Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Being a widowed single man it doesn't suck for me a bit. It sucks for the 30-40 year old women who can't get anyone to marry them now that most men know the score. Nice fail on trying to personalize the argument in the face of your failing position though. I give you 4 out of 5 Jar Jars on the attempt.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...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.
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
I said "most". But maybe that has changed in the past decade or so...Wrong. Divorce is where most "child support" proceedings begin. Or at least for those who bothered to get married before deciding to have children.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...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.
Divorce, no fault or otherwise, has zero to do with what we are discussing
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.
Not entirely true. A husband is obligated to support any child his wife births. Whether it's his, or not. Even if she's a cheating whore and can prove it. Like he had been deployed longer than 9 months... The system is fatally flawed.Actually it doesn't. It gives the state control over the mans body, on behalf of the woman.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.Love how people actually think that I knocked someone up and am coming to USMB to try to get out of it.You did the deed, now pay for your fun. Be a man, live up to your responsibility.
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 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.
Precisely wrong again. As a father's obligation isn't to a woman. Its to the children he fathers.
Being a widowed single man it doesn't suck for me a bit. It sucks for the 30-40 year old women who can't get anyone to marry them now that most men know the score. Nice fail on trying to personalize the argument in the face of your failing position though. I give you 4 out of 5 Jar Jars on the attempt.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...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.
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
Not entirely true. A husband is obligated to support any child his wife births. Whether it's his, or not. Even if she's a cheating whore and can prove it. Like he had been deployed longer than 9 months... The system is fatally flawed.Actually it doesn't. It gives the state control over the mans body, on behalf of the woman.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.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 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.
Precisely wrong again. As a father's obligation isn't to a woman. Its to the children he fathers.
4 out of 5 again! Your on a roll! Myself? I love strong, good women. We have something in common... We both abhor parasites, who take no responsibility for their decisions.Being a widowed single man it doesn't suck for me a bit. It sucks for the 30-40 year old women who can't get anyone to marry them now that most men know the score. Nice fail on trying to personalize the argument in the face of your failing position though. I give you 4 out of 5 Jar Jars on the attempt.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...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.
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
You are a bitter old man and think all men hate women like you do!
that is rich!
Fraid not cup cake. Happens everyday. But I'm glad to see you recognize that the system is fucked...Not entirely true. A husband is obligated to support any child his wife births. Whether it's his, or not. Even if she's a cheating whore and can prove it. Like he had been deployed longer than 9 months... The system is fatally flawed.Actually it doesn't. It gives the state control over the mans body, on behalf of the woman.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.
Precisely wrong again. As a father's obligation isn't to a woman. Its to the children he fathers.
That is false.
Just one quick refefence,..Fraid not cup cake. Happens everyday. But I'm glad to see you recognize that the system is fucked...Not entirely true. A husband is obligated to support any child his wife births. Whether it's his, or not. Even if she's a cheating whore and can prove it. Like he had been deployed longer than 9 months... The system is fatally flawed.Actually it doesn't. It gives the state control over the mans body, on behalf of the woman.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.
Precisely wrong again. As a father's obligation isn't to a woman. Its to the children he fathers.
That is false.
Just one quick refefence,..Fraid not cup cake. Happens everyday. But I'm glad to see you recognize that the system is fucked...Not entirely true. A husband is obligated to support any child his wife births. Whether it's his, or not. Even if she's a cheating whore and can prove it. Like he had been deployed longer than 9 months... The system is fatally flawed.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.
That is false.
Can You Get a Refund if the Child You Support isn't Really Yours?
There are legions more if you desire to look...
The cases where the cuckolded husband is exhonerated are far, and few between. The fact that it isn't the law of the land is a testament to how fucked the system is.Just one quick refefence,..Fraid not cup cake. Happens everyday. But I'm glad to see you recognize that the system is fucked...Not entirely true. A husband is obligated to support any child his wife births. Whether it's his, or not. Even if she's a cheating whore and can prove it. Like he had been deployed longer than 9 months... The system is fatally flawed.Precisely wrong again. As a father's obligation isn't to a woman. Its to the children he fathers.
That is false.
Can You Get a Refund if the Child You Support isn't Really Yours?
There are legions more if you desire to look...
If my wife got pregnant by another man while we are married, is she entitled to child support from me?
Some states have an irrebuttable presumption of paternity, meaning that all children born into a marriage are children of that married couple and it does not matter what a DNA states. If you live in a state where the DNA test can alleviate your obligation to pay child support, when your wife or ex-wife petitions you for support, you can respond to the court that you would like to petition the court for a court-ordered paternity test, where the court will designate a court-approved lab, and the court will have a lab complete a DNA test. If the test shows you are not the biological father, then the court will not order support.
And exactly how many states is that? A,d what are the accompanying yeah-buts, and provisos that make it nearly impossible? I'd wager it's few states. And in those states a successful case is as rare as horse feathers.Just one quick refefence,..Fraid not cup cake. Happens everyday. But I'm glad to see you recognize that the system is fucked...Not entirely true. A husband is obligated to support any child his wife births. Whether it's his, or not. Even if she's a cheating whore and can prove it. Like he had been deployed longer than 9 months... The system is fatally flawed.Precisely wrong again. As a father's obligation isn't to a woman. Its to the children he fathers.
That is false.
Can You Get a Refund if the Child You Support isn't Really Yours?
There are legions more if you desire to look...
