Child Support Laws Should Be Abolished <MOD ALERT>

And just who would be stupid enough to agree to such terms?

Idiots that have nothing to lose.

Thanks for proving that this has resulted in nothing but low quality idiots engaging in such an arrangement.

and that is why you have what you have. A bunch of children raised by women who have no clue what right or wrong is because they don't even know the men who are traditionally responsible for teaching those things. Women can't do it. So sorry, but they are incapable of it. That's what fathers are for.

checkmate.

 

OK. Fair enough. I'm very happy you did not say that deliberately. So it appears we have both made mistakes here. Let's leave it at that.

Thanks for being truthful!

 

Your response says volumes...but not about who you imagine it does.

People enter into marriage contracts on a daily basis with similar terms.

Are married people "stupid enough to agree to such terms"?

Are those who are married "nothing but low quality idiots engaging in such an arrangement"?

 

Like I said folks, stank smoke blowing bombast is not debunking anything.

That being the case, looks like the king reigns!

 

No, its so women can bear full responsibility from their freedom to do with their bodies as they please.

 

Couple of points

1. The word OR is a conjunction that indicates alternatives
2. Don't say things that are untrue, and I won't accuse you of lying

That is not true, it might be a lie

Good. Glad to hear that.

In some cases, they have fallen because of lack of merit. I have demonstrated that.

Same to you

 

Well folks, like I said, looks like the king reigns again!!!!

[video=youtube;NgJetx1PjYo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgJetx1PjYo[/video]

 

You just said it A g a I n !
What a silly ridiculous old fashioned TOTALLY illogical idea...!!!! Kids don't exist if their parents aren't married ? WHAT!!!!

Enter more pretzel ""logic".....NO, they don't need a father they need the money that buys their food, clothing, and shelter.

Yes, and as the mother is doing all that AND helping to support the kids YOU whine because the "father" is expected to write a check...

I sure wonder where the idiotic phrase " man up" came from....why would anyone want to be like "men" who don't want to support their own children??

 

This is so like the abortion argument....when the smoke clears and the Anti's are frustrated IT ALWAYS COMES DOWN TO PUNISHING WOMEN FOR HAVING SEX....ALWAYS



Glad to help

 

""""" 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.""""""""



All very nice and reasonable HOWEVER


the TITLE of the thread?


Child Support Laws Should Be Abolished <MOD ALERT>



I guess ya missed it......

 

OK - so this injury. Let's say it's fairly serious, but I can easily rectify it by a cheap operation if we don't dilly-dally, which you offer to pay for immediately so we can go back to business as usual, and the treatment is safe and common. I instead say no, I don't want that treatment that costs a few hundred, I would rather keep you on paying me a few hundred monthly for two decades. Is that fair?

I realize that at this point the comparison starts to become a problem, because no "injury" is really comparable to becoming pregnant, and no "treatment" really comparable to an abortion.

 

What? I disagree with a conclusory statement in the op - are you suggesting now that no one is allowed to disagree with the conclusory statements of the op? What rule is that?

- - - Updated - - -

So wait - by YOUR OWN rationale just given, you merely want to punish men for having sex.

 

YOu deleted the part you didn't like """""""" 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.""""""""


That was the first part of my post you didn't want people to see, YOUR quote.

 

No, that is NOT a logical conclusion IF you followed and UNDERSTOOD the posts.....but you didn't....


I want children supported as much as possible by their parents, that isn't punishing them for having sex , it's protecting children , a concept you just can't seem to get in your desperation to let men go free of any obligation to their CHILDREN...

 

Yes, the comparison is not entirely analogous because the refusal to have the "cheap operation" could be based upon a religious belief.

Which brings us to the point of contention. By refusing the "quick and cheap" option the more expensive option is then contractually incurred. However that option was always part of the original contract. Both of us knew that it was there and we both choose to take the risk of the more expensive option. Neither of us has the right to make the other choose the cheaper option and most certainly neither of us can override the religous beliefs of the other.

In summary the more expensive option was always on the table from the outset and both parties knew it. What was also known up front was that the choice to go with the more expensive option always lay with the party taking the greater risk. Furthermore the party who would have to pay the more expensive option always had the choice to take additional precautions and/or insurance to prevent that eventuality from occurring.

Both parties are equally aware of the risks and both parties are equally aware of their choices IMO.

 

Interesting you would see it that way. Calm down, no one wants to harm you.

 

Looks like poor, persecuted Mother Teresa here has pontificated down the motivation of others. Calm down, no one wants to see anyone punished. Its just that women can't have their cake and eat it too.

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks. Saved me the trouble of pointing out the obvious.

 

Proof I nailed it...

I should calm down ? YOU started the thread....

 

Look its ok.

No need to be emotional sweetie. No one is going to harm you.

 

Then why the subsidized food, shelter, and medical, from taxpayers who are total strangers?

 

Due to excessive flame baiting and post limit, the thread is now closed

Shangrila
Moderator