Fathers opting out of child support

  • Thread starter Thread starter KCT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Their double standard has been thrown in the face of the rad fems for 30+ years and made no dent. Not that I agree with the lawsuit in question, but at least somebody thinks it’s time to make them face their own logic. Maybe it will kick start some people into seeing what a double standard it truly is if the shoe is put on the other foot. 😉
I disagree. You may be correct in that throwing the double standard in the face of a radical feminist won’t actually make the woman say, “Gee, you know, you’re right”.

BUT, to the budding feminist who witnesses the exchange from a distance - THEY are the ones that this is having an effect on. And it shows. Abortions are decreasing. Women are becoming more interested in taking their roles as mothers and wives seriously. Not necessarily only because of this double standard, but because of all the numerous logical flaws in the rad. fem movement, this being one of them.
 
Wow… GREAT TOPIC…

Things to ponder…
  1. Woman tells a man that she is infertile and cannot have children. They have sex. She becomes pregnant. Woman knowingly lied to the man about her infertility.
  2. Man and woman #1 have sex using a condom. Woman #2 uses seman from discarded condom to impregnate herself.
  3. Unmarried couple have sex. Woman becomes pregnant and files for child support through the courts. Woman refuses to allow paternity test. Two years later it is proven, via testing, that the man is not the biological father.
  4. Married couple with children divorce. Woman is awarded custody and files false charges (Domestic Violence, Sexual perversions, etc…) against the man and denies him the opportunity to communicate with the children (even via phone). Court goes along. This continues for 4 years.
In each of the instances noted above, should the man be forced to pay child support?

For the curious, courts unamiously throughout the country (that would be US, not sure about the rest of the world) have ruled that the man has to pay child support in each instance.

I agree that children should not be made to suffer due to the decisions of others, and that is the main argument used by Woman’s groups to great effectiveness. But, can we place responsiblity where it truly lies…

Here is a better arguement - make Shared Parenting (50/50 time and equal legal rights) the Presumption in divorces. With the children having their time split between parents, costs are equalized…

Implement that on a nationwide basis and watch the divorce rate among married couples with children plummet…

As to the case itself, it has a snowball’s chance…

Something else to ponder… last year a Shared Parenting bill made it to Committee in California. This was a complete shocker to everybody. The Committee received over 2000 letters in regard to that bill (an even bigger shock). EVERY SINGLE LETTER was in favor of the bill (tremendously bigger shock). In opposition stood trial attornies, N.O.W., psychologists, everyone with a financial vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

What happened you ask? The bill was defeated by a 7-1 vote… (no shock at all…)
 
40.png
Ronin:
Wow… GREAT TOPIC…

Things to ponder…
  1. Woman tells a man that she is infertile and cannot have children. They have sex. She becomes pregnant. Woman knowingly lied to the man about her infertility.
  2. Man and woman #1 have sex using a condom. Woman #2 uses seman from discarded condom to impregnate herself.
  3. Unmarried couple have sex. Woman becomes pregnant and files for child support through the courts. Woman refuses to allow paternity test. Two years later it is proven, via testing, that the man is not the biological father.
  4. Married couple with children divorce. Woman is awarded custody and files false charges (Domestic Violence, Sexual perversions, etc…) against the man and denies him the opportunity to communicate with the children (even via phone). Court goes along. This continues for 4 years.
In each of the instances noted above, should the man be forced to pay child support?

For the curious, courts unamiously throughout the country (that would be US, not sure about the rest of the world) have ruled that the man has to pay child support in each instance.

I agree that children should not be made to suffer due to the decisions of others, and that is the main argument used by Woman’s groups to great effectiveness. But, can we place responsiblity where it truly lies…

Here is a better arguement - make Shared Parenting (50/50 time and equal legal rights) the Presumption in divorces. With the children having their time split between parents, costs are equalized…

Implement that on a nationwide basis and watch the divorce rate among married couples with children plummet…

As to the case itself, it has a snowball’s chance…

Something else to ponder… last year a Shared Parenting bill made it to Committee in California. This was a complete shocker to everybody. The Committee received over 2000 letters in regard to that bill (an even bigger shock). EVERY SINGLE LETTER was in favor of the bill (tremendously bigger shock). In opposition stood trial attornies, N.O.W., psychologists, everyone with a financial vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

