• 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

If the parent is reporting the child as a dependent past the age of 18, you are correct. Parents are not required, by law, to report children without disabilities as a dependent. If you are not a dependent, your parent no longer has financial obligations. I respect your opinion about braces, but you aren't going to convince me they are anything more than cosmetic, no matter how bad the kid gets made fun of. Can't change the color of you skin or body type and kids get made fun of for that too. Finally, I was not using the age of 18 as an excuse. I was merely saying that going from having everything to all of the sudden having much is harsher than having very little to begin with.
 
I am not talking about taxes, I am talking about child support. If ones child is attending college, child support is collected past the age of 18. I respect your opinion about braces, but you said yourself you cant change the color of your skin or body type, but you can change your teeth. Aside from braces, dentists ARE a necessity. As far as it being better to have very little to begin with, I will give the analogy that it is better to have love and lost, than to have never loved at all. Fact is, it is not up to the courts to make that distinction. It is up to the courts to ensure that a child suffers as little as possible when parents are not together. Be it emotionally or financially. Child support is how they ensure the latter. Besides, you started the thread with the statement that a parent should be able to walk away completely. Now it is just that, your income shouldn't be used to determine how much responsability one should be required to maintain. What else should be used?
 
nlsme said:
Besides, you started the thread with the statement that a parent should be able to walk away completely. Now it is just that, your income shouldn't be used to determine how much responsability one should be required to maintain. What else should be used?
Click to expand...

I am discussing other aspects. I still believe, given the fact that the mother can decide to have an abortion, both parents should be given the right to walk away. It seems silly that both parents can agree to adopt, but if one does not, the other has a new financial burden on his/her hands. Every aspect of that has been discussed. I still feel how I feel, but there is no point in discussing it further. I am not here to convince anyone, but wanted to hear what reasons there may be behind it. IMO, they aren't good enough. I may be wrong, as I have been before. The evidence presented, IMO, was not enough to prove me wrong, just that my opinion differs from yours.
 
Well, in many states you do. New York being one. I can't go through state by state and find the laws, but I know for a fact NY is not the only one where this is the law.
 
lordofthereef said:
I am discussing other aspects. I still believe, given the fact that the mother can decide to have an abortion, both parents should be given the right to walk away. It seems silly that both parents can agree to adopt, but if one does not, the other has a new financial burden on his/her hands. Every aspect of that has been discussed. I still feel how I feel, but there is no point in discussing it further. I am not here to convince anyone, but wanted to hear what reasons there may be behind it. IMO, they aren't good enough. I may be wrong, as I have been before. The evidence presented, IMO, was not enough to prove me wrong, just that my opinion differs from yours.
Click to expand...
If one parent doesn't want to adopt out their child the other parent does NOT have a "new" financial obligation. A baby doesn't just pop out one day. And again, abortion and child support are two totally different things that cannot, nor shod not be interlinked. EVER.
 
nlsme said:
If one parent doesn't want to adopt out their child the other parent does NOT have a "new" financial obligation. A baby doesn't just pop out one day. And again, abortion and child support are two totally different things that cannot, nor shod not be interlinked. EVER.
Click to expand...

I am simply saying a pregnant mother has more options to avoid financial burden. That is all. Not attempting to compare the two, but it is an undeniable fact.
 
nlsme said:
Well, in many states you do. New York being one. I can't go through state by state and find the laws, but I know for a fact NY is not the only one where this is the law.
Click to expand...

And I don't intend for you to. I am simply pointing out that your statement, which was made as an absolute, is not one, unless you, in fact, intended to make that statement for the state of NY only.

I have no idea what the majority is as I also have no intention of searching state by state. I am pretty sure California, where I grew up, is not one of those, which is why I searched for evidence as this forum always demands.
 
lordofthereef said:
I am simply saying a pregnant mother has more options to avoid financial burden. That is all. Not attempting to compare the two, but it is an undeniable fact.
Click to expand...
But you are, you are saying "she can get an abortion, so he should be able to say no child support". The reason she can get an abortion, and he can't is because it is HER body, not his. After the child is born, she can't kill the baby. She can't say, no child support IF he has custody. She can't say, adopt the baby out, if he disagrees, just like he can't.
 
lordofthereef said:
And I don't intend for you to. I am simply pointing out that your statement, which was made as an absolute, is not one, unless you, in fact, intended to make that statement for the state of NY only.

I have no idea what the majority is as I also have no intention of searching state by state. I am pretty sure California, where I grew up, is not one of those, which is why I searched for evidence as this forum always demands.
Click to expand...
Sorry fopr stating it as an absolute. It is that way in many states. New York, and Florida being two that I know of off the top of my head.
 
nlsme said:
But you are, you are saying "she can get an abortion, so he should be able to say no child support". The reason she can get an abortion, and he can't is because it is HER body, not his. After the child is born, she can't kill the baby. She can't say, no child support IF he has custody. She can't say, adopt the baby out, if he disagrees, just like he can't.
Click to expand...

I am stating that she has more options. As I said, that is an undeniable fact. One that, IMO, is overlooked.

IMO, being that the option is there, perhaps both parents should have the option to walk away. Another way I look at it is this may actually reduce the number of abortions pregnant women go through. If they know that they can adopt, or at the very least not be burdened financially, perhaps they will think about bringing the baby to term. At the very least, if women choose abortions, it won't be for financial reasons.
 
Yes, for three months after the guy squirts in her (wich is his CHOICE), she has more options than he. BEFORE there is a baby. After that, he has just as many options as her. You cannot punish a child for that. You can not link the responsabilities of supporting a child AFTER birth, to the responsabilities pregnany entails BEFORE birth. They are not linkable. Maybe a parent should be able to just put a baby in the dumpster?
 
How does putting a baby in the dumpster have anything to do with what I am saying? The mother that puts her baby in the dumpster is completely ignorant of current law where they can take their child to any hospital and give it up for adoption. Not once did I advocate this, nor would I ever.

It is those three months that I question, yes. I think we would have fewer abortions if either parent was able to sever legal/monetary obligations before the child is born. I personally don't see that as punishing the child.
 
I can understand the arguement against abortion. I can't understand the linking of abortion to child support. I also can't understand the thought that a parent should be able to disavow all responsability to said child after birth (thankfully, no country does either, as no country allows it). Or how that would NOT hurt the child. All I can say is I feel sorry for any child someone with your beliefs might one day have, if you feel YOUR rights are more important than THEIRS. Don't want kids, wrap it up. Afraid of an "accident", keep it zipped.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom