Hypothetical Regarding Child Support

[NIX]

And?

Unless they are going to go their separate ways, child support is not even an issue.
If they are going to go their separate ways, then they are stuck with what the courts decide.

I detailed the scenario in post #33.

You can see that some people act like 'casual sex' is the crux of the problem. I'm simply pointing out that the married guy can find himself in the very same scenario. The wife goes back on their agreement in the case of an accidental pregnancy, he goes for a divorce and presents his case to the judge that it's not fair that he should have to pay any child support for this new baby.

Now I'm curious to know if you all see this differently.

Perhaps later when I have more time, I'll start a new thread.

 

[Alceste]

For all the people here who think that it is unfair, what is your solution?

Or should I join in the chorus of calling Bill a whiner?

My solution would be to accept the fact procreation itself is inherently unfair to both sexes, in every species I can think of. It's not fair that a woman can lie about birth control and make a man a father against his wishes, or that a man can lie about a vasectomy. It's not fair that a man can rape a woman. It's not fair that women and gay men are at higher risk of HIV than straight men. It's not fair that a man can deal with an unplanned pregnancy just by running away, but a woman has to make a really difficult choice.

Life's not fair. I do have an issue with the idea that seems so pervasive here that having to spend a portion of your money to feed your child is such a terrible inconvenience, given the total, life altering, inconvenience of actually caring for it. I think even if he has to pay child support, the burden on Bill is far lighter than the burden on the woman raising his child. To fail to appreciate that unfairness as well as the ones that put Bill out is immature. Hence calling it whining. "Mommy, it's not fair! Boo hoo! Poor me!"

On the other hand, almost all of the fathers I've met who are troubled by child support issues aren't bothered by paying it, they're bothered by lack of access to their child due to an adversarial relationship with the mother. The child support can easily start to feel like extortion when you've got to pay the mother or you don't get to see your kid. That's not in the child's best interest. I think it might work better if some public agency worked out a fair contribution from the father and an adequate subsidy for the mother. That agency could be responsible for collecting it and the mother would be paid regardless.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Look, I have all the sympathy in the world for people who are a victim of circumstance and bad luck.
But in this case there is a clear choice with clear potential consequences.
Maybe I'm harsh about these things, but when you make a conscious choice to do something, you should be prepared to deal with the possible outcomes that come with it.
Now, I'm not a father, and while I'm probably not as promiscuous as some, I have had my share of encounters where getting a girl I might not have considered spending my life with might get pregnant.
And there has never been a doubt in my mind that if that should happen I must be man enough to deal with that honestly and properly by taking responsibility.
Economically as well as emotionally.

If you're not prepared to do that then keep it in your pants.

 

[jazzymom]

Coulda-shoulda-woulda isn't a resolution to the scenario, though.

There is not resolution that will make both happy. There is a pregnancy, and since he may or may not be the father only a dna test will tell.

If he is the father he is responsible for support as is she.

If he didn't want to take the chance then he should have not had casual sex.

It is that simple.......

 

[jazzymom]

And as I pointed out before, the very same scenario can arise within a marriage.


I suppose for the married guy we can just take out the word casual.

'If he did not want to take the chance he should not have had sex'.

or add the word 'marital', in place of 'casual'.

'If he did not want to take the chance he should not have had marital sex'.

In the end it all amounts to the same thing. A change in an agreement that the man had no say in.

Birth control fails, and if men are absolutely sure in a marriage they don't want kids go get fixed.

That is 100% full proof.

Sorry but with sex and contraception there is risk, no contraceptive is 100% full proof.

I have little sympathy for men who whine, because they are perfectly happy for the woman to take on all the responsibility for contraception which in my book is not fair either.

Women take the pills and take on the risk for medical complications and put the hormones in their bodies so they won't get pregnant. Men may or may not use a condom.

None of the female contraceptives are without risk.

 

[Alceste]

Birth control fails, and if men are absolutely sure in a marriage they don't want kids go get fixed.

That is 100% full proof.

Sorry but with sex and contraception there is risk, no contraceptive is 100% full proof.

I have little sympathy for men who whine, because they are perfectly happy for the woman to take on all the responsibility for contraception which in my book is not fair either.

Women take the pills and take on the risk for medical complications and put the hormones in their bodies so they won't get pregnant. Men may or may not use a condom.

None of the female contraceptives are without risk.

Actually, vasectomy is not 100% effective. I've got a little second cousin to prove it!

 

[jazzymom]

Actually, vasectomy is not 100% effective. I've got a little second cousin to prove it!

I think there is a period after the operation that there is risk, and they say to use contraceptives.

In the procedure a small section of tube is removed and the ends tied so the risk happens when couples don't follow the guidelines in using contraceptives for a period of time following the procedure.

But in reading I did find that even in this procedure there is risk.

i think that the bottom line is that if men don't want to be fathers then don't have casual sex and if married then understand there is risk in sex.

My youngest was a surprise and happened with contraceptive use. Now my tubes are tied.

 

[McBell]

I detailed the scenario in post #33.

You can see that some people act like 'casual sex' is the crux of the problem. I'm simply pointing out that the married guy can find himself in the very same scenario. The wife goes back on their agreement in the case of an accidental pregnancy, he goes for a divorce and presents his case to the judge that it's not fair that he should have to pay any child support for this new baby.

Now I'm curious to know if you all see this differently.

Perhaps later when I have more time, I'll start a new thread.

How is it any different?
Other than his filing for divorce over it?

 

[Mathematician]

A lot of Puritan nonsense about sex = acceptance of pregnancy is being spouted by the more liberal members of the forum

My solution would be to accept the fact procreation itself is inherently unfair to both sexes, in every species I can think of. It's not fair that a woman can lie about birth control and make a man a father against his wishes, or that a man can lie about a vasectomy. It's not fair that a man can rape a woman. It's not fair that women and gay men are at higher risk of HIV than straight men. It's not fair that a man can deal with an unplanned pregnancy just by running away, but a woman has to make a really difficult choice.

The difference is the injustice being done in this scenario is carried out willfully by the state, not by outside environmental factors. If the government were to say that all those who identify as Jews should be taxed an additional amount, that's not fair, but you can't shrug your shoulders and compare it to the rate of HIV being more prevalent in homosexual demographics. There's a difference. It's just as inane as conservatives using the excuse "life isn't fair" to explain away economic exploitation.

Pursuing child support when both parties initially said they didn't want children is unethical because it's an example of state involvement. This is one of the few scenarios where people are trying to argue that an agreement can be breached after the fact.

 

[Mathematician]

If you're not prepared to do that then keep it in your pants.

If that is the verdict, abortion should not be legal unless rape is the culprit. Women should accept the consequences of their decision.

Being pro-choice and standing against forced child care on those who initially opposed having or financing a child is the only gender egalitarian solution.

 

[Mr. Skittles]

I like how some women use animals as a proxy for a legitimate argument. First off we are not like the creatures we see on the network "animal planet" no matter how much we like to compare ourselves. The point is unfair is unfair. Custody battles are always against men cause the courts like to generalize looking at statistics. The solution? Take it case by case. Look at the mother and father's history whether they have criminal backgrounds, where they work, how much thry make, where they live. Takes long but at least we can get a fair one. I am sick and tired of courts thinking simply cause a woman has a vagina she is Mary mother of Jesus.

 

[Mr. Skittles]

:bow:

The biggest problem with verbal agreements is that they almost always boil down to a "he said, she said" argument with neither side able to verify what was actually agreed upon.


I have to disagree.
I received full care, control, custody, and concern of my daughter from get go.

I commend you for giving men a good name for being a real man in my eyes but sorry as one who has been to one too many custody proceedings I firmly and wholeheartedly believe its against men.

 

[Mr. Skittles]

Hence, my argument that verbal agreements legally are bunk. He could take her to court and say she promised she'd get an abortion, and she could always say she didn't.

How would they prove her lying in court based on a single night of drinking and and a one night stand?



And I applaud you, sir. :clap

I'd like a show of hands of the men who believe Bill is being put in an unfair situation: Who has actually been in a situation where you have fathered a child unintentionally?

It's very easy to assume what Bill would do, say, think, when you have never been in that situation. And it's no fault of your own, guys......we've ALL been there assuming what we'd do when faced with an unplanned pregnancy.

