basis in the right to abort. Or a father's ability to abrogate his obligation to his own children because a woman has a right to an abortion.

That pseudo-legal gibberish has never been accepted in any court, in any state. Ever.

 

[Vastator]

Is there an argument to be made for a man to not have to pay child support, if he can prove he encouraged the mother to get an abortion, and she went against his wishes?

No.

Because "Biology."

Ask any pro-abort leftard. . . It's a well known biological fact that if you are a male, children's lives begin at and by conception and "children" are entitled to child support, medical care etc.

And! If you are a woman, a child's life (and rights) do not begin until you decide that it does OR roughly sometime in the third trimester, if you just can't decide.

Didn't you have biology in school?

Wrong forum. We're having a discussion of the law. If you want to discuss the biology of abortion, feel free to do so in another thread. That's not what we're discussing here.

The point is; either through abortion, or legally surrender of said kid, there are ways the mother can get out of the responsibility of raising the child. The man doesn't get a choice. If the woman keeps the kid the guy is stuck paying child support. That isn't fair.

And in either instance, neither she nor the father have any financial obligation. Their obligation is always equal. Either they both have financial obligation, or neither does. Which is fair.

Its *perfectly* fair for a father to support his own child.

Not really. In these example only the woman gets to decide for both, if both must bear the responsibility...

 

[Vastator]

Is there an argument to be made for a man to not have to pay child support, if he can prove he encouraged the mother to get an abortion, and she went against his wishes?

Nope. Not in any state. As the father's obligation to the child is based on the child's existence. Not the father's desires.

Not technically true. Fatherhood has less to do with it, than whom the woman happens to be married to.
She can cheat on her husband, get knocked uo, have a bastard child, divorce her husband, then extort him for support of the bastard child, all the while making a new life with the actual father. Supplemented of course by the husband she betrayeds income.
The best part for the woman? Its all perfectly legal....

In the context of our conversation, it is. As none of the laws you're citing have any basis in the right to abort. Or a father's ability to abrogate his obligation to his own children because a woman has a right to an abortion.

That pseudo-legal gibberish has never been accepted in any court, in any state. Ever.

I didn't "cite" any laws. I just told you how it works in real life. If you don't like it... Then you agree the system is fatally flawed...

 

[Vastator]

Who decided to file for divorce? 80% of filings are made by women. There's your responsibility. Who grants primary residence to the mother, automagically? The courts. There's your responsibility...

Yes, women file for most divorces as men are more than content to stay married while cheating on their spouse.

Straw man argument. With the arrival of the "no fault divorce" the reason for divorce isn't even an event of record. Nice try though...

 

[Skylar]

Is there an argument to be made for a man to not have to pay child support, if he can prove he encouraged the mother to get an abortion, and she went against his wishes?

Nope. Not in any state. As the father's obligation to the child is based on the child's existence. Not the father's desires.

Not technically true. Fatherhood has less to do with it, than whom the woman happens to be married to.
She can cheat on her husband, get knocked uo, have a bastard child, divorce her husband, then extort him for support of the bastard child, all the while making a new life with the actual father. Supplemented of course by the husband she betrayeds income.
The best part for the woman? Its all perfectly legal....

In the context of our conversation, it is. As none of the laws you're citing have any basis in the right to abort. Or a father's ability to abrogate his obligation to his own children because a woman has a right to an abortion.

That pseudo-legal gibberish has never been accepted in any court, in any state. Ever.

I didn't "cite" any laws. I just told you how it works in real life. If you don't like it... Then you agree the system is fatally flawed...

We're having a legal discussion on ways for men to abrogate their parental responsibilities because women can have abortions.

Your talk of marriage has nothing to do with any of those legal principles.

 

[Skylar]

Who decided to file for divorce? 80% of filings are made by women. There's your responsibility. Who grants primary residence to the mother, automagically? The courts. There's your responsibility...

Yes, women file for most divorces as men are more than content to stay married while cheating on their spouse.

Straw man argument. With the arrival of the "no fault divorce" the reason for divorce isn't even an event of record. Nice try though...

Divorce, no fault or otherwise, has zero to do with what we are discussing

 

[Skylar]

Is there an argument to be made for a man to not have to pay child support, if he can prove he encouraged the mother to get an abortion, and she went against his wishes?

No.

Because "Biology."

Ask any pro-abort leftard. . . It's a well known biological fact that if you are a male, children's lives begin at and by conception and "children" are entitled to child support, medical care etc.

And! If you are a woman, a child's life (and rights) do not begin until you decide that it does OR roughly sometime in the third trimester, if you just can't decide.

Didn't you have biology in school?

Wrong forum. We're having a discussion of the law. If you want to discuss the biology of abortion, feel free to do so in another thread. That's not what we're discussing here.

The point is; either through abortion, or legally surrender of said kid, there are ways the mother can get out of the responsibility of raising the child. The man doesn't get a choice. If the woman keeps the kid the guy is stuck paying child support. That isn't fair.

And in either instance, neither she nor the father have any financial obligation. Their obligation is always equal. Either they both have financial obligation, or neither does. Which is fair.

Its *perfectly* fair for a father to support his own child.

Not really. In these example only the woman gets to decide for both, if both must bear the responsibility...

Precisely wrong again. As the only choice she has is over the use of her own body. Just as the only choice a man has is over the use of his.

That's what equal rights looks like.

