I Think If A Man Never Agreed To Have A Baby With A Woman He Shouldn't Have To Pay Child Support

[mindless1]

except you had your say when you pick your penis in a vagina. You had a choice, you made it.

personal responsibility, get some.

That's not reasonable at all. How about the responsibility of the female, who also chose to have sex, but apparently with a male who did not demonstrate financial ability, the desire to be, or at least after the fact, the mental acceptance, of being a father?

A female can take steps to prevent pregnancy, before, during, day after, and possibly later depending on how the Roe vs Wade situation pans out in the next several months.

If the male did not want to become a father, I can't agree with requiring him to pay support. The female should not have the only say in whether she has a baby, if someone else has to pay for it.

150 years ago yes, but not so much for the past few decades where there were alternatives and ample education of how babies are made. If a woman is against having an abortion No Matter What, she should not entrap men who didn't make a long term commitment to be a father.

There are two scenarios: Sex where both want to be parents. Both should provide support. Sex where one or the other doesn't want to be a parent, then that party should not have to provide support or if the female, should not be forced to get pregnant (denied contraceptive options) or continue to be pregnant instead of allowed to have an abortion. How far into the pregnancy an abortion should be allowed, is the gray area in my mind.

Someone previously used a car wreck analogy and I have one too. Suppose you go out driving in your car and someone wrecks into you. Are you automatically at fault and liable because you didn't keep your car keys in your pants and not drive? OR is it the fault of the person who made the bad decision, who could have prevented the wreck? It applies even more so to unprotected sex because the day after pill is like a Time Machine to stop pregnancy, while there is no do-over with the car wreck.

 

[mindless1]

What’s weird is the seeming lack of realization that the child support is for the child, not the mother. You made a kid, you help support it.

I am not disagreeing with this, except making a kid is a choice that the male may not have wanted.

I don't feel a pregnancy should continue if the male isn't willing to be a father and support the child, so don't agree with the idea that we can leap-frog to the point where there's this child standing there needing support, if the male didn't want to create a child in the first place.

In that case, the child support really is for the mother, as she was the one who decided to bring a child into this world, a child of a man who doesn't want to be a father, and shouldn't become a parent if she can't provide all monetary support herself. This is because you can't assume the male will pay, could vanish into the wind or just ignore or be unable to make court mandated payment, when there was the obvious, other alternative not to have children.

The fact is, the majority of sex is for the enjoyment in it, not an intention to create babies. In law there is a concept of mitigating damages. It is not mitigating damages for a female to have child of a male who is unwilling or unable to provide support. It just became some odd exclusion regarding support, tangled up in religious and other subjective beliefs about right to life and right to control one's own body. It shouldn't be excluded.

 

[cytg111]

I have medical insurance, home insurance, employee insurance, car insurance, business insurance, pet insurance, liability insurance. I think I've cracked the code on how insurances company's make money. OFF OF ME!

Indeed lol ... Insurance companies will refuse to insure you if your risk is too great or set the premium so damn high you might as well just not.
I am saying no-one is gonna insure an 18 year old against knocking some chick up and be down for 18 years of child support. No company ever.

 

[Pohemi]

Someone previously used a car wreck analogy and I have one too. Suppose you go out driving in your car and someone wrecks into you. Are you automatically at fault and liable because you didn't keep your car keys in your pants and not drive? OR is it the fault of the person who made the bad decision, who could have prevented the wreck? It applies even more so to unprotected sex because the day after pill is like a Time Machine to stop pregnancy, while there is no do-over with the car wreck.

Actually, if you get broadsided by another vehicle, you ARE considered at bare minimum, 10% at fault just for being in the place at the time. (at least that's the law here, it may vary in other states but idk)

 

[fskimospy]

I am not disagreeing with this, except making a kid is a choice that the male may not have wanted.

I don't feel a pregnancy should continue if the male isn't willing to be a father and support the child, so don't agree with the idea that we can leap-frog to the point where there's this child standing there needing support, if the male didn't want to create a child in the first place.

In that case, the child support really is for the mother, as she was the one who decided to bring a child into this world, a child of a man who doesn't want to be a father, and shouldn't become a parent if she can't provide all monetary support herself. This is because you can't assume the male will pay, could vanish into the wind or just ignore or be unable to make court mandated payment, when there was the obvious, other alternative not to have children.

The fact is, the majority of sex is for the enjoyment in it, not an intention to create babies. In law there is a concept of mitigating damages. It is not mitigating damages for a female to have child of a male who is unwilling or unable to provide support. It just became some odd exclusion regarding support, tangled up in religious and other subjective beliefs about right to life and right to control one's own body. It shouldn't be excluded.

It would seem the exclusion would be someone undertaking an act with predictable consequences and then somehow getting out of those consequences by saying they don’t feel like it.

And again, the child support payments are for the child, not the mom, so there’s no mitigation of ‘damages’ to be had here.

 

[cytg111]

The fact is, the majority of sex is for the enjoyment in it, not an intention to create babies. In law there is a concept of mitigating damages. It is not mitigating damages for a female to have child of a male who is unwilling or unable to provide support. It just became some odd exclusion regarding support, tangled up in religious and other subjective beliefs about right to life and right to control one's own body. It shouldn't be excluded.

I hope you're voting dem up and down come Roevember.

 

[fskimospy]

Seems fair enough to me. But the issue appears to be one of choice. Man and woman have a fun night, suffer a structural failure of properly utilized safety equipment, child is produced from the catastrophic failure. Woman then has total control of the outcome and places unforeseen finical responsibility on the male. Where is his choice? Why does the male assume a minimum of eighteen years of payments for an accident?
Seems to me that what's needed here is insurance, not forced compliance with a decision that the male doesn't agree with.

Unforeseen? Seems like what is needed to me is sex ed. If you’re a man who doesn’t want to have kids you can make sure you wear a condom and only have sex with women you are certain are also using birth control. This will take your risk down to essentially zero. The choice is there and it’s easy to make. The only one on the hook for your lack of responsibility is you.

The man isn’t assuming eighteen years of payment, both parents are. This is not a burden on the man, it’s one shared equally by both parents. I guess this message board really shows how overwhelmingly male it is sometimes where people are viewing the birth of a child as a burden on the man instead of a collective responsibility.

 

[fskimospy]

That's not reasonable at all. How about the responsibility of the female, who also chose to have sex, but apparently with a male who did not demonstrate financial ability, the desire to be, or at least after the fact, the mental acceptance, of being a father?

As mentioned the beauty of the current system is at all times both parents share EXACTLY the same level of responsibility. It’s simple fairness.

Someone previously used a car wreck analogy and I have one too. Suppose you go out driving in your car and someone wrecks into you. Are you automatically at fault and liable because you didn't keep your car keys in your pants and not drive? OR is it the fault of the person who made the bad decision, who could have prevented the wreck? It applies even more so to unprotected sex because the day after pill is like a Time Machine to stop pregnancy, while there is no do-over with the car wreck.

So in sexual terms this means you’re walking around town randomly ejaculating and a woman, unbeknownst to you, runs in front of your semen against your will and is impregnated by it.

This is ridiculous. You didn’t have some woman randomly run into you and impregnate herself, you chose to engage in an act with entirely predictable consequences.

 

[brycejones]

I am not disagreeing with this, except making a kid is a choice that the male may not have wanted.

I don't feel a pregnancy should continue if the male isn't willing to be a father and support the child, so don't agree with the idea that we can leap-frog to the point where there's this child standing there needing support, if the male didn't want to create a child in the first place.

In that case, the child support really is for the mother, as she was the one who decided to bring a child into this world, a child of a man who doesn't want to be a father, and shouldn't become a parent if she can't provide all monetary support herself. This is because you can't assume the male will pay, could vanish into the wind or just ignore or be unable to make court mandated payment, when there was the obvious, other alternative not to have children.

The fact is, the majority of sex is for the enjoyment in it, not an intention to create babies. In law there is a concept of mitigating damages. It is not mitigating damages for a female to have child of a male who is unwilling or unable to provide support. It just became some odd exclusion regarding support, tangled up in religious and other subjective beliefs about right to life and right to control one's own body. It shouldn't be excluded.

