Hypothetical Regarding Child Support

[MysticSang'ha]

Simply put, the only one benefiting from his payments would be the mother in such a scenario.

Yeah, it is pretty straight forward unfair for the man, in an injustice generated by the legal system.

No. The child is benefitting from the support.

I was feeding the babies breastmilk exclusively as toddlers until we got $112 a month in support. They could finally start wearing shoes and eating real food.

Your comment about only the mother benefitting from support is grossly inaccurate. I dare you to say to my face that my kids didn't benefit from the support payments we received then.

 

[Mathematician]

If they put this agreement in writing, in consultation with an attorney to ensure that it met all the standards of a legal contract and violated no laws, and had two witnesses sign to verify the contract's authenticity, then yes, you have an excellent point. He should not later be forced to pay child support. Hopefully he had the foresight to include this child support clause in the contract, rather than relying entirely on his utterly irrational and foolish expectation that she would have no difficulty whatsoever deciding whether or not to have an abortion if she got pregnant, and would never, ever change her mind on the subject.

Realistically, though, he's probably been too busy telling her she's the most interesting and beautiful woman he's ever met and daydreaming out loud about taking her on holidays in hot countries to remember to put his post-coital expectations in writing, the fool.

You have a very poisoned image of men. A lot of men and women make hyperbolic statements while trying to woo a mate. "I'll rock your world" is just as frequently uttered by women as men.

She need not acquire an abortion. She can raise the child independently or give him/her up for adoption. The woman has numerous options. Seeking the one that they agreed to not pursue is just unethical.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

You have a very poisoned image of men. A lot of men and women make hyperbolic statements while trying to woo a mate. "I'll rock your world" is just as frequently uttered by women as men.

She need not acquire an abortion. She can raise the child independently or give him/her up for adoption. The woman has numerous options. Seeking the one that they agreed to not pursue is just unethical.

I disagree. I think Alceste has a realistic view of immature men. Not ALL men are immature. There are the majority of men who are willing and able that step up to the plate when a family member - either his child, his sibling, his parent, his grandparent - to offer assistance.

It is unethical to abandon a human being who is in need. That ethically takes precedence over whether a man wants to abdicate responsibility.

But then again, I wish not to speak for Alceste in her place. She can speak for herself.

 

[Me Myself]

That's right. Love is irrational. It doesn't make any sense. It makes no sense that people still want to have sex when they don't want to make a baby. It makes no sense that both of them will ultimately become more attached to the baby than they have ever been to anything else in their lives, when they didn't even think they wanted one before.

This has something to do with what we are talking about if the man does not relinquish his rights (probably because of love for the baby)

If not then it doesnt have anything to do with the situation.

As I said before, it makes every sense that the parent that is not raising him/her most do SOMETHING for the baby, like economical support.

It also should make sense that both decide individually whether or not they want to be the parents. If any doesnt want then s/he is off both duties and rights, if both dont want that = adoption.

 

[Me Myself]

No. The child is benefitting from the support.

I was feeding the babies breastmilk exclusively as toddlers until we got $112 a month in support. They could finally start wearing shoes and eating real food.

Your comment about only the mother benefitting from support is grossly inaccurate. I dare you to say to my face that my kids didn't benefit from the support payments we received then.

No need to, considering I was talking about the case HE put, not yours

If you pay attention you ll see my post was a response to the one directly above.

 

[Alceste]

This has something to do with what we are talking about if the man does not relinquish his rights (probably because of love for the baby)

If not then it doesnt have anything to do with the situation.

As I said before, it makes every sense that the parent that is not raising him/her most do SOMETHING for the baby, like economical support.

It also should make sense that both decide individually whether or not they want to be the parents. If any doesnt want then s/he is off both duties and rights, if both dont want that = adoption.

So if you had sex with a woman and nine months later she left a baby on your doorstep with a note saying "She's yours. Enjoy!" and you never saw her again, and your daughter never had a chance to know her mother, that would be fine with you?