What happened you ask? The bill was defeated by a 7-1 vote… (no shock at all…)
Sorry to disappoint, but I will never, ever believe that 50/50 parenting is best for the children!!! I’ve seen it first hand, the children have no sense of stability, consistency and most importantly consistant disciplining!!! They grow up confused, insecure and used to being bounced around!!! Overall, not in all cases but most, the mother is the best person to raise the children. If men want to go around doing everything that moves without the responsiblity then snip, snip as puzzleannie stated in a previous post. I know it’s not what the church teaches, but I can’t help but feel that way in certain situations!!!

What if the woman let him know where she stands on abortion, or made it clear that she would never have one and he goes ahead and has sex with her…he knows that there is a risk of pregnancy and furthermore knows that termination is not an option for her!!! So all of the sudden her child gets no monetary support because he decided he didn’t want to be a dad…bull****!!! He bedded her, that’s a possible consequence and in my case in particular, I don’t want my husband to ever have 50% custody, visitation only, his lifestyle would be a terrible influence on my children and whenever they got back to me all screwed up after being with him I’d have to try and fix them!!!

Men should pay child support because if they stayed with the mother they would be supporting the child!!! If there are cases where it is proven that the mother did something fraudulent(sp??) then I would reconsider and take all evidence into consideration, I don’t believe men should be tricked into support or support children that don’t belong to them, but in every other circumstance they should…if they don’t want children then they should make sure they don’t, stay celibate, snip snip, or have her sign some kind of release of liability form before he beds her!!!

The only victims in all this mess are the children who are left to grow up without a father, if anything would deter men from bedding women out of wedlock would be higher and tougher child support laws, maybe when it hits them in the pocketbook they’d think twice before bedding anything that was willing and ready!!!
 
Ok… I will bite…

“Overall, not in all cases but most, the mother is the best person to raise the children.”

Says who?

What criteria would you use?

How would you ensure its objectivity? Or is that not your purpose, is it simply a “fact” that women make better parents?

Did you know that up until the early 1900’s men were always given custody of children in a divorce. Women rarely had any visitation rights. Not that I am advocating that (I am not), but just because the pendulum has swung the other way does not make it right.

On a related note, I went researching this very topic. Scoured the 'net high and low. There are hundres of research studies involving custody and children. Yet, I was only able to find 1 as in ONE that asked the question “Who is the better parent?”. The conclusion was that men were though they postulated that it was due to existing gender bias in the court system. Men know that they will not get away with the **** that women do so they don’t.

"What if the woman let him know where she stands on abortion, or made it clear that she would never have one and he goes ahead and has sex with her…he knows that there is a risk of pregnancy and furthermore knows that termination is not an option for her!!! So all of the sudden her child gets no monetary support because he decided he didn’t want to be a dad…bull****!!! He bedded her, that’s a possible consequence "

And what is HER responsibility?

Because she warned him that SHE will not have an abortion then promptly got naked and spread her legs the pregnancy is all HIS fault?

“…maybe when it hits them in the pocketbook they’d think twice before bedding anything that was willing and ready!!!”

… this is too comical to bother to answer… but I guess I have to…

A woman is “willing and ready” and the resulting pregnancy is all a man’s fault… get real.

“Men should pay child support because if they stayed with the mother they would be supporting the child!!!”

And what about situations where mothers are the primary wage earners and fathers are the primary caregivers?

Regardless, the issue is not about whether child support should be paid. The issue is the manner by which courts use gender bias to assign child support payments and the ludicrous amounts “calculated”.

Oh, on a final note - " I don’t want my husband to ever have 50% custody, visitation only, his lifestyle would be a terrible influence on my children and whenever they got back to me all screwed up after being with him I’d have to try and fix them!!!"

Then maybe divorce is not all it is cracked up to be…

FYI - In states where Shared Parenting is the legal presumption, the divorce rate increase is below the national average.
 