Don’t want the risk of making a kid don’t put your dick in a vagina. Pregnancy is a foreseeable and assumed risk every time you take that action.

 

[mindless1]

It would seem the exclusion would be someone undertaking an act with predictable consequences and then somehow getting out of those consequences by saying they don’t feel like it.

And again, the child support payments are for the child, not the mom, so there’s no mitigation of ‘damages’ to be had here.

No they really are for the mother, if the mother chooses to have a child that the father does not want, then she is incurring a financial burden that she is having to pay, if not assisted by someone else.

To say it's "for the child" is like saying I choose to buy a car and someone else should give me $800 for tires because it's not for me, it's for the car.

 

[fskimospy]

No they really are for the mother, if the mother chooses to have a child that the father does not want, then she is incurring a financial burden that she is having to pay, if not assisted by someone else.

To say it's "for the child" is like saying I choose to buy a car and someone else should give me $800 for tires because it's not for me, it's for the car.

No, it’s for the child because the receipt of money is entirely dependent on custody of the child, men are equally entitled to it, and with that money carries a responsibility to care for the child that can land you in prison if you neglect it.

Also your car analogy is insane. The car is your property. A child is not your property. Secondly, if somehow a child WAS property if you had joint ownership of a piece of property it is often the responsibility of both owners to maintain it.

 

[cytg111]

I am really struggling with my wokeness level here, cant say someone is retracted even though something is really really retarded.
Someone. Something. Its a loophole. You know I am right!

 

[mindless1]

As mentioned the beauty of the current system is at all times both parents share EXACTLY the same level of responsibility. It’s simple fairness.

It's not at all fair if a woman can decide to have a child that the male does not want.

So in sexual terms this means you’re walking around town randomly ejaculating and a woman, unbeknownst to you, runs in front of your semen against your will and is impregnated by it.

Not at all, plenty of times, I and millions of other people have had sex without wanting a child to result from it. This is simple fact, that MOST of the times people have sex, they were not trying to create a child.

This is ridiculous. You didn’t have some woman randomly run into you and impregnate herself, you chose to engage in an act with entirely predictable consequences.

No, most of the time people have sex, the female does not get pregnant. The predictable consequence is not getting pregnant when responsible precautions are taken, with an unwanted pregnancy being the less common, exception by far... because we don't live in the stone ages.

It's like you can't see the forest for the trees. It is undeniably true that the vast majority of males do not want or expect to become a father, every time they have sex, and with modern women, the same is also true.

It's not ridiculous at all to want to have a good, frequent sex life, without an entourage of dozens of children. What is ridiculous, is for a woman to have a child with a man who does not want to be a father, to incur that burden and liablity and in fact, damages to the male if he does not want children.

An argument could be made that to play it extra safe, all women should never have sex with a male who isn't willing to being a father 9 months from now, but this places the burden back where it belongs, that it's a two sided agreement and if both sides don't agree, the one creating the burden should be the one who bears it. Getting fertilized during sex is not having a baby. Having a baby is following a course after that point, just as getting in a car is not having a wreck, jumping in a pool is not drowning, etc.

 

[mindless1]

No, it’s for the child because the receipt of money is entirely dependent on custody of the child, men are equally entitled to it, and with that money carries a responsibility to care for the child that can land you in prison if you neglect it.

It's still not really for the child. Is it paid to offset the expenses of the child? Sure, but those are the expenses of the parent, so it's really for the parent who is obligated to provide for the child even if there is no assistance or a child support payment is not made. If the father gets put in jail for not paying, can the mother use that as an excuse not to feed or clothe the child? Of course not, it is for the parent, not the child.

Also your car analogy is insane. The car is your property. A child is not your property. Secondly, if somehow a child WAS property if you had joint ownership of a piece of property it is often the responsibility of both owners to maintain it.

Property versus child is the same difference. You have the possession of the child and control over it. You chose (or didn't) to incur this burden. Many people do joke, that their car, or boat, or whatever, is their baby.