 

[Me Myself]

So if tippy had sex with a woman and nine months later she left a baby on your doorstep with a note saying "She's yours. Enjoy!" and you never saw her again, and your daughter never had a chance to know her mother, that would be fine with you?

I am not sure I am following at all, what is "tippy" ? what do I have to do with "" tipy""'s and a "woman"'s sex life and baby?

I am not saying they should drop the baby on someones doorstep, I am saying they should put it for adoption if both don't want it (as I understand already happens) and if only one wants it s/he should be the one taking care of him/her (on all senses, including economically) .

If both want the baby then both share the "caring" however the agree, whether be the man or the woman wanting to raise the child and the other one with economical support and rightful parental visits.

 

[Alceste]

I am not sure I am following at all, what is "tippy" ? what do I have to do with "" tipy""'s and a "woman"'s sex life and baby?

I am not saying they should drop the baby on someones doorstep, I am saying they should put it for adoption if both don't want it (as I understand already happens) and if only one wants it s/he should be the one taking care of him/her (on all senses, including economically) .

If both want the baby then both share the "caring" however the agree, whether be the man or the woman wanting to raise the child and the other one with economical support and rightful parental visits.

Tippy is my phone auto-correcting "you". In this situation, the woman doesn't want the baby so she dumps it on the guys doorstep and skedaddles. He can still decide if he wants to put the child up for adoption. Is this scenario ok with you?

 

[Me Myself]

So if you had sex with a woman and nine months later she left a baby on your doorstep with a note saying "She's yours. Enjoy!" and you never saw her again, and your daughter never had a chance to know her mother, that would be fine with you?

Okay, now I full read it.

I would sue her *** for leaving MY baby on the freaking doorstep!

Now pretending she did it like a grown up woman and told me she wasn't going to be the mother and that I go pick up the baby then thats another scenario, and I would say she has full right to do that. Then if I care about the baby (In my case I would, I think most people should) I must see how to reorganize my life so that I can raise him and provide for him.

Now, I am talking on pure legal basis here, adding the moral to the legal I would say she should be morally compelled to phone me with time telling me she is going to have our kid and she wont take care of it. That way I have time to reorganize my stuff.

 

[Me Myself]

Tippy is my phone auto-correcting "you". In this situation, the woman doesn't want the baby so she dumps it on the guys doorstep and skedaddles. He can still decide if he wants to put the child up for adoption. Is this scenario ok with you?

Answered above, funny correction

 

[ChristineES]

Okay, now I full read it.

I would sue her *** for leaving MY baby on the freaking doorstep!

.

Now all we have to do is to get you to say that it would be YOUR baby even if she doesn't leave it on your doorstep.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

No need to, considering I was talking about the case HE put, not yours

If you pay attention you ll see my post was a response to the one directly above.

MM, your response was a blanket judgement on how child support is unjust if the father didn't want the baby.

My experience with my ex is very similar to what I heard from him, that he felt the support payments were "unfair", and that he shouldn't pay...and he didn't for years.

So yes, in a way, you ARE directing your sentiments in my direction. You can roll your eyes all you want. Doesn't change the fact that your opinion on support payments are grossly inaccurate.

 

[Me Myself]

MM, your response was a blanket judgement on how child support is unjust if the father didn't want the baby.

The one you specifically quoted wasnt.

My experience with my ex is very similar to what I heard from him, that he felt the support payments were "unfair", and that he shouldn't pay...and he didn't for years.

So yes, in a way, you ARE directing your sentiments in my direction. You can roll your eyes all you want. Doesn't change the fact that your opinion on support payments are grossly inaccurate.

I find your case very different because both wanted the children initially and furthermore I understand you were married when you had them?

I would say your ex definitely has to pay, but there is no reason to use the same legalities for this case than for the other one when different clauses and cases can be postulated in the law.

So I am just not arguing kids happening within a marriage that were wanted to which one of the parents doesn't want anything to do with after the divorce.

 

[Me Myself]

Now all we have to do is to get you to say that it would be YOUR baby even if she doesn't leave it on your doorstep.