40.png
Della:
Yes, in the days when women couldn’t get abortions, men were held responsible for any children they might father because a woman would have to have and support his offspring. But, if she can abort, why should he have to pay anything when she decided to carry the pregnancy to term (using the radical feminists language against them here, no spitballs please 😉 ).

If rad fems want to say that a woman has all the choice, then why should any man have to support her children, even in marriage? This would be consistently logical, as someone else pointed out. But, they don’t want their own logic turned on them because they have to put women forward as the victims of men in order to keep the idea alive that women need the right to abortion, but they also want to portray women as having enough brains to know they need an abortion, which makes no sense, at all, really. :rolleyes:
Because if a man doesn’t want to support a child,

HE SHOULD NOT BE HAVING SEX, RUNNING THE RISK OF BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR A CHILD.
 
Ah, Sunday, and since it’s not a “sacrificial” Lenten day here I am. (Whether that’s a sacrifice for the readers is another topic). . . :rolleyes:

Tough topic and already the personal feelings and experiences are coming on strong.

I know men, and women, who are facing or have faced many of the issues here.

Seems to me that there are a lot of factors to consider.

Generally speaking, men make more money. Here’s a hypothetical for you: Family of father, mother, two children. Both work full time, children all school age. He makes 60K and she makes 30 K, all together 90K a year. They are able to put aside considerable savings, the children have various activities, music, summer camp.

She gets custody. He (in NYS) is responsible for paying 25% of his before tax income as child support (this is standard). So OK, he has to then pay $15K a year in child support. That leaves him $45K.

Now SHE, making $30K, has an additional 15K for the children. There are three of them living on 45K and ONE of HIM living on 45K. He has had years of work experience etc, has his pension, has finished his school. His expenses probably aren’t going to rise all that much. He can keep the big screen TV and the Y membership and even a nice 2 week vacation without feeling a pinch.

SHE most likely has fewer years of work experience, may or may not have a pension, has been on “the mommy track” or whatever. In HER case, expenses for the children are more likely to go UP and UP. In order to live within their means, what do you think goes? Yep, the “extras”, the “leisures”, the 'fun". Granted that people do not NEED to have these things, but try telling your 12 year old that he won’t be able to see the friends in summer camp he’s seen for 6 straight summers, or your 9 year old that there isn’t money in the budget for piano lessons any more. Remember that the mom now is responsible for using that $15 K plus a lot more of her own $30K for braces, insurance, college savings, life insurance, etc.

Have more children than two? In NYS it goes like this: 1 child - 19%, 2 children 25%, 3 children 29%. . . The numbers aren’t very good for larger families.

As for “shared parenting” and 50/50, I have to agree, in the majority of cases it does not work and the expenses are NOT equal. (ever see a marriage which supposedly was 50/50? did the husband and wife make EXACTLY the same, work EXACTLY the same hours on any given thing, give EXACTLY the same time and EXACTLY the same effort for every child? Can’t be done. Children are different, require different things at different times).

And if you really want to add “fun” into the mix, add a child with physical or mental disabilities and the concurrent time and expense, especially if one parent wants to try different strategies, different treatments or whatever from the other.

Ronin, currently I have a good male friend facing child support problems, so I understand. He IS a better parent. He IS being treated unfairly. That stinks. It also stinks that I and many other women who are better parents, and especially our children, have been treated unfairly by courts. (and there’s more to parenting than money. Since you ask, the criteria I use for who is a “better” parent is the parent who tries to do what is best for the child, using all resources, whether it’s time, money, whatever, for the child’s good. IOW, instead of throwing money at Johnny for whatever he wants that week, the “better parent” would be talking with Johnny about materialism, about Johnny’s feelings, about strategies for dealing with peer pressure, about ways to earn goods instead of just demand them, and also about what is really important for people in life, just for starters.)

Finally, my main idea (several paragraphs too late, probably) is this:

Before hollering for rights, make sure you’ve covered responsibilities. I am so sick of hearing about people screaming for their “rights” in various areas yet ignoring all the responsibilities that go along with said rights.
 
Tantum ergo:
Ah, Sunday, and since it’s not a “sacrificial” Lenten day here I am. (Whether that’s a sacrifice for the readers is another topic). . . :rolleyes:

Tough topic and already the personal feelings and experiences are coming on strong.