Ownership is a choice, it wouldn't be similar to joint ownership for a male who didn't want a child. It would be more like I buy a car and declare you are jointly obligated to buy my tires, even though you want nothing to do with me or the car, even if my tires blew out because we where both drag racing each other when I hit a pothole. Your participation does not make you liable when I could have mitigated if not eliminated damages by making different choices. The same is true for a female who has a baby with an unwilling father.

 

[fskimospy]

It's still not really for the child. Is it paid to offset the expenses of the child? Sure, but those are the expenses of the parent, so it's really for the parent who is obligated to provide for the child even if there is no assistance or a child support payment is not made. If the father gets put in jail for not paying, can the mother use that as an excuse not to feed or clothe the child? Of course not, it is for the parent, not the child.

If you jointly take out a loan and your partner decides not to pay their half can you use that as an excuse not to pay the full amount? No. Doesn’t change their obligation.

Regardless it’s unarguable that it’s for the child. You only get it while you have custody of the child and the payments follow the child wherever that kid goes. This is common sense.

Property versus child is the same difference. You have the possession of the child and control over it. You chose (or didn't) to incur this burden. Many people do joke, that their car, or boat, or whatever, is their baby.

Ownership is a choice, it wouldn't be similar to joint ownership for a male who didn't want a child. It would be more like I buy a car and declare you are joint owner and will buy my tires, even though you want nothing to do with me or the car, even if my tires blew out because we where both drag racing each other when I hit a pothole.

Your analogy is if you buy a car together and then you decide you don’t want it you should just be able to walk away.

Nope! You made a choice, you bear the burden of that choice.

 

[mindless1]

Nope! You made a choice, you bear the burden of that choice.

Not At All. It is not the middle ages. Choosing to have sex is not choosing to have a baby.

This is fact. This is a fact that is reflected by millions of people having sex, today, tomorrow, and next tuesday.

The choice is whether to have a baby with an unwilling father, NOT whether someone has sex.

Think about it. That would be like suggesting that eating is a choice to have a heart attack, rather than making better choices about eating. Same is true about making better choices about who to have a baby with instead of trying to hold a male hostage to pay for something he does not want.

Personally, I am in support of marriage, sex, family, the whole american dream, but even within that dream, you don't want another child to pop out, every time you have sex, LOL!!

 

[Greenman]

Unforeseen? Seems like what is needed to me is sex ed. If you’re a man who doesn’t want to have kids you can make sure you wear a condom and only have sex with women you are certain are also using birth control. This will take your risk down to essentially zero. The choice is there and it’s easy to make. The only one on the hook for your lack of responsibility is you.

The man isn’t assuming eighteen years of payment, both parents are. This is not a burden on the man, it’s one shared equally by both parents. I guess this message board really shows how overwhelmingly male it is sometimes where people are viewing the birth of a child as a burden on the man instead of a collective responsibility.

It's absolutely a burden on both parents, but in some cases it's only voluntary for one of them.

 

[mindless1]

If you jointly take out a loan and your partner decides not to pay their half can you use that as an excuse not to pay the full amount? No. Doesn’t change their obligation.

If one of the two having sex doesn't want a child to result, it is not jointly taking out a loan, rather it is one person taking out a loan then claiming they had to because of something someone else did, a run-around the facts and in the case of pregnancy, the facts are that there are ways to not get pregnant, to end it the day after, and even to end it after that.

Regardless it’s unarguable that it’s for the child. You only get it while you have custody of the child and the payments follow the child wherever that kid goes. This is common sense.

It is unarguable that it's for the custodian of that child, since the payment is made to that person, and they are the one with the OBLIGATION to provide support. That it benefits the child is the "intended" result, but the fact is, courts do not track every cent spent to ensure this.

Your analogy is if you buy a car together and then you decide you don’t want it you should just be able to walk away.

