Is there a legit legal argument here?

[Cecilie1200]

Why not?

It is called "personal responsibility"

How can one responsibility for a decision that they had zero say in the matter?

Did the woman rape them? Did the woman make them have sex? I do not think so.

That doesn’t change that fact that men are still held responsible without any say in the matter.

What if the women requested to go raw dog, or lied about being on BC? This hypos can go on all day, the issue at hand is still one party holds the sole decision making ability, and the other is held responsible for it.

then say no maam- no rubber, no sex. & if it's THAT important, don't trust her saying she is on BC.

If you're dumb enough to trust a woman you're not married to with your entire financial and legal future, you deserve whatever happens to you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Bottom line, if you helped make the baby, you help pay for the baby. Any man that cannot do that much is not much of a man, they are just the scum found on the bottom of an old pond.

This is ridiculously sexist. What do you have to say about a woman who makes a baby but cannot manage to pay for that baby? Is she the scum found on the bottom of an old pond? Or is she a reason why we have to expand welfare programs?

Personally, I believe that any real woman should be able to handle things by herself. It's the 21st century. Women aren't victim's of male sex drives. And we aren't victims of our own family planning decisions. If there's no reason to stop a single woman from adopting a child, then there is no reason to demand that a man become responsible for a child he doesn't want. Let him sign away his rights and raise your child on your own. If you don't want to settle for that, you have choices you can make.

Sorry, why does "I was stupid and did something I couldn't afford to pay for" change anything? Not scum, but not exactly the brightest light on the Christmas tree, and not changing the equation in the slightest.

You're old enough to make the decision to fuck around, you're old enough to be responsible for the consequences. If you're not prepared to do that, then I suggest you GET prepared. And that applies to both sexes.

 

[Crepitus]

Republicans in general tend to have problems with it, particularly with providing it in employer or government insurance policies.

If I have to pay for my condoms, why shouldn't women have to pay for their pills?

And there we go. I appreciate the help proving my point.

What does party have to do with it? I'm against "free stuff" in general because someone has to pay for it.

Sorry, but if you can't spend $20 a month to not get pregnant, and it is that important to you, then methinks you have to re-shuffle your life priorities,

Cheaper for all of us in the long run if we just covered it.

Who is "we", and why do you assume someone else's child costs ME anything, or SHOULD cost me anything?

We. You and me. And because we are gonna end up paying for it in way or another so why not go the cheapest route?

 

[Cecilie1200]

If a woman has a baby then dumps it at a Fire Station or hospital it becomes a ward of the state. They do not make her pay the state child support as they would a man. In fact if the track down the father they make him pay the state child support but they don't make the woman.

Yes, well, if a woman drops a baby at a fire station, they don't actually know who she is to track her down, which is kind of the same scenario as not knowing who the father is.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If a woman has a baby then dumps it at a Fire Station or hospital it becomes a ward of the state. They do not make her pay the state child support as they would a man. In fact if the track down the father they make him pay the state child support but they don't make the woman.

Says who? And which state? There are 50 of them....and their laws vary broadly.

They do it all the time, got a name and a web site too.
Safe Surrender Archives - Supervisor Don Knabe

Safe Surrender, yeah. But there's nothing about 'going after the father for child support'.

Why can mother safe surrender and get out of supporting the kid but still able to force the man to support the kid if he wants to safe surrender it?

For starters, how would that even work logically? In what scenario does a man have possession of a baby to Safe Surrender? MEN DON"T GIVE BIRTH.

 

[Skylar]

If a woman has a baby then dumps it at a Fire Station or hospital it becomes a ward of the state. They do not make her pay the state child support as they would a man. In fact if the track down the father they make him pay the state child support but they don't make the woman.

Says who? And which state? There are 50 of them....and their laws vary broadly.

They do it all the time, got a name and a web site too.
Safe Surrender Archives - Supervisor Don Knabe

Safe Surrender, yeah. But there's nothing about 'going after the father for child support'.

Why can mother safe surrender and get out of supporting the kid but still able to force the man to support the kid if he wants to safe surrender it?

For starters, how would that even work logically? In what scenario does a man have possession of a baby to Safe Surrender? MEN DON"T GIVE BIRTH.

Its also factually baseless. As the Safe Surrender laws don't have special rules for mothers and another for fathers. The law doesn't even mention 'mother' or 'father'. But parents, treating them equally.

Sly made all that up.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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 agree 100%, however the fact is that makes us hold men to a higher standard than women, and if one wants true equality then that is an issue.

The fact ACTUALLY is that even having this discussion is a continuation of utterly wrongheaded priorities. We're talking about a child here, a living helpless human child. If anyone's looking at the legal situation surrounding that child and focusing on "Oh, it's so unfair to the man" or "Oh, the poor woman" instead of the child who didn't ask to be born and isn't capable of doing anything for himself, then that person is an amoral, borderline-ancephalic cretin.

For either the man OR the woman: You fucked. You made a baby. There is now a baby in existence. You are no longer even remotely the most important person in the story. Period. Adult up and stop looking for excuses why you shouldn't deal with what you have wrought.

Yet you see nothing wrong with allowing some doctor murder the unborn child.

Excuse me? Is that what I see? Thank you so much for telling me what I'm thinking, Miss Cleo. But frankly, don't quit your day job.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If I have to pay for my condoms, why shouldn't women have to pay for their pills?

And there we go. I appreciate the help proving my point.

What does party have to do with it? I'm against "free stuff" in general because someone has to pay for it.