I know men, and women, who are facing or have faced many of the issues here.

Seems to me that there are a lot of factors to consider.

Generally speaking, men make more money. Here’s a hypothetical for you: Family of father, mother, two children. Both work full time, children all school age. He makes 60K and she makes 30 K, all together 90K a year. They are able to put aside considerable savings, the children have various activities, music, summer camp.

She gets custody. He (in NYS) is responsible for paying 25% of his before tax income as child support (this is standard). So OK, he has to then pay $15K a year in child support. That leaves him $45K.

Now SHE, making $30K, has an additional 15K for the children. There are three of them living on 45K and ONE of HIM living on 45K. He has had years of work experience etc, has his pension, has finished his school. His expenses probably aren’t going to rise all that much. He can keep the big screen TV and the Y membership and even a nice 2 week vacation without feeling a pinch.

SHE most likely has fewer years of work experience, may or may not have a pension, has been on “the mommy track” or whatever. In HER case, expenses for the children are more likely to go UP and UP. In order to live within their means, what do you think goes? Yep, the “extras”, the “leisures”, the 'fun". Granted that people do not NEED to have these things, but try telling your 12 year old that he won’t be able to see the friends in summer camp he’s seen for 6 straight summers, or your 9 year old that there isn’t money in the budget for piano lessons any more. Remember that the mom now is responsible for using that $15 K plus a lot more of her own $30K for braces, insurance, college savings, life insurance, etc.

Have more children than two? In NYS it goes like this: 1 child - 19%, 2 children 25%, 3 children 29%. . . The numbers aren’t very good for larger families.

As for “shared parenting” and 50/50, I have to agree, in the majority of cases it does not work and the expenses are NOT equal. (ever see a marriage which supposedly was 50/50? did the husband and wife make EXACTLY the same, work EXACTLY the same hours on any given thing, give EXACTLY the same time and EXACTLY the same effort for every child? Can’t be done. Children are different, require different things at different times).

And if you really want to add “fun” into the mix, add a child with physical or mental disabilities and the concurrent time and expense, especially if one parent wants to try different strategies, different treatments or whatever from the other.

Ronin, currently I have a good male friend facing child support problems, so I understand. He IS a better parent. He IS being treated unfairly. That stinks. It also stinks that I and many other women who are better parents, and especially our children, have been treated unfairly by courts. (and there’s more to parenting than money. Since you ask, the criteria I use for who is a “better” parent is the parent who tries to do what is best for the child, using all resources, whether it’s time, money, whatever, for the child’s good. IOW, instead of throwing money at Johnny for whatever he wants that week, the “better parent” would be talking with Johnny about materialism, about Johnny’s feelings, about strategies for dealing with peer pressure, about ways to earn goods instead of just demand them, and also about what is really important for people in life, just for starters.)

Finally, my main idea (several paragraphs too late, probably) is this:

Before hollering for rights, make sure you’ve covered responsibilities. I am so sick of hearing about people screaming for their “rights” in various areas yet ignoring all the responsibilities that go along with said rights.
Thank you and very well said (written) :clapping: I couldn’t have said it better or more accurately myself. I know exactly what you’re talking about. My husband thinks that as long as he gives money he’s done his job, he has no clue what it takes to raise children or have a family.
 
Bottom line, having children out of weddlock & going through a divorce create big problems & dilemmas with regards to children.
 
Tatum,

“As for “shared parenting” and 50/50, I have to agree, in the majority of cases it does not work and the expenses are NOT equal. (ever see a marriage which supposedly was 50/50? did the husband and wife make EXACTLY the same, work EXACTLY the same hours on any given thing, give EXACTLY the same time and EXACTLY the same effort for every child? Can’t be done. Children are different, require different things at different times).”

In your attempt to put forth an arguement against, you have proven my point.

Nothing is exactly 50/50, ie hours, responsibilities, etc…

But, who is to say that cooking children a meal is superior to buying children clothes or that giving children a bath is superior to reading them a bedtime story.

The fact is that you cannot.

Children are indeed different. So, how can you make a pronouncement when they are 2 that for the next 16 years of their life one parent will be their role model while the other is a “visitor”.
Can’t be done.

