If abortion is on the chopping block - fathers pay up STAT!

If abortion is on the chopping block - fathers pay up STAT!

If abortion is on the chopping block then the next federal regulation should be: "all fathers of all children born and forced on the mothers should provide 85% of the
fathers income from all sources toward raising all children as a result of that fathers semen".

In order for the mother to stay home to provide Absolute Parental Care. Absolute Parental Care is the best a child can hope for.

The mother should remain in the home 24/7 until the children become 18 years of age.

 

Who pays the other 15% ?
What if the 85% isn't enough?
How is the mother forced to stay home for 18 years? Is she forced to stay home like she's forced to give birth? That makes her nothing but broodstock.




(Abortion isn't on the chopping block, it will always exist despite the women haters and people who want freedom demolished).

 

I disagree with pretty much everything in your comment.

1. Abortion is not on the chopping block
2. Non consenting fathers should not be expected to pay a dime - though getting conservatives to support that one will be impossible
3. To expect someone to stay at home, basically being under house arrest, would be a massive violation of their rights especially if they have committed no crime warranting such a sentence.

 

Allowing fathers to dump children they create is not a liberal idea. It is an irresponsible, purely selfish, immoral idea.

 

That is true. The whole argument that women being able to terminate their unwanted pregnancy being unfair to men is ludicrous. t's not about being fair or unfair - It's how human reproduction works.

You might as well claim it's unfair women have to risk their lives to become parents, whilst men don't.

 

Really .. how?

 

I think the courts should have to do 50% fathers get custody and 50% mothers get custody... whats with the war on men?

I am pro-choice, pro-equal rights......

I have known fathers that paid child support and raised their kids, cause they were afraid if they went to court mom would want the kids back for the money she would lose and have to pay

personally I think child support laws need to go away for anyone not making a living wage after the the child support deduction, it ruins families imo

and when the primary caretaker remarries... step dad\mom becomes second dad\mom, responsible for half child support

child support was never meant to be a punishment....

.

 

Money isn't enough. Any biological parent who abandons their own child should be criminally prosecuted and imprisoned.

 

Explain why?

 

So if there continues to be abortion the father never has to pay up being it is the woman's choice to have the baby?

 

Some have proposed that. However, I don't think taxpayers would support that idea as then they would have an additional burden.

 

In the name of true equality that would be correct ... however .. getting conservative right-wing Republicans to support it will never happen, ANYTHING that means they might have to put their hands in their pockets will never get support, which IMO shows how "committed" they are to "saving unborn lives"

 

Fathers pay 85% of their income? How do they pay for their food, rent, etc.?

This thread is idiotic.

 

Non-consenting to what? Do you mean the father might have been raped?

 

Because someone has to spent the time and money, that's why, and there is no justification to dump those on other people. Dumping children should be a major criminal offense as it is a crime against the child and theft from the public treasury.

It is a major crime to just drop off barrels of toxic hazardous wastes at a fire station, hospital or police station because you don't want it and don't want to spend money properly disposing of it. It cost 10,000 times more public money to take care dumped child.

 

Bio-parents - mother or father - who abandon their child like so much trash dumping the responsibility on other people are as scummy as it gets.

You're off-the-wall if you think it is "liberal" or "progressive" to support the right of parents to totally neglect or abandon their own child. Nor is it prochoice.

The core of pro-choice is the woman's rights to decisions of her own body. And a legitimate complaint against most prolifers is their concern for "baby" vanishes at birth. In fact, that is when the true obligations to what now is a baby begins by both bio-parents. Dumping a child after birth is the true definition of "post-birth abortion."

 

so for you it is all about the money.

 

Really, guess they had better hand back all those abused kids to their Bio-parents then, after all dumping the responsibility on other people is as "scummy as it gets"

well considering the fact that I have NEVER stated that I am liberal or progressive - those are labels given to me by people who have no other argument - your "outrage" doesn't apply.

Where I have stated anything different?

Which is correct.

and yet you can give no logical reason as to why.

Well by definition there can not be a "post-birth abortion" .. .so your hyperbole is noted.

 

Why would their be a financial burden on taxpayers. You decided to have the child you raise and pay for it. Are you saying a woman is not capable of supporting herself and her child?

 

some are, some are not or are you one of these that believes poverty is a myth?

 

are you referring to adoption?

- - - Updated - - -

if the gov forced people to have children, they they need to share the financial costs of raising them

- - - Updated - - -

no to mention the bedroom and supplies for the child when the child stays with them

- - - Updated - - -

again, your referring to adoption?

- - - Updated - - -

what is the difference between two parents dumping their child (adoption), or only one doing it?

imo the child would probably be better off without a deadbeat mother or father.....

.

 

How exactly does the government force people to have sex? You do know that is how people get pregnant right? If only their was a pill or an in plant or something like that, that women could use not to get pregnant.

 

When and where did I say poverty was a myth? I do believe that there is a great deal of self imposed poverty. So people just can not get out of poverty some people make bad choices to get them into poverty.

 

See the thing on the end of my statement, it's called a question mark ie I was asking a question just as you have above, and the answer to your question is I never said that you said poverty was a myth, I asked the question "are you one of these that believes poverty is a myth?"

Really so children born into poverty is self imposed?

Correct, so do you believe that people need help when that happens?

Another poster raised a very good question as well. If the government legislates that a woman must give birth then it also has an obligation/duty to support that women and her child.

 

Yes, money, but far more than just money. Children take a lot of time, focus and energy. No, it is about time, money and who's burden and duty are children? Who makes the hazardous wastes is responsible for it. Who starts a fire is responsible for the fire. Who makes a child is responsible for the child. Nothing seems more obvious, unless you support infanticide.

What about my going around starting fires because I like to start fires? Not my obligation to control the fires. That's the fire department's job. That appears your perspective.

You have to pick one. 1. The biological parents can just let their children die of thirst and starvation or 2. leave them at your home with you required to take care of them at your time and expense.

Since you apparently think bio-parents can abandon and dump their children, which one of those 2 do you pick?