Child Support Laws Should Be Abolished <MOD ALERT>

The notion that men should be forced to pay women child support is outdated. Women have control over their own bodies now. No one is forcing them to get pregnant. That being the case, men should not be forced to pay women child support. Such laws should be abolished immediately!

>>Moderator Warning in this thread- Stay on topic and within the rules of the site<<

 

Here's one you'll soon hear from Democrats trying to buy back black votes. Child support laws are racists!

 

Here's one you haven't heard before.

Enforce the child support laws already on the books.

Satirically, it's brilliant. Practically, it's wrong, in my view.

 

Child support is vested in the child.. The state doesn't want to raise your offspring.

Domestic law 101.

 

I agree.

If a woman can have a kid without the male's consent and thinks she can just leave and collect a check from him, that's complete bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

If some girl tried to lock me in like that I'd bounce off to China--good luck getting a dime from me.

 

Let's dig into this some.

If you're asking a Democrat, the state most definitely wants to raise your offspring. They believe they can do it better than most parents, especially minority parents. The racism of low expectations combined with their insatiable appetite to control things has culminated into a nanny state.

The real evidence is in public school curriculum and services. Students are being taught to serve the government that fed them, and to conform to every social standard progressives seek to impose.

 

Well some of them actually do it on purpose now, and get away with it. Those laws are outdated and should be abolished. No one is forcing them to get pregnant.

- - - Updated - - -

What's wrong? Enforcing the laws already on the books?

 

To some extent, that's a separate issue.

I agree with your criticism and sympathize with it, but it doesn't help that we try to keep people from using contraception and utilizing abortion in extreme cases.

If a guy consents to having a kid, then he should have to take care of a kid, after a period of time, of course. Many women will try to dump a guy soon after they have a kid so they can sit on their asses and do nothing, so something needs to be done about that. It needs to be done on a case-by-case basis.

 

I support the concept of a "father's abortion," where the male would have the right, upon notification of pregnancy or birth (whichever notification comes first), to file for termination of all rights and responsibilities. Both should have the right to choose whether or not to be parents, pure and simple.

 

Read the law.. You aren't good at critical thinking.

 

Unless someone is alleging rape, both parties are legally bound. The consensual sex was a contract, more or less. If we enter a 50/50 contract together, we share both the profits and losses 50/50.

 

Make sure you let your girlfriends know that before you have sex.

 

What law?

 

Sex and having a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing kid are not the same damn thing. Are you serious?

When I've screwed up, I've paid for the pill on more than one occasion.

 

That would work as well. This notion of having to pay a women because she got pregnant is past its time. They have control over their bodies now, so they should take responsibility for it.

 

A woman can't have a kid without the male's consent at the act of conception, unless you go really science fictiony, and the woman drugs you and siphons off some of your sperm with a needle and syringe. Birth control doesn't always work. A good percentage of the people I know well enough to discuss things like this is with have gotten pregnant while using contraception (good percentage meaning maybe 25%). Yes, it's anecdotal, but it shows me that people who think contraception is foolproof are the fools.

 

You just typed, "Sex and having a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing kid are not the same damn thing."

And then asked me if I was serious.

Holy cow. Someone missed sex ed class. Were you in the principal's office for flicking boogers?

 

so what would you like to do, when a man leaves his family years into it because he wants to keep his money and stop spending it on the kids... do we abort kids once they are several years old and the fathers left? or do you want abortion up to the last week of pregnancy? how will you handle it when millions of men with kids, decide, well since I don't have to pay anymore, why on earth would I stay here, I'm out... and we now have two types of homes in america, women with children, and men who live alone... are you suggesting we'll also cut support for women with children despite the other person involved in the situation leaving the picture to save his money for himself? I can't imagine you thought this one through, I'm simply guessing, you knocked someone up because you didn't use a condom, and now you're upset you got a kid...

 

Child support, unless the male is a NBA star, is not nearly enough to sit on your ass and do nothing. On the other hand, child support is enough to keep a male from living a normal life.

 

Having sex is like playing the lottery. Most of the time, with contraception, you don't end up causing a pregnancy. That said, just like the lottery, somebody wins, and some women get pregnant despite contraception.

Sometimes when everything is done right, miraculously one of the sperm manages to fertilize one of the eggs, and it's too late for the morning after.

 

Well I can tell you in my case child support was enough for my ex to pay off her vehicles and take a vacation to Hawaii while I'm basically living check to check.

 

That's why they have the "other" pill, along with abortion. The point is that there are plenty of options that don't entail bringing a kid into the world.

Come on, now you are just trolling.

I've seen some pretty hefty payments. I know guys who bust their asses for low wages who have to pay $500 a month, not to mention all the benefits the women get from the government. I know men who make a lot more who have to pay a lot more, as well. To make matters worse, the women always try to restrict the guy's access to their own kids and sometimes put the children at risk with other males. I had a friend who was stabbed by the guy who was staying with the mom while he was trying to pick his kids up.

I used to mess around with this woman who had a kid, was living wither her ex while he was paying the mortgage, and also collecting a ton of money from him, all while screwing me at the same time--this happens all the time.

Sure, but that isn't the point I'm making.

 

I just couldnt agree more with this. Even though if the requirement was abolished i would still pay child support. Children are a lot like their parents. Imho our success in life is about 80% genetics, and 20% hard work and other factors.

If inferior men fail to take care of their offspring that puts the offspring of superior men who do take care of them at an advantage.

I dont see the societal benefit of constantly propping up and holding the hands of people with subpar genetics.

 

Fine, have the LAW that demands PARENTS support CHILDREN repealed.

Then pay more for Welfare.



Or you could warn your children that having children is ONLY an OPTION, it isn't a necessity. ..and it is VERY expensive, it is a luxury not a necessity.

(How many parents would actually say that?)

Then maybe they would actually hook up with a partner that felt the same way.





IF men get a law passed that says they can sign away their parental duties and RIGHTS then it should be forever.
An abortion is forever and if they want the same rights as women to get an "abortion" then any contact they have with the subsequent child should result in jail time ( call it breach of contract) .

 

Fine with me. Just don't make me pay for something i didn't sign on for, though I think your approach is unnecessarily punitive.