No. Test driving a car is not an obligation to buy it. I test drive, decide I don't want to buy, then I walk away. This is not being male chauvinistic either, women do the same whether it be sex or other personal traits, whatever. On the other hand, it is the exact opposite, that if I joint buy a car and want to walk away, and we sell it, then I am due money from the sale, or if the other party wants sole ownership, then I am either due money or they take over all the payments if still paying on a loan (refinance), if not both.

It would be more like I test drive a car, and the salesperson decides I am going to buy it, when I don't want it and never stated I did, then sues me in court trying to extract money for something I do not want.

Nope! You made a choice, you bear the burden of that choice.

Nope! Having sex is not making the choice to have a child. Millions of people have sex every day, without choosing or wanting it to result in a child. The choice is whether to become and remain pregnant. That is where the burden lies.

 

[MrSquished]

Yeah, this is something I'm not sure about. Either way. I don't see it as black and white at all.

There's certainly an argument to be made that men are generally disadvantaged when it comes to reproductive rights and responsibilities. You could attack it at either, or both ends to try to make the situation more equitable, it doesn't necessarily need to be all about removing responsibility. However, improving rights could be difficult to the extent that any difference in rights is more due to bias in family court than actual written law.

So let's talk about the concept of a "legal abortion," one where the father has no responsibilities but forfeits any and all parental rights.

Obviously, in any context where there is not access to abortion, then giving the father a choice of a "legal abortion" would be extremely unfair to the mother. You end with the reverse of the ostensible problem.

Is the inverse true when there is plentiful access to abortion? Is it unfair women get to chose while men don't? Maybe. But it's certainly not an equivalent situation. A man who might choose a "legal abortion" doesn't need to worry about the moral implications of taking a potential human life. Depending on personal belief, that can take a giant emotional toll. And outside personal belief, the mother may be in a social situation where she becomes a defacto pariah if it is discovered that she has an abortion. Depending on how far along the pregnancy is, there may be physical and medical issues too. The father doesn't need to deal with any of these costs.

You would think that, if men do ever gain the right to have a "legal abortion" they should still owe the woman some amount of compensation. You can give both sexes a choice, but it certainly isn't an equal choice. The issue that narrowing down what might count as just compensation is very difficult. For a religious woman in a religious family who feels like she doesn't have a choice, that cost is enormous. Involving the courts to arrive at a value would intrude on the privacy of both parties.

Hopefully we're all in agreement here that if the father does not help support the child then the state should step in and do so. The state after all has an interest in the child growing up properly. This has the upside of removing extremes (eg. the rich father pays much more than is needed to raise the child while the poor deadbeat father pays not enough). It sounds good, but the big question is: What would be the cost to the state? At the end of the day, we need to be pragmatic. If the cost ends up right next to health care and military expenditures, then it would be best avoided.

But assuming the cost is manageable, here's an idea:

• Allow "legal abortions" for fathers. This can only be executed before the child is born.
  • And maybe also as an alternative, in extreme cases, to incarcerating child support debtors when they are unable to make payments. Is this a thing in the US? It is in Canada.
• When a child is "legally aborted" the father loses all parental rights. Instead of the father, the state provides child support.
• Because the father has burdened the state, and because the father's choice to "abort" is not as costly as the mother's, the state increases the father's income tax rate by some amount for some period of time. Perhaps 18 years. Or perhaps permanently.

I predict the consequences of a scheme like this would generally help poor mothers and fathers. It would really help rich fathers, and really hurt gold diggers. Sounds like a good trade, but it would also increase everyone's tax burden by some amount.

The extent to which it's equitable certainly depends on how severe the penalty is for fathers who abort. Since the intangible cost of an abortion varies so much to mothers, it will never be perfect. But at a thousand yards it does look somewhat equitable in the sense that it adds a cost to a father's "legal abortion" in order to counterbalance the additional costs the mother must bear with a physical abortion.

You lost me in the beginning when you said men are at a disadvantage, when men are the ones that control women's bodies.

 

[fskimospy]

If one of the two having sex doesn't want a child to result, it is not jointly taking out a loan, rather it is one person taking out a loan then claiming they had to because of something someone else did, a run-around the facts and in the case of pregnancy, the facts are that there are ways to not get pregnant, to end it the day after, and even to end it after that.



