Child Support Laws Should Be Abolished <MOD ALERT>

OH, no wonder you're confused!!

"""There is no chance for men to opt-out once "they" become pregnant""""


You think men get pregnant!!!

No, men do not get pregnant.

Now explain in detail how unfair that is to men and how that needs to be rectified.

Maybe surgery for men so they have the equal physical damage women have in pregnancy.

Maybe forced medical bills equivalent and equal to what women must pay.(although men don't have to but YOU think that's fair)

Men must be forced to take time off work and suffer the same setbacks a woman would for taking time off( although men never will because they are The Royal Male and YOU DON'T THINK THAT'S UNFAIR! )


Now I can't even post how I'd REALLY like men to have total equality when it comes to actually giving birth but I'd sure like to see YOUR answer to making sure they get all the joy of total equality ...

 

It's not necessarily about the law itself, fellow Pro-CHOICER, it's about having someone explain to you why parents have to support their children, how laws get passed and why and who pays for your idea of men having no responsibility and how men worship having no responsibility so they must be controlled so taxpayers don't foot the bill for them .....

 

Sorry, I got this thread mixed up with the abortion thread (sniffle).
PS- But as for the topic "Should child support laws be abolished?", I wouldn't think that's a good idea if it'll encourage men to go around fathering kids then freely abandoning them and their mum.

 

Are you really feigning ignorance of what these denote?

So? Women have a choice to never become pregnant - don't have sex. Or get your tubes tied.

Again, you're referring to the choice for which there is an equivalent - and ignoring where there is no equivalent.

 

It seems liberals dont understand that although men and women are supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law we are not the same and this is impossible . Again if the man says he doesnt want the child he should have the same right to request an abortion as the woman does. If she wants to keep the baby its all hers or if she is against abortion she can put it up for adoption. Why are only men forced to have children they dont want ?

 

Just because there are different choices does not mean that the choices are unequal.

Both parties know that having sex can lead to pregnancy so both take an equal risk by engaging in sex.

Both parties know that in the event of a pregnancy there are a variety of potential outcomes. The women can choose to have an abortion, she can have a miscarriage, she can have a stillbirth, she can put the child up for adoption or she can choose to raise her own child. The man knows all of the above BEFORE engaging in sex. The man has the CHOICE to not have sex and not have to deal with any of those potential outcomes.

If the man chooses to have sex he automatically assumes responsibility for the child that she gives birth to. He made his choice before the act. She makes her choice after she falls pregnant.

Timing does not equate to inequality.

- - - Updated - - -

If a real man doesn't want a child he can have a vasectomy.

 

Sorry, but sperm donors aren't parents.

 

Watch that "a real man" stuff folks. Its used in all types of devious ways.

 

You're correct, it's a bad idea...

- - - Updated - - -

Are you aware you couldn't post my entire post?

You are the one ignoring the fact that it will never be equal, men will always have it much easier.

 

You're correct, some "sperm donors" are worthless dogs who don't support their kids...they aren't parents , on that we agree...they are nothing.

 

Are you denying that real men do as your lord commands and support their own children?

 

I meant what I said. That "a real man" crap has been used in vindictive, unjust, devious ways by some people who really don't give a damn about God's will.

Something of interest

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/19/n...t-is-due-even-the-poor-find-little-mercy.html

 

Then men better make sure abortion stays safe and legal, vote Clinton.

Men should use more birth control.

 

Onus is entirely on you to prove that the term has been "used in vindictive, unjust, devious ways by some people".

And if that is the case in this thread then why hasn't the OP reported that to the mods?

Unless you can prove your allegation the use of the term is still legitimate in this forum.

 

You don't dictate to me what I have to do.

Let me ask you something. Do you believe in God?

 

Bogus allegations about the use of the term "real men" are discredited when those making those bogus allegations cannot substantiate them.

What does believing in god have to do with the OP topic of child support?

 

Your use of the small "g" means no. Since that is the case here's the proof.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=481054&page=74&p=1066782978#post1066782978

It's no use in pointing out the devious nature of YOUR response to you. But for the sake of those following, what is devious about this post is that it attempts to use God, although the poster does not believe in God.

I rest my case your honor.

 

Since when does not believing in your god equate to being "devious"?

You are the one wearing your religion on your sleeve so it was appropriate to explain the term "real men" in a context you should have been able to comprehend.

Is pointing out how your own bible instructs real men to support their own children "devious" in your opinion?

So far all you have done is fling out bogus allegations without any substantiation.

The statement that real men support their children is corroborated by your own bible.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+5:8

Explain exactly what is devious about the above quotation in respect to failing to provide child support per the OP topic?

 

I realize that you are a moderator, giving you the authority to enforce PF rules and moderate discussions, but that does not confer to you the entitlement to distort the meaning of an OP to be restricted to fit within the limiting parameters of YOUR own narrative. NOWHERE in the OP is mention made restricting input to "what equality demands" and rejecting "what is practical".

I am not focusing on an exception, and your illogical analogy is IN NO WAY applicable to ANYTHING I said. Opt-out is a universal exit route for ANY MAN who wants to escape the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy FOR ANY REASON. . . . EQUALITY??? . . . . REALLY???

 

Precision made a BIG mistake bringing religion into an argument advocating shirking responsibility. I'm repeating a previous post of mine that I believe was largely overlooked, yet quite applicable:



This is just another one of those DEPLORABLE cases in which many believe that exploitation should not bear the implied stigma of responsibility, and such proponents insist that "smaller government" with fewer restrictions is needed to promote a healthy economy. Surprisingly, the majority of posters agreeing with the OP also favor lowering taxes, made possible by making budget cuts to social programs.

. . . . JUST SAY NO TO CHILDREN, and your worries will be over (if you're a man).

If opt-out WAS allowed, by requesting that a mother abort, IN ALL CASES, any responsibility borne by the father would be lifted and added to the mother's. EQUALITY???

Good luck finding representation to try to overturn the federal child support mandate with your self-centered arguments.

 

Ok, so think of it relative to a contract for a moment. You and I enter a business together, where you and I have each put up 100k. You and I both had the option to not sign the contract, but I (an equal partner) have full right to terminate the business or to keep it going - you have no say. And you think after signing the relationship is entirely equal? ^_-

 

It isn't equal if one party has to devote their entire body to the process (more than the monetary share of the other party)....and the other party doesn't.....it's not equal, it will never be equal

 

Not what I said. If you can't read with comprehension OR if you want to resort to deliberate deceit, don't blame me.

 

WRONG. You just made a big mistake by telling that lie. Here's where it started

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=481054&page=74&p=1066782978#post1066782978

Like I said, I am going to mow down any deceit that is brought to my attention.

 

Sure, we're a sexually dimorphic species. That's irrelevant to "equality under the law".