Men should NOT have to pay child support in a state that legalizes abortion

Mina said:
Men had a say at least at two stages: (1) whether to have sex, and (2) whether to use contraception. Women have it at three stages, with the additional option to have an abortion. Perhaps a fair way to handle it is that the man gets asked what he wants. If he wants her to have an abortion and she does, he pays for half of that. If he wants her not to have an abortion and she does have one, he doesn't pay anything. If he wants her not to have an abortion and she doesn't, he pays for half the child's support. And if he wants her to have an abortion and she doesn't, he pays for 2/5 the child's support (since he had two stages at which to prevent the creation of that child, and the woman had 3).
Click to expand...

In standard contract law, this would be an agreement between two parties. At all stages, both have a say. So, if she gets pregnant, both have to decide how to proceed.

If she wants the child and he doesn't, she's responsible and he has no further say.
If he wants the child and she doesn't, she carries it to term, he pays for that after which she has no further say.
If they both want the child, then they share the expenses of raising it.
If neither want the child, then they pay half each for an abortion.

The man gets equal say in that equation from conception to age of majority. Anything else is patently unfair and unequal.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
In standard contract law, this would be an agreement between two parties. At all stages, both have a say. So, if she gets pregnant, both have to decide how to proceed.

If she wants the child and he doesn't, she's responsible and he has no further say.
If he wants the child and she doesn't, she carries it to term, he pays for that after which she has no further say.
If they both want the child, then they share the expenses of raising it.
If neither want the child, then they pay half each for an abortion.

The man gets equal say in that equation from conception to age of majority. Anything else is patently unfair and unequal.
Click to expand...

Yup - that would be a fair way of handling abortion. The present way is extremely unfair to men. NO SAY NO PAY.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
Women insist the choice to abort should be entirely their's but if they choose life for the kid, then the man has to pay child support for 18 years. Even though he had no say.

NO SAY NO PAY
Click to expand...

lookism-bill-barr.gif
 
Mina said:
Men had a say at least at two stages: (1) whether to have sex, and (2) whether to use contraception. Women have it at three stages, with the additional option to have an abortion. Perhaps a fair way to handle it is that the man gets asked what he wants. If he wants her to have an abortion and she does, he pays for half of that. If he wants her not to have an abortion and she does have one, he doesn't pay anything. If he wants her not to have an abortion and she doesn't, he pays for half the child's support. And if he wants her to have an abortion and she doesn't, he pays for 2/5 the child's support (since he had two stages at which to prevent the creation of that child, and the woman had 3).
Click to expand...

So you think killing the child is another form of birth control? You have issues...
 
RB 60 said:
So you think killing the child is another form of birth control? You have issues...
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about killing a child. I referred to abortion, which involves killing a fetus. You are, of course, welcome to argue that fetal lives are sacred -- just as a Hindu might argue the lives of cows are sacred, or a Jain could argue that every animal's life is sacred, and that killing any of them is a grave sin. But such religious notions can be discussed without hijacking the language and calling those things children. And yes, of course abortion is a form of birth control.
 
Mina said:
I didn't say anything about killing a child. I referred to abortion, which involves killing a fetus. You are, of course, welcome to argue that fetal lives are sacred -- just as a Hindu might argue the lives of cows are sacred, or a Jain could argue that every animal's life is sacred, and that killing any of them is a grave sin. But such religious notions can be discussed without hijacking the language and calling those things children. And yes, of course abortion is a form of birth control.
Click to expand...

The birth control part is the part I oppose. It lessens the personal responsibility of what should be common sense. Abortion is not birth control, and should never be used as such.
 
RB 60 said:
The birth control part is the part I oppose. It lessens the personal responsibility of what should be common sense. Abortion is not birth control, and should never be used as such.
Click to expand...

As a simple matter of fact, abortion is birth control and is always used as such. The whole point of an abortion is to terminate a pregnancy before you get to the birth. But if your point is that it's better to stop the process earlier, by way of contraception, I agree.

I guess an analogy would be to having a cancerous skin growth removed. Obviously, it would be better if, instead, you avoided ever getting it in the first place by wearing sunscreen when you go out. But if that ship has sailed, getting it removed is still a way to prevent metastasis. Or, if you prefer, it's like liposuction, gastric bypass surgery, or weight-loss drugs, to deal excess weight that would better have been prevented from happening in the first place by way of healthy diet and regular exercise. Or statins and insulin to deal with high blood pressure and high blood sugar, respectively, when each likely could have been prevented entirely by smarter decisions earlier in the process of developing those diseases.

