lordofthereef
Android Expert
I am not at all sure what two totally different things you are referring to here.
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Men's Rights in Terms of Child Support and Abortion
- Thread starter lordofthereef
- Start date
lordofthereef
Android Expert
No sir. What I am saying is after the moment of pregnancy, the fate of the father (in terms of child support) is in her hands. What SHE ALONE decides to do with that child dictates whether he will have to pay said child support or not. In other words the woman can "walk away for the problem" from the get-go. The man can only walk away if the woman is ok with it.
Honestly, for me the problem is pretty simple. What is best for the child. If a woman wants to abort the child, should not be forced to give birth and/or raise. To many children are born into abject poverty, abuse, and mental/physical disorders.
Just going to go to the video.
‪Daniel Craig in a drag for the 100th annual International Women's Day‬‏ - YouTube
In 2010, 6125 lawsuits and settlements happen because of pregnancy discrimination.
Just going to go to the video.
‪Daniel Craig in a drag for the 100th annual International Women's Day‬‏ - YouTube
In 2010, 6125 lawsuits and settlements happen because of pregnancy discrimination.
lordofthereef
Android Expert
I disagree. Reasons for abortion are often monetary. Why can't a man have that same option (to not have a money sink)?
It's a human life. I get that. The mother can also decide to literally give the kid away (again, often for monetary reasons). Daddy just waits around for momma's decision.
Frisco
=Luceat Lux Vestra=
I don't think men's and women's rights about pregnancy should be an equal 50/50. The only thing 50/50 about it is the responsibility for the woman getting pregnant.
After that, because she's the one who will have to take responsibility for carrying to term, actually creating the baby on a daily basis, way beyond the sex act that made her pregnant, she should have an extra 1% on decisions about whether or not to go ahead carry it to term.
Her: 51% of the decision to abort or not
Him: 49% of the decision to abort or not
The man should be responsible enough to make a case for why he wants it to be one way or the other, but after he's done that, it should be up to her as the child bearer.
lordofthereef
Android Expert
That's fair. How do you define this in legal terms? is this to be read as "Everything should stay exactly as it currently is"?
And again, I am not really saying the man should have ANY say in the abortion. I am saying if the woman doesn't want to have a financial burden, she has options. For the men, their only options is praying for the mother's understanding.
Mommy CANNOT give the baby up for adoption IF the daddy objects. Daddy can always go to court and try to get custody. Then, the tables are turned.
OR, you know, being responsable in the first place. If a man doesn't want top have kids, or have to face the financial burdens associated with having kids, wrap it up. A woman can't get pregnant without a man.....
Frisco
=Luceat Lux Vestra=
It's so much in flux now.. and different states seem to really have ways of emphasizing it one way or the other.
My take is the old feminist one of, "it's my body," being put forth by women beginning decades ago. I agree with it very much, and if I were in a situation where a decision had to be made, I'd understand that my feelings could never trump her's on that issue because even though the (potential) baby is both of ours, it's the contents of her own body that people are making these decisions about.
The notion that some politicians want to prevent her from making that choice really irks me to no end, and most often they put forth "religious reasoning" (an oxymoron) rather than what's being talked about in here.
Yes, that woman can cause one huge hardship for the man if she denies him that abortion.. but she should be able to do that, in my opinion.
My take is the old feminist one of, "it's my body," being put forth by women beginning decades ago. I agree with it very much, and if I were in a situation where a decision had to be made, I'd understand that my feelings could never trump her's on that issue because even though the (potential) baby is both of ours, it's the contents of her own body that people are making these decisions about.
The notion that some politicians want to prevent her from making that choice really irks me to no end, and most often they put forth "religious reasoning" (an oxymoron) rather than what's being talked about in here.
Yes, that woman can cause one huge hardship for the man if she denies him that abortion.. but she should be able to do that, in my opinion.
lordofthereef
Android Expert
I am mom. I realize dad will force me to court. Time for an abortion. "Problem" solved.
Perhaps, to be fair, I am advocating either parent to have the option X hours/days after child birth to sever any legal ties to said child if desired.
Once the child is born, it is no longer about EITHER parent. Rather, what is best for the CHILD. You really think it is in the best interest of the child, to have one parent being able to say, I dont care? If you wanna be a deadbeat, go for it. Don't hold ANY emotional ties, but, you caused it, you are paying. The only way I would even think about agreeing with you here, is if by choosing to "cut ties", you were castrated, as to not ruin another innocent life with your selfishness.
lordofthereef
Android Expert
First of all, castration is far too harsh, when a vassectomy would achieve the same thing.
Second, I suppose I disagree. Yes, there are plenty of cases where, if the father (or perhaps mother) was not in the kid's life when he/she clearly never wanted to be in the first place, the child would be better off.
Second, I suppose I disagree. Yes, there are plenty of cases where, if the father (or perhaps mother) was not in the kid's life when he/she clearly never wanted to be in the first place, the child would be better off.
The child MIGHT be better off without a crappy parent in their life. There is no a way a child would be better off, if parents are not willing to support them financially. Again, two different things, that have NOTHING to do with each other....
lordofthereef
Android Expert
I think the vast majority of parents that are forced to pay child support decide that they have a sense of entitlement to be a part of their kid's life. After all, they are paying for it, might as well be there to ruin it and tell them how terribly a person mom is.
On an entirely different level (and possibly for a different thread), it is interesting to me that child support is based on income level. Apparently, in the eyes of the law, the kid of the McDonald's fry cook needs less $$ to be equally cared for than does Bill Gate's (theoretical) illegitimate child.
All parents should have a sense of entitlement with regards to being in their kids life. Now, if they want to be a shitty parent, and try to belittle the other parent, then they are just shitty parents.
As far as child support being based off of income levels, it is because it is a standard that mimmics the financial environment with wich the child would experiance, had the parents stayed together. You can't really say to the fry cook that he owes $180,000 a week in child support. And, you can't tell Bill Gates' kids, that $37/week is pretty close to the same financial environment they would have had, if mommy and daddy hadn't split up.
lordofthereef
Android Expert
I don't see a relevance in the financial situation the kid would have been in at all. I personally think it is just a damn easy way for the court to decide how much cash must be handed over. All the while mom is using "child support" to ride around in that Mercedes and buy a new house. If it was required to spend that money under penalty or perjury on the kid and only the kid, perhaps I would understand. It clearly is not.
Two things. First, if "mom" gets enough cs to drive around in a Mercede's, you can bet, the child would have been in a Mercede's had the parents not split. Second, not only "mom's" get cs. In fact, the law does NOT mention maternity/paternity getting preferance on custodial matters. And only custody matters as to whom is going to receive support. CS is not there to punish father's, as you seem to believe. It is there to assist the custodial parent financially in caring for the child.
lordofthereef
Android Expert
Oh certainly it isn't there to punish fathers. If the custody is the father's the mother is left paying child support. And no, I would not say that just because mom can afford to drive a Mercedes off of child support the kid would have had this if they stayed together. I have witnessed plenty of cases where the mother has the father by the balls when it comes to finances and vice versa. My fiances dad gets a new fully loaded Infiniti every 4-5 years. Meanwhile his wife get's to drive around a ten year old Jetta that she was allowed to buy after he haggled for a couple hours.
Certainly chances of the millionaire's kid being toted around in the Benze are higher than that of the theoretical fry cook (had the families stayed together), but they are by no means the rule of thumb.
Certainly chances of the millionaire's kid being toted around in the Benze are higher than that of the theoretical fry cook (had the families stayed together), but they are by no means the rule of thumb.
Considering most states award 17.5% of your income. If the child support check is enough to purchase a Benz, then yes, it is a safe bet that a Benz would have been the "family" vehicle.
lordofthereef
Android Expert
FWIW, I am not implying the first check will provide from the Benze. What I am implying is that mom (or dad, can easily keep most of the cash to herself).
Another way to look at it. Dad pays the money but has no say in how, if at all, it is spent on his kid (assuming mom has full custody).
EDIT: I am not trying to single either dad or mom out, but for the sake of this discussion it will be dad paying, mom receiving (unless there is an objection with this).
Another way to look at it. Dad pays the money but has no say in how, if at all, it is spent on his kid (assuming mom has full custody).
EDIT: I am not trying to single either dad or mom out, but for the sake of this discussion it will be dad paying, mom receiving (unless there is an objection with this).
lordofthereef
Android Expert
It may be worth mentioning that I have similar issues with welfare (in terms of how much $$ actually ends up being spent on the kids).
Actually, the paying party can request documentation on how the money is spent. Now, it is pretty easy to show how the money is spent on a child. An extra room at the house isn't cheap. A bigger car isn't either. School supplies/clothes. Food. Now, take into consideration my earlier statement, where I said that it is a standard, meant to ensure the same level of financial security as would be present had there not been a split, and you can see where 17.5% isn't a lot.
One other point. You might get some cases, where the amount awarded is far more than what is spent on the child. But, you also get far more cases, where the amount awarded isn't a drop in the bucket compared to what is spent on the child. I fit into the latter. I drive a $40,000 SUV whenever we all go somewhere. I have a 5 bedroom house, that is over $2800/month mortgage. My daughter grows like a weed, and spends $200/month on clothes. I pay insurance and copays. Food five days a week. Child support doesn't even pay for school lunches.