It is unarguable that it's for the custodian of that child, since the payment is made to that person, and they are the one with the OBLIGATION to provide support. That it benefits the child is the "intended" result, but the fact is, courts do not track every cent spent to ensure this.



No. Test driving a car is not an obligation to buy it. I test drive, decide I don't want to buy, then I walk away. This is not being male chauvinistic either, women do the same whether it be sex or other personal traits, whatever. On the other hand, it is the exact opposite, that if I joint buy a car and want to walk away, and we sell it, then I am due money from the sale, or if the other party wants sole ownership, then I am either due money or they take over all the payments if still paying on a loan (refinance), if not both.

It would be more like I test drive a car, and the salesperson decides I am going to buy it, when I don't want it and never stated I did, then sues me in court trying to extract money for something I do not want.



Nope! Having sex is not making the choice to have a child. Millions of people have sex every day, without choosing or wanting it to result in a child. The choice is whether to become and remain pregnant. That is where the burden lies.

This is some incredibly deranged shit. Seek help.

 

[fskimospy]

It's absolutely a burden on both parents, but in some cases it's only voluntary for one of them.

People make bad choices and are held accountable. Just like it should be.

 

[DaaQ]

That's not reasonable at all. How about the responsibility of the female, who also chose to have sex, but apparently with a male who did not demonstrate financial ability, the desire to be, or at least after the fact, the mental acceptance, of being a father?

A female can take steps to prevent pregnancy, before, during, day after, and possibly later depending on how the Roe vs Wade situation pans out in the next several months.

If the male did not want to become a father, I can't agree with requiring him to pay support. The female should not have the only say in whether she has a baby, if someone else has to pay for it.

150 years ago yes, but not so much for the past few decades where there were alternatives and ample education of how babies are made. If a woman is against having an abortion No Matter What, she should not entrap men who didn't make a long term commitment to be a father.

There are two scenarios: Sex where both want to be parents. Both should provide support. Sex where one or the other doesn't want to be a parent, then that party should not have to provide support or if the female, should not be forced to get pregnant (denied contraceptive options) or continue to be pregnant instead of allowed to have an abortion. How far into the pregnancy an abortion should be allowed, is the gray area in my mind.

Someone previously used a car wreck analogy and I have one too. Suppose you go out driving in your car and someone wrecks into you. Are you automatically at fault and liable because you didn't keep your car keys in your pants and not drive? OR is it the fault of the person who made the bad decision, who could have prevented the wreck? It applies even more so to unprotected sex because the day after pill is like a Time Machine to stop pregnancy, while there is no do-over with the car wreck.

You are only talking about one night stands. Period.

What is the response to people that have had 3 children then get divorced 10 years later with the children aged 14, 9 and 5?

EDIT: Sounds like you are not a parent at all. Or a deadbeat that doesn't want to pay for fucking that one night drunk.

 

[Drach]

Seems fair enough to me. But the issue appears to be one of choice. Man and woman have a fun night, suffer a structural failure of properly utilized safety equipment, child is produced from the catastrophic failure. Woman then has total control of the outcome and places unforeseen finical responsibility on the male. Where is his choice? Why does the male assume a minimum of eighteen years of payments for an accident?
Seems to me that what's needed here is insurance, not forced compliance with a decision that the male doesn't agree with.

Deadbeat dad

Seriously what the fuck is wrong with assholes that don't want to help raise their kids?

Every deadbeat dad should have his balls removed with pliers and yes that includes the OP.

 

[MrSquished]

Deadbeat dad

Seriously what the fuck is wrong with assholes that don't want to help raise their kids?

Every deadbeat dad should have his balls removed with pliers.

And he votes for the GQP party which is HIGHLY anti-choice on women.He wants a choice for the dad, but not for the mom. That's exactly what his voting tells us.

Just a pig. The ability for conservatives to be horrible is unmatched.

 

[MrSquished]

This is some incredibly deranged shit. Seek help.

Yeah he's been exposed for a bit as a fucked up in the head individual.