• 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

Well, of course you get far more cases to the latter. You have far fewer people who ar millionaires, right? :p

I know it is incredibly expensive to raise a child. That's my point. I don't think it is right to base just how expensive it is on an income percentage.

It's nice you drive an expensive SUV and have a nice house. Can't really argue that either of those are necessary in raising a kid though... Those creature comforts are just as much for you (the universal you) as they are for your kid(s).
 
So how about this. You make it a law where the both parties have to decide on the outcome, before they have sex. The male, if he does not want to pay child support, must get the woman to sign a legal document making her 100% responsible for the child if she get pregnant, you can make a notery sign it and everything. Once she agrees to the contract, then if she gets pregnant, it is her fault. How about that?


Other wise, because slavery is illegal and wrong. The fetus needs the woman for at least 7 months to be healthy. Forcing a woman to carry a fetus would be slavery.
 
That would be fantastic if it was doable.

I never once advocated forcing the woman to carry the fetus, yet the issue keeps being revisited. I would appreciate it if we dropped that angle (unless of course you are referring to someone else).
 
lordofthereef said:
Well, of course you get far more cases to the latter. You have far fewer people who ar millionaires, right? :p

I know it is incredibly expensive to raise a child. That's my point. I don't think it is right to base just how expensive it is on an income percentage.

It's nice you drive an expensive SUV and have a nice house. Can't really argue that either of those are necessary in raising a kid though... Those creature comforts are just as much for you (the universal you) as they are for your kid(s).
Click to expand...

I don't need the suv. In fact, it isn't driven unless we all go somewhere. I would not have it of it wasn't for her. Same with the house. I would never consider a five bedroom without kids. Not to mention food, clothes, insurance, braces, entertainment for her. My cs barely pays for her school lunches. But, I can't really ask for half of her moms pay. I actually don't use her checks at all. They get deposited directly into an account for my daughter.
 
RiverOfIce said:
So how about this. You make it a law where the both parties have to decide on the outcome, before they have sex. The male, if he does not want to pay child support, must get the woman to sign a legal document making her 100% responsible for the child if she get pregnant, you can make a notery sign it and everything. Once she agrees to the contract, then if she gets pregnant, it is her fault. How about that?


Other wise, because slavery is illegal and wrong. The fetus needs the woman for at least 7 months to be healthy. Forcing a woman to carry a fetus would be slavery.
Click to expand...
You know what sounds better to me? Wrap it up if you don't want the responsibility of kids.
 
nlsme said:
I don't need the suv. In fact, it isn't driven unless we all go somewhere. I would not have it of it wasn't for her. Same with the house. I would never consider a five bedroom without kids. Not to mention food, clothes, insurance, braces, entertainment for her. My cs barely pays for her school lunches. But, I can't really ask for half of her moms pay. I actually don't use her checks at all. They get deposited directly into an account for my daughter.
Click to expand...

You can justify however you want my friend. I am not judging you in any way. You aren't going to convince me that you need a $40,000 SUV and a 5 bedroom house to take care of your child(ren), nor is that the point of my statement.

Sounds like you are doing the responsible thing though, if Mom isn't well off. If she was super well off, I don't think she should have to be paying towards another SUV and a bigger house. JMO.
 
If we were together, and she made decent money, she would be payiong towards a nice suv and a bigger house. The CHILD would experiance the same financial environment. Kind of the point I am trying to make. Maybe I should get a $6,000 SUV for the "family" outings, while I drive a $20,000 bike?
 
nlsme said:
Maybe I should get a $6,000 SUV for the "family" outings, while I drive a $20,000 bike?
Click to expand...

And my point is that you literally CAN do this, as can any other parent collecting child support. The fact that you wouldn't do it says great things about your character, but that is all it says. Bottom line is I have seen child support abused by many families and it is more than unfortunate.
 
And, I have seen far more instances where cs isnt a drop in the bucket to what IS spent on raising the child. No I don't NEED a $40,000 suv, but I have one. The ONLY reason I have one is because I have a family. I don't NEED a 5 bedroom house, but I have one. Again, because I HAVE a family. I don't need to eat anything more than bread and water, yet I spend $200/week on food.
 
lordofthereef said:
He is required to, at the very least, pay child support until that child reaches the age of 18. If he denies being the father of the child, the mother can get a court ordered DNA test. When that comes back positive, part of his paycheck goes to the mother every month for 18 years.
Click to expand...


well put, but I have something interesting to add, if the man takes the baby from birth and takes care of the child for the rest of its life and the mother hardly has anything to do with it, does the woman have to pay half her paycheck to child support? it only seems fair to me that if that was the case then a woman should be legaly obligated to pay the same amount of child support if it were flipped like it is in most cases
 
sethman88 said:
well put, but I have something interesting to add, if the man takes the baby from birth and takes care of the child for the rest of its life and the mother hardly has anything to do with it, does the woman have to pay half her paycheck to child support? it only seems fair to me that if that was the case then a woman should be legaly obligated to pay the same amount of child support if it were flipped like it is in most cases
Click to expand...
Two things, first, no state will take half, no matter how many children you have. Many states go by the same standard. 17.5% for the first child, 23% for two children, and 27% for 3 or more children. Second, the law makes no distinction between paternity/maternity with regards to child support OR custody.
 
nlsme said:
I don't need to eat anything more than bread and water, yet I spend $200/week on food.
Click to expand...