You say that shared parenting does not work… how many instances are you directly aware of? Instances of true shared parenting are very, very rare. States hate it because it means that they get less of a bounty from the Federal governement.

The reality is that if both parents truly care for their children then Shared Parenting is the only solution. Provided that both want it.

“Generally speaking, men make more money.”

Generally you would be correct.

But, does that mean that you put ALL into that category?

I hate to be picky, but your numbers example is a tad off…

Child Support is tax-free to the recipient, but not a deduction to the payor.

To correct your math - Man makes 45k, woman 30k. Man pays 15k in Child Support. Man has 30k for himself, woman has 45k for her and kids.

But, let us look at NET dollars. For the sake of arguemnt let us assume that they both pay 30% of their income in taxes (fed and state). Man has 30k - 15k for taxes (45*.3) = 15k. Woman has 45k - 9k for taxes (30*.3) = 36k.

Add in the Child Tax Credit, Additional Child Tax Credit, dependent income tax deductions and she is making far more than he is…

Also keep in mind that major expenses are shared, ie. Medical and college. The standard is using the Income Shared model. In this instance the man would be assigned (45/70 = 64%) and the woman (30/70 = 36%). The man would be paying 64% of these expenses on less than half her net income.

Big difference, huh?

Now, I am not saying that being a single parent is easy, it is not. But once people see the REAL numbers they get a better understanding of why there is opposition to Shared Parenting…

Follow the money…

“And if you really want to add “fun” into the mix, add a child with physical or mental disabilities and the concurrent time and expense, especially if one parent wants to try different strategies, different treatments or whatever from the other.”

I am all for fun…

Who is to say that the different strategies/treatments/whatever are not better for the child(ren)?

How can you be CERTAIN that they are not?

Because someone wants to try something different that makes them wrong?

Or, perhaps better stated, because they differ with your thinking it is wrong?

You do make a good point about rights versus responsibilities.

But, if both divorcing parents want those responsibilities who are you or any court to deny one of them their right to them…
 
Ronin, as I said I agree with you in that everybody is different. Obviously, some mothers are “better parents” than some fathers, and vice versa (did you read that last bit about what I think makes a parent “better”?)

Not every state has “shared medical and college expenses” either. (How I wish)

I want you to understand that I am NOT attempting to make a “one size fits all” argument.

I do think that fathers are just as “important” as mothers. It would be ideal if fathers and mothers could put aside their differences and allow things to work as a team, but it takes two to tango. For every “controlling witch” some poor man has turning his kids against him, there is another “absentee dad” some poor woman is desperately trying to have be involved in the kids’ lives, and not for “money”. And who suffers most? The children.

I know, as I am sure you do, fathers who over the long run would be just as “nurturing” as one pictures the typical mother, and mothers who in the long run would be as “outside oriented” as one pictures the typical father.

As JP 2 reminds us in “the Dignity of women” the mother’s role historically speaking (not just in Victorian times which were not typical especially in the middle and upper class) has been the “nuturing” of children. The father’s role has been the protection and “worldly care” of children. These roles are complementary. It doesn’t mean that a father can’t nuture and a woman can’t protect (anyone knows that widows, widowers, divorced and otherwise single parents can do all the “functions” of either role), but it does mean that, ideally speaking, in most cases, the mother’s natural talents overall make her a better “nuturer” for children. This does not relegate fathers to “paychecks” though, because children also need the protection, the role modeling, and the “outwardness” of a father especially as they leave childhood for adulthood.

The worst problem any single parent faces IMO is the shattering of his OR her natural talents and gifts and the difficulty in taking on the ADDITIONAL ROLE of the other parent. Even those of us who try hardest know that we are NOT, and never could be, TWO people. If a woman has to work extra hours for the money to feed and clothe her children, she’ll have less time somewhere for the “nuturing”, and the kids suffer. If she can’t find the work she may have extra time to cuddle, but everybody lives on mac and cheese. The father, too, may work extra hours for the support, yet feel unappreciated if he isn’t seeing the child full time. Or he may try to overcompensate with money and gifts, and if his wife complains, feel she is trying to “turn the child away from him”. He may try to be extra controlling when he DOES have the children, or he may try to be the “fun” parent with no rules. Seldom does any person in this situation feel that he or she can truly be just “himself” or “herself”, but always feels he or she has to be, or do, or act something different, more, “better” than somebody else.
 
“I want you to understand that I am NOT attempting to make a “one size fits all” argument.”

I know, but when I am looking for a fight I tend to overlook minor details like this… 🙂

Then you say something stupid like this…

“…but it does mean that, ideally speaking, in most cases, the mother’s natural talents overall make her a better “nuturer” for children. This does not relegate fathers to “paychecks” though, because children also need the protection, the role modeling, and the “outwardness” of a father especially as they leave childhood for adulthood.”

better nuturer??? natural talents???

What, you mean that parenting is GENETIC?

Do you also belive that since Caucasians have historically been the people “in-charge” that other races should not be considered for management positions?

Or that Jews have historically had a “talent” for the management of money so no non-Jews should be in the Financial Services Industry?

Need I continue…

Prejudice, bigotry, bias… all lie at the source of this problem also.

You do have me asking a question - In what states are major expenses not shared? If they are not part of your Judgment then you had a poor attorney. If you represented yourself then you really missed that one. The demonstrative definition of Child Suport is that it is for the living expenses of the children.

“For every “controlling witch” some poor man has turning his kids against him, there is another “absentee dad” some poor woman is desperately trying to have be involved in the kids’ lives, and not for “money”. And who suffers most? The children.”

I see that we agree on something… though I am not sure if you realize it… There is nothing that can be done about absentee dads. It is their choice to avoid responsibility.

But there is a LOT that can be done about the controlling witch. There is a father that WANTS to be a parent, but a mother uses the law as a weapon against him preventing him from being one.

THAT can be fixed through Shared Parenting.

And the children will be all the better for it…

All that stuff aside, the question that must be asked is “Is the current system working?”.

The answer is a resounding NO!

When something is broken, you fix it. If you do not know how to fix it, you try something and if it does not work, you try something else and you keep trying until it is no longer broken.

You do not sit back and complain while doing nothing to improve it.

Yes there are bad single mothers and bad single fathers. But we are not all bad. By what right or authority does a court classify and treat ALL fathers as bad unless the mother has killed 87 people with a soup spoon (then the father has a 50/50 shot at custody)?

If you are one of those with an X who is not upholding his responsibilities then you have my sympathies. But, nothing I say or advocate would make your situation any worse. In a Shared Parenting environment both parties have to want it and demonstrate to a court that they are able.

Going to the source, the problem is - Why is it so easy to get divorced?

Over 80% of divorces are filed by women. Women get custody of children in 90% of divorces.

The source of the current divorce crisis lies in the legalization of “No-Fault” Divorce.

If divorce were not so easy and custody determinations not so one-sided would there be that many divorces?

Perhaps… perhaps not.

But it is a good place to start…

The system is broke… time for a new one…
 
General Reminder:

The charity level of this discussion appears to be deteriorating. Please self-edit for tone and content before clicking the “Submit” button. If the charity level does not improve, this thread will have to be locked. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.
 
I’m sure the court will reject it cause its not for the good of the child, even though the guys case does have some justification. The system is not perfect, but you know its always better if you can avoid the system, cause it can only do the best it can.

This seems to remind me of something from Chesterton. He said that one should take down a gated fence if one doesn’t know what it is for. A fence with a gate is man made and doesn’t just get there. It might be up there for a good reason or it could be up there for a bad reason. If you don’t know the reason, then you don’t know if its a good reason or bad one. You may take it down to just realized why it was up in the first place. So before taking down the gated fence, figure out why it is there. Then you can decide if you want to tear it down.

What does this have to do with it, heck if I know. OK maybe the reason why there always seemed to be this rule against pre-marital sex and divorce is because it causes a lot of problems. Looking at this situation does it look like it causes problems? Who wins in a divorce? Well by the looks of it nobody. You look for the court for justice, well shoot the courts can only throw something up that tries to help people live afterwards. You split a tree in half its not going to end up looking pretty. Goodness now that we are breaking downt he rules of sex and marriage, we seem to really need them more than ever. SO therefore kids avoid sex before marriage & take you vows seriously.
 