 

[Vastator]

Why not?

You did the deed, now pay for your fun. Be a man, live up to your responsibility.

Love how people actually think that I knocked someone up and am coming to USMB to try to get out of it.

If the sexes are truly equal, and there is no ethical issues in getting an abortion...then a man should have the same opportunity to opt out of responsibility for the very same reasons a women would choose to get a perfectly ethical abortion. It’s the same decision being made, but just because one has a dong, he all of a sudden turns into a monster...even though he could easily cite the exact same reasons to not take responsibility as a women wanting to get an abortion. So either abortion is unethical, the sexes are not equal legally or ethically speaking...or a man shouldn’t have to be forced to pay child support unless he didn’t want the woman to abort.

That's precisely correct. I love threads like these. They highlight the abject failure of this so called "equality" movement; and display in full, and unabashedly so, the grand hypocrisy of its promoters.

That's precisely wrong as it creates either unequal control over one's own body. Or unequal obligation. While our current arrangement rightly establishes equality in both.

Under the current system, a man has control of his own body. A woman has control over her own.

That's equal rights.

Under the current system, a man and woman always have the same obligation. Either they're both responsible, or neither are.

That's equal obligation.

What is being demanded in the pseudo-legal argument of Saki is unequal rights. Where either a man has control of his own body AND control over a woman's while a woman has no control of her own body nor his.

Or where a woman is always responsible for every child she bears while a man is never responsible for any child he fathers.

Unequal obligation or unequal control of one's own body is not 'equality'. But the lack of it.

Actually it doesn't. It gives the state control over the mans body, on behalf of the woman. Just ask a guy I know who quit a high paying job he hated, only to be dragged through the court, (and briefly jail); because he chose to pursue a job more to his liking, and preferences. See... The state decided that since it paid less... He was showing contempt for the court. When in any other scenario one is free to quit a job and get another if they desire. Say what you want. It matters little. The fact of the matter is that the "system" is gynocentric, and barbaric when it comes to mens, and fathers rights.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Who decided to file for divorce? 80% of filings are made by women. There's your responsibility. Who grants primary residence to the mother, automagically? The courts. There's your responsibility...

Yes, women file for most divorces as men are more than content to stay married while cheating on their spouse.

Straw man argument. With the arrival of the "no fault divorce" the reason for divorce isn't even an event of record. Nice try though...

Yeah, it is just a crying shame that women can now get out of bad marriage and are not forced to stay married. That has to suck for you.

you were just born a century too late

 

[Vastator]

Who decided to file for divorce? 80% of filings are made by women. There's your responsibility. Who grants primary residence to the mother, automagically? The courts. There's your responsibility...

Yes, women file for most divorces as men are more than content to stay married while cheating on their spouse.

Straw man argument. With the arrival of the "no fault divorce" the reason for divorce isn't even an event of record. Nice try though...

Divorce, no fault or otherwise, has zero to do with what we are discussing

Wrong. Divorce is where most "child support" proceedings begin. Or at least for those who bothered to get married before deciding to have children.

 

[Skylar]

Why not?

You did the deed, now pay for your fun. Be a man, live up to your responsibility.

Love how people actually think that I knocked someone up and am coming to USMB to try to get out of it.

If the sexes are truly equal, and there is no ethical issues in getting an abortion...then a man should have the same opportunity to opt out of responsibility for the very same reasons a women would choose to get a perfectly ethical abortion. It’s the same decision being made, but just because one has a dong, he all of a sudden turns into a monster...even though he could easily cite the exact same reasons to not take responsibility as a women wanting to get an abortion. So either abortion is unethical, the sexes are not equal legally or ethically speaking...or a man shouldn’t have to be forced to pay child support unless he didn’t want the woman to abort.

That's precisely correct. I love threads like these. They highlight the abject failure of this so called "equality" movement; and display in full, and unabashedly so, the grand hypocrisy of its promoters.

That's precisely wrong as it creates either unequal control over one's own body. Or unequal obligation. While our current arrangement rightly establishes equality in both.

Under the current system, a man has control of his own body. A woman has control over her own.

That's equal rights.

Under the current system, a man and woman always have the same obligation. Either they're both responsible, or neither are.

That's equal obligation.

What is being demanded in the pseudo-legal argument of Saki is unequal rights. Where either a man has control of his own body AND control over a woman's while a woman has no control of her own body nor his.

Or where a woman is always responsible for every child she bears while a man is never responsible for any child he fathers.

Unequal obligation or unequal control of one's own body is not 'equality'. But the lack of it.

Actually it doesn't. It gives the state control over the mans body, on behalf of the woman.

Precisely wrong again. As a father's obligation isn't to a woman. Its to the children he fathers.

 

[Skylar]

Who decided to file for divorce? 80% of filings are made by women. There's your responsibility. Who grants primary residence to the mother, automagically? The courts. There's your responsibility...

Yes, women file for most divorces as men are more than content to stay married while cheating on their spouse.

Straw man argument. With the arrival of the "no fault divorce" the reason for divorce isn't even an event of record. Nice try though...

Divorce, no fault or otherwise, has zero to do with what we are discussing

Wrong. Divorce is where most "child support" proceedings begin. Or at least for those who bothered to get married before deciding to have children.

Wrong again. Financial obligation to one's children exists regardless of marriage. If a couple never marries....a father still has to pay child support.