You'd die of malnutrition if all you ate was bread and water. In any case, I don't see your point? I am advocating, at the very least, having parents show in some way that they are, indeed, spending their money on their kids. The majority of people do just fine. We don't set policy because of a majority, but to protect us from minority that don't do the morally correct things, no?

If I may make an astounding comparison, but one that I hope makes sense. For me (and most likely you) there needs not be a law stating killing another man, outside of self defense, is illegal. I would never do that regardless of what the law states. Yet, we have those laws because a small number of people don't seem to have that moral compass. Likewise, most people have a moral compass causing them to spend CS money on their kids. It's those that do not that are the problem.
 
I have already said the paying party can request documentation on how the money is spent. It isn't hard to show how buying the food, clothing, housing, healthcare, transportation is going to the child. You say I debt need a 40,000 suv, I say it meant matter if I NEED it. I have it, and I use it to cart around my daughter. The bread and water was there to say I feed my daughter better than the cheapest way.
 
And that's fine. My point is, I can request this. Say I am paying $2G a month in CS. How on earth is that number going to be justified by the kids mom as being spent on the kid every month? And that is just my expected contribution, not mom's.
 
lordofthereef said:
And that's fine. My point is, I can request this. Say I am paying $2G a month in CS. How on earth is that number going to be justified by the kids mom as being spent on the kid every month? And that is just my expected contribution, not mom's.
Click to expand...
If she is receiving 2 g's a month, that means you are making 10 g's a month. If you are making 10+ g's a month and you were together, best beleive mom would be in a benz. If mom is in a benz if you were together, best beleive that child is going to be in that benz. Why should the child lose out on riding in a benz because you dont think mom deserves it? See how it goes back to the child still being in the same financial environment?
 
That's great. I don't believe what you would have spent on mom, had you been together is relevant. I know families who are together, where dad is making over $10g a month where mom doesn;t have a nice vehicle. I don't see how it is a given then, that this WOULD be the case had the parents not separated. It simply is not. Majority, perhaps. As stated before, I am not arguing for the majority.
 
It isnt about what you spent on mom. It is about the financial environment that the CHILD is accustomed to. When you are married, half of your income is your spouses, and half of your spouses income is yours. If one makes 10g's a month, and they don't drive nice cars/have a nice house/clothes, that money is most likely saved or reinvested. When you split up, it is split 50/50, from that point the child maintains the same financial environment through child support.
 
What if there was a prenuptial agreement first? What if you were never married? My point is, just because daddy (or mommy, whichever parent doesn't have full custody) was rich doesn't mean baby ''deserves" the rich lifestyle. In short, in case this was missed, I see why it is the way that it is. I don't need further explanation. But... I disagree that it should be that way.
 
A PRE-nup ONLY covers assets attained BEFORE marriage. And, of course a child "deserves" the rich lifestyle IF a parent is rich. IF they were together, a rich person would not put a shanty house in the backyard for the kid. Why should they be able to say, well, now I don't care how you are raised because mommy and daddy can't be together.
 
lordofthereef said:
IMO this should not be relevant.
Click to expand...
Your mommy and me can't get along, so it is red beans and rice for you. No college either. School clothes, pfft. Need braces my arse. Don't mind that my car costs more than you will ever see. I am rich, you never will be, now get lost.......
 
I believe abortions should be legal everywhere.

It would be best for society if we could trim down the population and avoid bringing these poor babies into this world without proper parents to take care of them.

Pro-Life is very selfish. Pro-Choice is not selfish.

The pro-lifers care about these babies when they are in the womb, but once you're born, YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN!
 
nlsme said:
Your mommy and me can't get along, so it is red beans and rice for you. No college either. School clothes, pfft. Need braces my arse. Don't mind that my car costs more than you will ever see. I am rich, you never will be, now get lost.......
Click to expand...

College they aren't required to pay for anyway. Braces are by far and large a cosmetic thing. If they are medical necessity, there are programs for that. That is incredibly rare, in the grand scheme of things. Soon as daddy throws the kid out to fend for himself when he reaches 18 since CS payments are gone the kid is gonna get the worst wake-up call of his life. Would have been better off without the silver spoon. JMO, as always.
 
Actually, child support is collected longer when a child attends college. Braces might be cosmetic, but the way one looks IS very important in the development of a child. And what is the differance between daddy throwing a child out, and CS payments ending at 18? Nothing, so, why should the fact that at 18 a parent can say goodbye, be a reason for a parent saying goodbye to their responsabilities at the ripe old age of birth-18?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom