reply to post by galadofwarthethird
So the only real solution is to try to limit this to a smaller ratio of happening, and what better way to do that then the current system of bias, and it would have to be against men, because well have your really talked to a female ever, there not on the logical side or the most reasonable, or capable to think outside there own needs and wants. And not to mention all the other facts that they are not capable of grasping.
The current system breeds a generation of irresponsible baby-women who use the system rather than build a stable relationship, and why not? It's there, right?
Originally posted by Realtruth
Here is a question, why do men need to pay child support period?
If two parties share joint/ shared custody, and responsibility why don't both the parties take care of their own financial situations in regards to the child.
Or if the man actually has the child more, why should he have to pay support?
Child support rarely goes to the child or supporting the child.
edit on 10-2-2011 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)
WELLINGTON, New Zealand – A family court judge in New Zealand has had enough with parents giving their children bizarre names here, and did something about it. Just ask Talula Does The Hula From Hawaii. He had her renamed. Judge Rob Murfitt made the 9-year-old girl a ward of the court so that her name could be changed
The important lesson is that the state OWNS you and your children. If you step outside very narrow boundaries you will be forced back inside the lines. One way or another.
Originally posted by Maslo
Nope, the important lesson is that nobody owns your children. Not the state, but also not the parents. Thats why you cannot name your child whatever you want, but it has to be inside the lines. It is called custody, not owning, and being in custody of someone does not give you the right to give him/her funny name. Your child is not your pet.
Originally posted by galadofwarthethird
reply to post by korathin
All sounds good in theory but like all things it would be a whole different thing in practice.
Your very argument is "without forced child support and/or alimony more kid's will pop out to be left for themselves and it will cost more in taxation aka welfare" is counter productive. Since women know they can get money by getting pregnant by a guy with some money they are more inclined to turkey baste or unilaterally decide to stop taking her birth control without mentioning it to her significant other.
That was not my argument, my argument was that the fact that it does happen you cant assume that it wont happen, if your more lenient on it, or if your not wont matter all that much. I'm saying is that it will happen either way, it's more to do with biology then anything else really.
But yes your right that whole females getting pregnant for the money part has to be diminished, it has lead to a whole industry really, were it feeds on the ignorance of men and the fact that females cant control there biological impulses nor do they know how to express those impulses other then, what you see, and are to emotional and the judges and lawyers know this. I'm afraid only if your Donald Trump can you afford to deal with all that. Now if he could only aford to deal with having a couple more wives then the average guy would not have to deal with a couple more females. But this aint the middle east or the down south, so cant do that.
While if she knew she wouldn't get any support without continuous consent she would be more willing and insistent on waiting for marriage and far more careful so as to not bear the financial burden alone.
Um once again easier said then done, you factor in biology, the whole recession thing, and just the different types that wont make a great match at all, then well you have what you see today. So really what you see is what is possible. In fact you would have both to really blame for such things, a male who did not think it through and a female who just took advantage of that. So really this is a personal problem that express itself at a higher rate, because of all those factors like biology and recession and just need and wants.
By forcing all liability on the party with the least amount of rights and choice in the matter you are only supporting and expanding upon what you will fear will happen if the Constitution is properly enforced.
There you go again "forcing" no one is dragging people by there hair at shotgun point to do the things that they do. I'ts more like enforcing so if they do it, then yes it becomes a problem that has to be enforced, because lets be honest if it happens then that by default means that none of the party involved wanted to take responsibility, hence there current predicament.
So the only real solution is to try to limit this to a smaller ratio of happening, and what better way to do that then the current system of bias, and it would have to be against men, because well have your really talked to a female ever, there not on the logical side or the most reasonable, or capable to think outside there own needs and wants. And not to mention all the other facts that they are not capable of grasping. So learn to avoid it and watch out for it is the best course, that I see. Really if they could of paid on equal footing or have been on equal terms, then most likely this whole problem would not have happened.
Originally posted by joechip
reply to post by slane69
Does your righteous rant include women? Does it address the inequality in the law? Does it take into account the constitutional issues raised by the OP?
All your post does is reiterate the moral point made before, and beat the dead horse of "male" responsibility. For women's choices. Thanks but no thanks. Your comment shows a lack of respect for the issues topical to this thread.