Oh no, you dont have to really, I am arguing what should be my (and everyones) rights not if I want to enforce them.

I would never abandon any child of mine, I am simply arguing that in a society were the woman can, the man should be able to do so too. Then that if both can do it at the same time, then they should be able to do it individually too.

 

[Deut 13:1]

Rather than focus on what if, we should focus on what is. Bob has a child, he knew the risks involved and chose to indulge. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

 

[Alex_G]

If they put this agreement in writing, in consultation with an attorney to ensure that it met all the standards of a legal contract and violated no laws, and had two witnesses sign to verify the contract's authenticity, then yes, you have an excellent point. He should not later be forced to pay child support. Hopefully he had the foresight to include this child support clause in the contract, rather than relying entirely on his utterly irrational and foolish expectation that she would have no difficulty whatsoever deciding whether or not to have an abortion if she got pregnant, and would never, ever change her mind on the subject.

Realistically, though, he's probably been too busy telling her she's the most interesting and beautiful woman he's ever met and daydreaming out loud about taking her on holidays in hot countries to remember to put his post-coital expectations in writing, the fool.

The written contract is no more a contract than an oral or even an implied one, its just easier to prove. But given my scenario is delineating the events that you can take as being true, it changes not the rightness of the claim/grievance being demonstrated. Again, to be in writing doesn’t make it more 'right' a claim, just one thats easier to prove as it were. So i think my point still stands even though of course i agree that had they done what you suggest, it would be much more helpful in practical terms to see a just resolution achieved.

Im not even going to comment on that last paragraph however, i think its quite clear why..

 

[Me Myself]

Im not even going to comment on that last paragraph however, i think its quite clear why..

Obvious misandry is obvious

 

[Alceste]

The written contract is no more a contract than an oral or even an implied one, its just easier to prove. But given my scenario is delineating the events that you can take as being true, it changes not the rightness of the claim/grievance being demonstrated. Again, to be in writing doesn’t make it more 'right' a claim, just one thats easier to prove as it were. So i think my point still stands even though of course i agree that had they done what you suggest, it would be much more helpful in practical terms to see a just resolution achieved.

Im not even going to comment on that last paragraph however, i think its quite clear why..

It isn't actually clear to me why you won't address the question of false and misleading statements made by the man in an effort to get laid. Are they any different from false statements made by a woman?

Having a contract in writing does have superior standing for all kinds of reasons. In particular, a contract reviewed by a lawyer is more likely to comply with any relevant statutes. He could, for example, advise the man that he has no legal right to compel the woman to make specific personal choices about her own health in order to make his life less complicated, and ensure that a child support clause is included in the contract.

 

[Me Myself]

It isn't actually clear to me why you won't address the question of false and misleading statements made by the man in an effort to get laid. Are they any different from false statements made by a woman?

Because we have not established that Harry made any false or misleading statements?

I think you can already sue for emotional damages and stuff, so technically I would think women could sue a guy lying in such a way. I wouldn't even mind if the court took it seriously enough to make the man pay, I see people lying for sex as to be being pathetic, especially if they don't care to hurt the woman emotionally just to have some ephemeral pleasure.

But that is still just another scenario for another thread to be discussed.

 

[Alex_G]

This is the first unnecessary bias that I would object to in the story. Such an "aversion" is not inherently represented by the use of, or agreement to use, contraceptives to avoid pregnancy (and may even be misconstrued as a "promise" of sorts).

I see where your coming from, and i can see how in other cases it could become difficult to judge, but in this example its the mutual agreement and use of contraception, plus the verbal statement of aversion, with the qualification that she 'would do anything to avoid having kids.'

This all together seems enough to support a defence that the conclusions the male arrived at were pretty reasonable.

Of course if even in such a blatant example as my one specifically constructed to demonstrate him as reasonable, his belief and reliance on this is still 'not good enough' yet his participation in said interaction is however unquestionably clear enough to constitute valid consent to be on board with parenthood, enough so to justify it be enforced, strikes me as quite an unfortunate state of affairs. To not see some degree of unfairness in such seems hard to imagine.