Of course anyone who disagrees with me you agree

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Of course anyone who disagrees with me you agree

Oh, that's right. My arguments are always all about you. Thanks for reminding me why say what I say.

 

[McBell]

:bow:

I commend you for giving men a good name for being a real man in my eyes but sorry as one who has been to one too many custody proceedings I firmly and wholeheartedly believe its against men.

I flat out admit that many judges are of the mind that the woman gets the children and the men get child support payments.

I was merely pointing out that not all judges are that way and that I am a prime example of the man getting the child and the woman getting child support payments.

 

[McBell]

If that is the verdict, abortion should not be legal unless rape is the culprit. Women should accept the consequences of their decision.

Being pro-choice and standing against forced child care on those who initially opposed having or financing a child is the only gender egalitarian solution.

it is utterly amazing how many people stick to this big steaming pile of bull ****.

 

[Me Myself]

For all the people here who think that it is unfair, what is your solution?

Bill renounces parental rights and as such also renounces the duties, no longer needing to provide economically to the child.

If he wants parental rights and to not have the duties then he is being unreasonable.

 

[Me Myself]

A lot of Puritan nonsense about sex = acceptance of pregnancy is being spouted by the more liberal members of the forum



The difference is the injustice being done in this scenario is carried out willfully by the state, not by outside environmental factors. If the government were to say that all those who identify as Jews should be taxed an additional amount, that's not fair, but you can't shrug your shoulders and compare it to the rate of HIV being more prevalent in homosexual demographics. There's a difference. It's just as inane as conservatives using the excuse "life isn't fair" to explain away economic exploitation.

Pursuing child support when both parties initially said they didn't want children is unethical because it's an example of state involvement. This is one of the few scenarios where people are trying to argue that an agreement can be breached after the fact.

I am not trying to put any more rights on the women or the man:

If the woman wants to give birth to the child ( not abort it) but she does not want to raise it nor be the parent, she would be able to do so without anyone bothering her. If the father doesnt want that and he wants to still be able to see the baby he can acept the child and provide economically and also raise him if the woman decided she did not want to be a parent and HE DECIDED that he did want to be a parent.

If both decide they wont be the parent, they put it into adoption. If one (read, ANY) of them decides to renounce parental rights, they dont have to raise nor pay anything. If both do, then thats what adoption is for.

This is the most fair way of dealing with it.

 

[McBell]

This is the most fair way of dealing with it.

Until you introduce the plan into the real world...
Who takes care of the child while it is up for adoption?
Who ends up paying when one party decides to just up and leave and the party with the child has to get on welfare?

Yeah, it sounds fair until you stop and realize that the welfare system is already over taxed and your plan merely clears the way for people to multiply like rabbits with never having to own up to any responsibility for it.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

If that is the verdict, abortion should not be legal unless rape is the culprit. Women should accept the consequences of their decision.

Being pro-choice and standing against forced child care on those who initially opposed having or financing a child is the only gender egalitarian solution.

Look, I'm all for a man who honestly, truly, seriously does not want to be a father to work with the mother and the circuit court to relinquish his parental obligations, cut off all ties, and to allow himself to be free.

I've said that repeatedly over and over and over again.

But here's the thing.....you cannot compare a pregnancy with financial support of a living human being. You just CANNOT compare it. A pregnancy is all under the agency of a woman and her body. Once the child is born, and it has it's own identity as recognized by the state, it is immediately under the care unless otherwise noted of it's birth parents.

How about this.....a woman has so long to decide what to do with her body because of the viability of the fetus inside of her. A man should have so long to decide what to do because of the viability of the fetus inside of her too. If he really wants out, he needs to go through a process that is as lengthy and involved to what women go through in regards to getting either a medical or surgical abortion.

It's not as easy as some people would like to think. There's counselling, there's an establishment of pregnancy, there's blood testing for hemoglobin counts and STD testing.....After the birth of the child, there must legally be a way to prove that Bill IS the father first with DNA testing, at the very least, before extraditing himself through legal proceedings.

I certainly hope that the guys who are advocating him to be free from child support believe he should just get up and walk away. THAT'S being a deadbeat dad. Relinquishing parental rights, unless under extreme physical or mental duress, is a very serious matter, and nothing like terminating a pregnancy.