Child Support Laws Should Be Abolished <MOD ALERT>

^_- you think I was telling you what you can and can not say? And modifying the op? I don't know where you got that idea, since I was clearly referring to your point in our line of discussion, which I asserted is extraneous from the get go.

You are focusing on an exception. You're focusing on a case where the paternity is truly in doubt - that is not the norm. In most cases when a woman is having a child, she knows the father, identifies him, and he has no doubt that he is the father. This is the case for married couples and long-term partners, where no one demands a paternity test because no one doubts it. This is *an exception*.

The norm is where there is no dispute as to who the father is. You haven't answered the point in regards to the norm, you've evaded it by focusing on the exception. Again, this is kind of like saying, "well we can't punish killers, because killing is sometimes in self defense". If it's self defense, then that is an EXCEPTION. If the paternity is in doubt, then that is an EXCEPTION. You're focusing on an exception to evade the point. Which is why I asked if you could respond to the point independent of the exception - you've so far refused to. If my point was wrong independent of the exception then there would be no need to refuse to respond to it independent of the exception.

 

Yes, I knew it would be irrelevant to YOU.... NOW you want to quote the LAW ?????


.....it's not equal, it will never be equal

 

I'm not quoting specific case law, but a basic principle of law - equality under the law. And you reject that? Do you not believe in any such overarching principles? I mean, it's a pretty basic one.

So we have a natural inequality between men and women in this regard - and you don't want the law to treat them equally, but to treat people unequally because they are naturally unequal?

^_- really?

 

Do sperm donors even have kids to support?

Do pregnant women have a "kid" to support? Or is there womb just being used temporarily until such time as the woman decides that she does or doesn't have a kid? The "pro choice" types that you refer to us as (and I guess I am) are stuck in an interesting dilemma concerning stewardship at this time.

Who has responsibility for that scrap of gestating biomass when it is still just a larvae? At that stage, you say that the womb owner does and the sperm donor doesn't. So if the womb owner decides that she'll let it hang around to ferment awhile longer, how does her decision suddenly change his responsibility?

And that, my friend, is where you have a problem.

I would take it further and point out that because of this pretzellian logic, you're creating a situation that hurts society. No longer do women have to take the responsibility of a womb seriously. They can get pregnant and not even worry about rings on fingers. They don't have to worry who the father is. That irresponsibility hurts the child that may or may not be born because children need a mother and a father.

No rings on the sperm donor's fingers, so even if he's rich, he's merely going to be a check in the mail. That decision by the woman to not have a husband is devastating to the child, and ultimately society.

 

"And so what I'm saying is not what should be, but what equality demands." . . . . Your post #487.

The OP focuses exclusively on "what should be", using his perception of equality as a supporting argument.

I was illustrating how the "secret bond" between mother and fetus does not obligate the mother to comply with the father's requests, and if she foresaw unwanted involvement that might endanger her or the fetus, she could not be forced to reveal the father's identity. I assert that the father's identity is irrelevant; that's a disagreement, not an evasion. Not a valid exception.

Let's quit "evading" and get to the real point: Do you REALLY believe child support laws should be abolished?

 

Totally irrelevant to ANY biblical perspective.

Show me a biblical reference validating your premise.

 

You find it yourself. I didn't bring up the Bible. You lied and said I introduced religion into the conversation. Its a lie. Period.

 

You did not debunk what was put forward. You cannot debunk what was put forward. Sterile, smoke blowing, bombast does not debunk anything.

Here it is again

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=481054&page=54&p=1066764286#post1066764286

There it is for everyone to see. I stand by it. Now debunk it, if you can. Show where you have debunked it, if you can.

You can't debunk it, and I can prove you can't debunk it.

 

Like I said, I'm going to mow down any deceit that comes to my attention.

 

"Let me ask you something. Do you believe in God?" . . . . YOUR post #740. . . . now, WHO LIED???

 

GOOD JOB!!! . . . . lol

 

I in now way support a man not contributing to the support of his child....But it is only fair that a man should have a choice on support for a child he may not want. If he is informed early in the pregnancy he should have the choice to terminate any support for a child he may not want. The woman then has a choice on keeping or terminating the pregnancy. It is only fair.

 

Thanks! I appreciate that coming from you!

- - - Updated - - -

No YOU LIED. Religion was INTRODUCED into the conversation prior to that, hence the question.

 

I admit to the error, but as it wasn't a deliberate untruth, it wasn't a lie; I was misdirected by your link on "Here's where it started" the first time.

 

Love to see people tie themselves in knots when they have no argument.

Yes, I knew it would be irrelevant to YOU.... NOW you want to quote the LAW ?????


.....it's not equal, it will never be equal

 

Pretzel logic? Ya, yours.....confusing is your idea that men are only responsible for their children if they marrythier mother??? that is so weird?
You insist the kid doesn't need food ,clothing or shelter if the parents are married ????What? Only if the mother is single...?

 

Go ahead, "stand by it"....and see where it gets ya with getting men off the hook for paying for their kids....

 

So men can leave their wives and dump their kids like trash???? Really, what is wrong with you.

 

1. Yes, men are only responsible if they marry the mother.

2. No, of course this is not true. Children need food, clothing, and shelter regardless of the marital status of the mother. They also need a father.

Children need a lot of things. They need their diapers changed, to be taught things, socialization skills, learn what is right and wrong... Tons and tons and tons of things. You want to have a child, then you take that responsibility to provide for all of them. Since you want women to be responsible for making that decision to have a child or not have a child, then it is a decision that carries a responsibility to supply all of the things that a child needs.

3. see answer #2

 

It would really help your argumentation skills if you were to actually go from a couple ideas to a conclusion based upon those ideas. This simplistic asking numerous questions stuff is what parents deal with when raising five year olds.

When everything you post ends in a question mark, that's a really good indication that you don't have an argument.

 

Good analogy but let's take it to the next level so that we can put it into the right context.

We start a company as equal partners both putting up an equal share. My job is to do the sales and marketing and bring in the business and handle the back office work. Your job is to put your life on the line doing the actual dirty work. Neither of us has the skills to do what the other does but together we can make it work. Since you are running a significantly greater risk to your own life than I am you have a veto option on taking on any specific job if you believe that the reward does not justify the risk to yourself. I have no say in your veto because I can't force you do something against your will. We are both equal partners but have different roles and therefore different risks and responsibilities. If I stop bringing in new business we will go under. If you stop doing the heavy lifting we will go under. I can choose not to accept new business if I don't believe that the reward justifies the risk to you just as you can refuse to carry out a job if the risk exceeds what you are willing to take.

We are still equal partners but because we are not equal in our skills and abilities we have different decision points and levels of risk that we are willing to run. Yes, the relationship is still one of equals but given the nature of the roles we make the best decisions when we both agree whether or not to accept or reject a particular risk together.

 

FTR accusing another poster of lying is a rule violation.

Asking questions is not "deliberate deceit".

Obviously I have touched a nerve and I have no interest in upsetting you or violating any rules.

My posts stand on their merits.

Have a nice day!

 

And you think "equality under the law", or "what equality demands", has no relevance whatsoever to "what should be"? ^_-

Perhaps you missed it, but the key assertion made by almost everyone highlighting the system as unjust was an assertion of inequality. And yet you want to say equality is irrelevant?

And, I have no idea how many times I've said this now, but I have already said it is not the majority of the cases where no father is identified before birth. You're honing in on the exception to ignore the norm.

You have still, nearly 300 posts later, not answered the point on its own merits, but instead have honed in on an exception. Once again, this is like saying, "killing is sometimes in self defense, so killing must never be punished." It's just sensical to make the standard rule based on the norms, and exceptions to the rule based on exceptional circumstances.

And I've stated quite clearly on more than one occassion that recognizing that there is such an inequality doesn't bind a person to demanding the law be corrected for it - we have some inequalities that we maintain because correcting them would be less practical, or cause greater injustice. That is an acceptable response, but it seems like people are so defensive that they dare not acknowledge any inequalities under the law in this case, as if they need to deny it because there's some 'gotcha' lurking in the wing. There is no 'gotcha'. Acknowledging the inequality does not require one to maintain that child support should be abolished.

 

There's a problem there. If person A in the comparison brings in the work, and person B does the work (which is a very, very bad comparison, but I can run with it), then it makes sense for B to be able to say, "hey, I'm not doing this particular gig". That's fair. But for B to be able to have choice to close the business and return investments, or to hold A's investment from him and keep the business going (and keep A liable for any business liabilities) indefinitely (or for decades, if you want to be picky) is absolutely, positively an unfair case.

So in this comparison that we have, when we translate over, it's fine for the woman to have exclusive say over whether or not she has the child - she has say over termination of the pregnancy. But, in this comparison, it is still unfair for her decision over that to bind the father against his will.

 

Let's try pushing the analogy just a little further into the territory where you are going.

I drum up some risky business and you accept the risk but in doing so you incur an injury that prevents us continuing as a going partnership. At this point you are incapable of working as you did before and earning the same kind of income. Your injury is such that severely limits your earning potential and ties you down to a limited geographic area.

As your former partner I am now required, per the terms of our contract, to provide you with a monthly stipend for the next 2 decades. The contract is binding under the law and I know that my failing to do so would result in harm coming to your dependents.

Would I be justified in holding it against you that you took on a risk that caused you harm and resulted in your lower earning potential since we had both engaged in our partnership to our mutual benefit up until that point? I was well aware of the risk that you were running each and every time and accepted that if you were injured that would mean the end of the partnership.

Do I have the right to second guess the risk that you choose to take given that I knew that you were running this risk every single time?