Sorry, but if you can't spend $20 a month to not get pregnant, and it is that important to you, then methinks you have to re-shuffle your life priorities,

Cheaper for all of us in the long run if we just covered it.

Who is "we", and why do you assume someone else's child costs ME anything, or SHOULD cost me anything?

We. You and me. And because we are gonna end up paying for it in way or another so why not go the cheapest route?

WE are not going to "end up" paying for anything. YOU are going to insist on it, and use government force to make me go along. Your leftist assholery on one subject is NOT an argument for me to cooperate with your leftist assholery on other subjects.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Says who? And which state? There are 50 of them....and their laws vary broadly.

They do it all the time, got a name and a web site too.
Safe Surrender Archives - Supervisor Don Knabe

Safe Surrender, yeah. But there's nothing about 'going after the father for child support'.

Why can mother safe surrender and get out of supporting the kid but still able to force the man to support the kid if he wants to safe surrender it?

For starters, how would that even work logically? In what scenario does a man have possession of a baby to Safe Surrender? MEN DON"T GIVE BIRTH.

Its also factually baseless. As the Safe Surrender laws don't have special rules for mothers and another for fathers. The law doesn't even mention 'mother' or 'father'. But parents, treating them equally.

Sly made all that up.

True. But as a practical matter, because men do not give birth, a man turning up with a baby to surrender is going to raise the logical question of "What happened to the mother?" Whereas it's all too common for a woman to have a baby without a father anywhere around.

 

[Skylar]

They do it all the time, got a name and a web site too.
Safe Surrender Archives - Supervisor Don Knabe

Safe Surrender, yeah. But there's nothing about 'going after the father for child support'.

Why can mother safe surrender and get out of supporting the kid but still able to force the man to support the kid if he wants to safe surrender it?

For starters, how would that even work logically? In what scenario does a man have possession of a baby to Safe Surrender? MEN DON"T GIVE BIRTH.

Its also factually baseless. As the Safe Surrender laws don't have special rules for mothers and another for fathers. The law doesn't even mention 'mother' or 'father'. But parents, treating them equally.

Sly made all that up.

True. But as a practical matter, because men do not give birth, a man turning up with a baby to surrender is going to raise the logical question of "What happened to the mother?" Whereas it's all too common for a woman to have a baby without a father anywhere around.

The Safe Surrender laws allow for someone other than the parents to drop the child off with the parents permission.

Though arguably it would be far, far more common for a mother to do so.

My point was merely that the laws make no distinction, treating both the same.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Despite the best wishes of dead beat dads- you don't get to avoid paying support for your offspring.

 

[Syriusly]

The bottom line is this:. Biology wins. We can complain and strain all day long that men and women are completely equal in every way, but biology wins. We can say that a woman who says she's a man can compete in male sports, but biology wins. We can say that a man who says he's a woman can use a bathroom with little girls, by biology wins.

No, it's not equal.

But in this case there is a biological out for the woman, and thus a legal out for her, but no legal out for the man.

Practicality would demand the man make his intentions known, say be week 10 or so, so the woman can decide to abort if the man wants nothing to do with the kid.

As soon as men can choose to spend 9 months pregnant instead of the woman, then the man can decide whether to end his own pregnancy.

 

[Crepitus]

And there we go. I appreciate the help proving my point.

What does party have to do with it? I'm against "free stuff" in general because someone has to pay for it.

Sorry, but if you can't spend $20 a month to not get pregnant, and it is that important to you, then methinks you have to re-shuffle your life priorities,

Cheaper for all of us in the long run if we just covered it.

Who is "we", and why do you assume someone else's child costs ME anything, or SHOULD cost me anything?

We. You and me. And because we are gonna end up paying for it in way or another so why not go the cheapest route?

WE are not going to "end up" paying for anything. YOU are going to insist on it, and use government force to make me go along. Your leftist assholery on one subject is NOT an argument for me to cooperate with your leftist assholery on other subjects.

Ah, ok. You know I'm right so you resort to insults like the rest of your kind.

You can fuck off now.

Enjoy!

 

[Faun]

Why not?

It is called "personal responsibility"

How can one responsibility for a decision that they had zero say in the matter?

Men have zero responsibility in getting a woman pregnant??

 

[Skylar]

Why not?

It is called "personal responsibility"

How can one responsibility for a decision that they had zero say in the matter?

Men have zero responsibility in getting a woman pregnant??

That's the argument. And the reason.....cuz they don't wanna.

 

[Faun]

Why not?

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

Why can't we say to a woman "be a woman and live up to your responsibility"?

That's what she did when she refused the abortion.

and that is her choice. why can't men have a choice as well?

If both are truly equal, why does one have an "out", and the other does not?

Because the comparison is not equal. Her choice terminates her pregnancy long before the baby is born. What you’re suggesting is that men opt out after the baby is born, when the child needs support. So not apples to apples.

 

[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.

 

[Vastator]

Why not?

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?

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...

 

[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.

 

[Vastator]

Why not?

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

Why can't we say to a woman "be a woman and live up to your responsibility"?

That's what she did when she refused the abortion.

and that is her choice. why can't men have a choice as well?

If both are truly equal, why does one have an "out", and the other does not?

Because the comparison is not equal. Her choice terminates her pregnancy long before the baby is born. What you’re suggesting is that men opt out after the baby is born, when the child needs support. So not apples to apples.

80% of divorce filings are initiated by women. Therefore it's the women who are opting out. Not the men.