When medical technology gets to the point where a man can carry a fertilized embryo to term, we might regain legal equity between the sexes, so that when a woman no longer wishes to be pregnant, the father would be able to stop the abortion by volunteering to be implanted with the fetus.
 
jman,

What on Earth are you talking about???

“So before taking down the gated fence, figure out why it is there.”

It is there for one purpose, ie. the protection of the divorce industry. The Divorce industry rakes in over $1 Billion annually. States receive billions in rebates from the Federal government. Do you think all those with a hand in the till want it to end?

Did you look at the math/income example above? If you were on the receiving end, getting a 50% bonus on your income tax free would you want it to end?

Do you want to buy some nice Florida real estate? Ocean front! Sometimes ocean bottom…

Catholic,

Interesting perspective…

Makes one wonder - would the Catholic church recognize a child born of man?

Would it approve of the removal of a fetus from a woman and subsequent implanting in a man?

Better question, why have humans directly involved at all? Why not just produce children in test tubes and grow them in laboratories? It would certainly make for healthier children…

Regardless it is not father/mother rights that are the biggest issue.

It is children’s rights.

Do not the children of divorce have the right to be raised by BOTH parents? The same as children in intact families?

In intact families there is legal equality, why should that change just because parents divorce?

Makes one think, doesn’t it?
 
Well, I think legally the issue is the fact that abortion is not necessarily safe. It actually comes with physical risks to the mother…(Your being cut open…) That’s a lot to ask frankly any woman, and its a physical choice a woman has to weigh as well… Easy for a man to say have an abortion, when he’s not the one whose being cut open…
 
I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I think these guys have a point.

Wow, have I changed with age. :confused:
 
“I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I think these guys have a point.”

It is worth it…

One big error that needs correcting is bekalc’s post - ie. It is RARE for a woman to have to be cut open for an abortion. Though admittedly limited, it is my understanding that that would only be done when the life of the mother was in imminent danger.

Before I get jumped on for that one, I am not advocating abortion as the cure all.

I do attack the falacy that pregnancies are all mens’ faults and they should bear full responsibility.

Still a great topic, worthy of discussion. The more facts and the more falacies debunked the better for children it will be…

The system is broke… time for a new one…

Or in jman speak - the gate is broke (and never worked right to begin with)…
 
The issue that has changed in my mind over the years is that a woman IS responsible for her body. She knows what is going to happen when she gets in bed with a guy she barely knows. I used to think it was a 50-50 deal, but women are just a foolish as men in this respect and they shouldn’t be able to wiggle out of their foolish acts by getting child support.

The abortion issue is just icing on the cake.

Those who argue about what is best for the child, I’ve argued that issue time and time again on this board and I always get shot down.
 
Are you two kidding me…yes when I got into bed with my husband I knew I might get pregnant and by gosh I did :eek: !!! I didn’t however count on the fact that my husband was going to have a girlfriend around every corner…so since I kept my end of the deal and he didn’t he gets to get out of child support, spousal support and get 50% custody? I don’t think so, there are consequences to certain actions and unfortunately because of the no-fault divorce men (and women) get away with the minimum!!! There are many women out here who didn’t choose to be in the situation we’re in, unless of course Ronin, you would suggest that I stay with my lying, cheating, drinking, gambling husband, I suppose that would be great for the children?

My husband is all too happy to be obligation and responsiblity free, see children just get in his way…the least he could do is make sure that we’re financially secure after all if he can’t live up to any of his other promises he should be forced to live up to this one!!! And no, just because there are children who live with both parents doesn’t mean that there is 50/50 going on. I know plenty of children who have both mom and dad together yet go without because dad refuses to work to support the family, all the burden is on the mom, it’s as if she was a single mom anyway with an adult child. I say if the man doesn’t want to pay support then get custody of the child, let the father raise the child. Oh, and in the 1900’s men got custody, not because they were considered the better parent but because women didn’t have rights, they didn’t work outside the home so they didn’t have a way to support them, etc., I don’t think it had anything to do with fathers being better nurturers or anything like that!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top