If my wife got pregnant by another man while we are married, is she entitled to child support from me?
Some states have an irrebuttable presumption of paternity, meaning that all children born into a marriage are children of that married couple and it does not matter what a DNA states. If you live in a state where the DNA test can alleviate your obligation to pay child support, when your wife or ex-wife petitions you for support, you can respond to the court that you would like to petition the court for a court-ordered paternity test, where the court will designate a court-approved lab, and the court will have a lab complete a DNA test. If the test shows you are not the biological father, then the court will not order support.
Yet women can do it by having an abortion.Where I believe rights come from doesn’t matter in this conversation. I’m using what basically a priori for anyone whose pro-choice.
Indeed it does since it appears to be the principle cause of you not being able to recognize the flaw in your argument.
Men have all the reproductive rights that nature has granted them within the constraints set forth by biology up to the moment of conception, after conception generally accepted morality dictates the decision rests with the woman since she's the one carrying the potential child and if she decides to carry it to term then the father has the responsibility to bear his share of the burden for it's care.
Arguing that Men should be able to nullify the consequences of their actions simply by declaring he doesn't want the child he conceived is akin to arguing that people should have the right to nullify their financial obligations by declaring they never really wanted the money in the first place and if the bank has a right to call in a loan they should have the right to opt out of it.
There is an argument to made. However it's more of an argument of principle; rather than one of law.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?
NoIs 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?
I say sure, let's cover them too. Only fair.Republicans in general tend to have problems with it, particularly with providing it in employer or government insurance policies.Who are the people freaking out against birth control? It’s maybe a fractal of 1% who think that extremely cheap and extremely effective BC should be banned. I don’t think there’s a bigger strawman argument made than the one suggesting that the right wants to ban birth control. Sure there are Catholics who make a personal choice not to use, and parents who don’t want their 14 year old kids to be given condoms at school...but again those are personal decisions made since maybe it isn’t the best idea to encourage or condone, irresponsible kids to be participating in the act of reproduction. Religion is often mocked as being anti-sex and encouraging abstinence when there is a very clear biological logic to waiting until marriage to have sex. I didn’t wait, and I was lucky because I was pretty damn irresponsible when it came to wrapping before tapping. Why? Because I was a shithead, like most other shitheads at that age. I had raging hormones and society told me that it was ok to not try to control those urges.My problem with Roe v Wade is it doesn't go far enough. You know how most if you cons are afraid where the bump-stock ban is gonna go? That's what the rest of us worry about with the nibbling away at abortion rights.
No don't get me wrong, I do not approve of abortion as a birth control any more than you do, but I also don't approve of bringing unwanted, uncared-for, abused and neglected children into the world. If you conservative kids would stop freaking out over birth control, welfare, and other things for taking care of needy children I might go along with stricter controls on it.
That is an outright false statement. Republicans in general have absolutely no problem with birth control, and in general have absolutely no problem with employers offering insurance that covers it.
The sticking point, and any honest person will acknowledge it, is where an employer is forced by law to provide insurance that covers it, even though he personally abhors it.
And I want my condoms covered too, dammit.
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?
There is an argument, but it is a tough one to make.
The basis is one of equal rights. If a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy, and thus avoid parental responsibility, an absolutist viewpoint on equal rights requires men to have the same ability.
then wear a rubber.
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?
There is an argument, but it is a tough one to make.
No there isn't. Not a single court in the land has every accepted that meaningless piece of pseudo-legal gibberish.
The basis is one of equal rights. If a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy, and thus avoid parental responsibility, an absolutist viewpoint on equal rights requires men to have the same ability.
Nope. As a mother can never create an unequal obligation. Either she and the father are both obligated to care for the child....or neither is.
Your piece of meaningless pseudo-legal flotsam that has never been accepted in any court, ever.......is about unequal obligation. Where a mother is responsible for every child she bears. But a father is never responsible for any child he sires.
Um, that dog won't hunt.
Your 'equal rights' argument isn't about equality. But unequal obligation. Which is why its failure has been perfect, never succeeding once in any court of law.
Ever.
I wouldn't put much weight on what Marty has to say about legal matters. Marty regularly insists that his personal opinion is the law. Alas, the courts simply don't recognize that. And a 'legal argument' that neither the law nor the courts recognize is a legally meaningless one.
Ask the 'Sovereign Citizens' how well their imagination works as law.
Why not?
It is called "personal responsibility"
So only men are required to have said responsibility?
Women too. Either both a man and a woman are responsible for the child....or neither are.
In your meaningless pseudo-legal nonsense, women are responsible for every child they bear. While men are never responsible for any child they sire.
This you call 'equality'. Which might explain why no court in any state recognizing your nonsense as having any legal validity.
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?
There is an argument, but it is a tough one to make.
The basis is one of equal rights. If a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy, and thus avoid parental responsibility, an absolutist viewpoint on equal rights requires men to have the same ability.
That may be an argument, but it's not a legal one.
Legally, you aren't responsible for your children because you wanted them. You're responsible for them because you created them, wanted or not. If the kid exists, he has a legal claim on you. Period.
Why not?
It is called "personal responsibility"
So only men are required to have said responsibility?
No, once the kid is born, both progenitors have a legal responsibility to him.
Before the kid is born, as the law currently stands, the woman has a right to kill him and flush him, and the man has the right to control where he sticks his dick. Maybe try having a conversation with a woman before you get nekkid with her. Just a suggestion.