In that context, we can think of the anti-abortion crowd as analogous to if there were a religion that said that providing those kinds of late medical interventions for obesity, melanoma, hypertension, and diabetes just lessens personal responsibility, and so those people should be forced to suffer the consequences of their choices.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
Better to just end all child support from men unless the couple are married and living together.

One of the biggest problems with child support is there is no oversight of the mother and so she just spends the money on herself.
Click to expand...

that does happen of course but in my experience what happens far more often is the biological father just doesn't pay up because he feels (and all too often rightly so) he has zero role in the family relationship.

its a lousy situation as its always the kid who suffers due to the adult's inability to control their hedonism.
 
Every pregnancy not licensed by proper government authorities should be aborted by declaration of statute at tax payer expense.

The greater percentage of this nation's problems may be traced to just anybody being allowed to procreate.

A one-time Procreation License should be granted only to those screened for being genetically qualified.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
Women insist the choice to abort should be entirely their's but if they choose life for the kid, then the man has to pay child support for 18 years. Even though he had no say.

NO SAY NO PAY
Click to expand...

Trust me on this- If the shoe was on the other foot, and men were facing having to carry a pregnancy all the way up until the baby squirts out of his penis- ABORTIONS WOULD BECOME MANDATORY IN EVERY STATE- AND HUMANS WOULD SOON BECOME EXTINCT!

kramer-seinfeld.gif


DID I WIN THE INTERNET TODAY?
 
Last edited:
NiftyNiblick said:
Every pregnancy not licensed by proper government authorities should be aborted by declaration of statute at tax payer expense.

The greater percentage of this nation's problems may be traced to just anybody being allowed to procreate.

A one-time Procreation License should be granted only to those screened for being genetically qualified.
Click to expand...

Are you a Chinese government official, because you sound like it...
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Are you a Chinese government official, because you sound like it...
Click to expand...

Being perfectly frank, Mr. Gardner,
the population problem was something that the PRC addressed responsibly and well,
and they're making a big mistake liberalizing their policies now.

I'm not a Chinese official, but I am a moral citizen who believes in social responsibility, a concept that American Libertarians loathe.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Being perfectly frank, Mr. Gardner,
the population problem was something that the PRC addressed responsibly and well,
and they're making a big mistake liberalizing their policies now.

I'm not a Chinese official, but I am a moral citizen who believes in social responsibility, a concept that American Libertarians loathe.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Chinese one-child policy was a disaster in virtually every way except reducing population growth slightly. It created a generation of spoiled children. It gave China a serious over population of males and hurt females dramatically due to a preference for parents wanting a male heir. It created an aging workforce. There are an estimated 13 million children born under this policy that couldn't be registered with the state leaving them now nonentities within their own country. It was applied unequally by race within China too.

All around, it was bad policy and China ended it in 2016 because of that.

https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-...ild-policy-what-was-it-and-what-impact-did-it
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/10-little-known-facts-about-china-s-one-child-policy.html

A government can legislate morality but they always find it nearly impossible to impose it on the public.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Actually, the Chinese one-child policy was a disaster in virtually every way except reducing population growth slightly. It created a generation of spoiled children. It gave China a serious over population of males and hurt females dramatically due to a preference for parents wanting a male heir. It created an aging workforce. There are an estimated 13 million children born under this policy that couldn't be registered with the state leaving them now nonentities within their own country. It was applied unequally by race within China too.

All around, it was bad policy and China ended it in 2016 because of that.





https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-...ild-policy-what-was-it-and-what-impact-did-it
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/10-little-known-facts-about-china-s-one-child-policy.html

A government can legislate morality but they always find it nearly impossible to impose it on the public.
Click to expand...

I'm saying that it would probably work well for us. The cretinous troglodytes that procreate in Red State America have devolved into sub-human mutants.

If they haven't behaved too badly, we can let them live out their lives, but at the very least, they should be sterilized.
I don't say neuter them. Let them fuck for recreation. But they can't be breeding. They're totally destroying the country.

We can look at few miscreants up here, too, truth be told.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top