It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Men and Child support. What is the answer?

page: 31
52
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaDreamer

my initial court ordered child support was 700 a month plus full insurance i was earning 10.00 an hour back then...
when called the district attorneys office once, i asked if i could have my case reviewed because i could establish that the rate i was paying... 39% of my post taxed income...was creating a severe financial hardship and i was suffering overtly. the response i received was, well you should just count your lucky stars we dont take 50% from you right now.


That's insane. If I ever had to deal with that, I would seriously flip out and start killing people. Good thing I never had to pay child support. But it really is little wonder why men do the insane things like I posted in that other thread where the guy assaulted the pregnant girl, or worse, like the rash of DV murders here in my county in the last year.




posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by CobraCommander
 



Originally posted by CobraCommander


I don't see a rash of men raping women to get them pregnant.


I dont see a rash of women raping men to get their paychecks either.
edit on 2-6-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: (no reason given)


If a woman lies to a man and says she is on the pill, that is rape. If the woman pushes a man's used condom inside of her, that is rape. And yes, I have seen that.

But regardless. It is the woman's body, it is up to her to make sure she doesn't get pregnant if she can't afford it, or unless she has certain assurances from a man that he is willing and able to provide. Namely, she should be married. Short of that. I would suggest a paternal rights contract be drawn up and used more frequently in our society, with the men voluntarily committing to fatherhood, rather than becoming fathers by default because of women who don't know how to maintain their own bodies.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by CobraCommander

If a woman lies to a man and says she is on the pill, that is rape. If the woman pushes a man's used condom inside of her, that is rape. And yes, I have seen that.


Ok. Well, by THAT "logic" its rape if a man tells a woman he will be with her til the end of time, or if the man tells the woman he had a bike accident and his doctor says he is sterile now. I guess those lies are rape too, right?



Originally posted by CobraCommander
But regardless. It is the woman's body, it is up to her to make sure she doesn't get pregnant if she can't afford it.


And how can that argument likewise not be turned completely around too? "Its the mans paycheck and its up to him to make sure he doesnt get anyone pregnant if he cant afford it."

All I hear from the guy side of this argument is a high pitched whine about how women are the ones who should be responsible for what drips out of their dicks. No. Its your sperm. You are HALF responsible for any baby you make because you stick it in some irresponsible woman. Have better judgment. Dont screw women who "cant maintain their bodies."



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Ok guys, this seems to be degenerating into the battle of the sexes like threads like this usually do.... That is what it was meant to do of course. I can see one thing most of us do agree on from both sides, is the status quo is not working. How about taking the thread into another direction and putting up ideas on how it might be fixed.

I know there will be some situations, where one of the parties goes off the total deep end, but a majority of the time is not so extreme.

One person threw a solution something like this, I have to paraphrase, I couldn't find the original post.

Both pay 50%, on a house where the children live 100% of the time, and a tiny little apartment. The parents switch between the apartment and house, that way the kids are not jerked back and forth between two residences, both get some time to themselves in the tiny apartment, and both spend time with the kids.


I think that is a fantastic idea, and short of a psycho spouse, I don't see how anyone could object to that.

On a side note, I have seen it from both sides.

On one side for example, I am great friends with a single mother. The father is worthless, collects welfare while living with his girlfriend in her parent's basement. Both living rent free, collecting money off the back of us who do work. Total losers, pay zero support. Meanwhile she has to work the ten hour night shift at a factory, to just scrape by. Her daughter has to stay with her mother on the weekdays, and she is a real jerk as well. Totally undermines the discipline she tries to instill in her daughter. It's sad.

On the other hand I have known men that are literally making decent money, but one the child support is taken out, they can barely afford to live.


edit on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 21:51:15 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


No, that wouldn't work except in cases where the parents are very very very nice to each other.

Its a nice idea. It just wouldn't work in reality.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 




Ok. Well, by THAT "logic" its rape if a man tells a woman he will be with her til the end of time, or if the man tells the woman he had a bike accident and his doctor says he is sterile now. I guess those lies are rape too, right?


If a woman want the man stay until the end of time, then she should get married before she has sex with him. Or at least marry him before having unprotected sex with him I should say, to be more practical.

If the man lies and says he is sterile but she gets pregnant. Then yes, I would say that is rape.

Ill respond to the other part in a moment...



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by CobraCommander
 


Seriously, someone figure out which state this guy is in.

The idea that someone who understands a guy assaulting a pregnant woman, or advocating understanding for people who kill their families should NOT be running a foster home.

This is quite horrifying.

I'm guessing NY. Now to narrow it down a bit more. All I need is one more bit of information to triangulate...and I *will* be contacting these people.

www.ocfs.state.ny.us...
edit on 2011/6/2 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 





And how can that argument likewise not be turned completely around too? "Its the mans paycheck and its up to him to make sure he doesnt get anyone pregnant if he cant afford it." All I hear from the guy side of this argument is a high pitched whine about how women are the ones who should be responsible for what drips out of their dicks. No. Its your sperm. You are HALF responsible for any baby you make because you stick it in some irresponsible woman. Have better judgment. Dont screw women who "cant maintain their bodies."


You are committing a logical fallacy there. Economics is not biology. If the woman does not want to get pregnant, she can nt get pregnant. It has nothing to do with whether or not the man can or will give her money for the child.

Let me ask you this. *SNIP*

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.
edit on 6/3/2011 by semperfortis because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
Ok guys, this seems to be degenerating into the battle of the sexes like threads like this usually do...


It is what these threads were meant to do. But Im having fun simply flipping all the stupid argument around. Its easy, for one, and it clearly illustrates how stupid the argument is in the first place. Win win for me.


Originally posted by TKDRL
One person threw a solution something like this, I have to paraphrase, I couldn't find the original post.

Both pay 50%, on a house where the children live 100% of the time, and a tiny little apartment. The parents switch between the apartment and house, that way the kids are not jerked back and forth between two residences, both get some time to themselves in the tiny apartment, and both spend time with the kids.


I think that is a fantastic idea, and short of a psycho spouse, I don't see how anyone could object to that.


It is a good idea. I also like the idea of just not making so many babies. Spouses dont turn psycho overnight. Usually, you know within the first year or two if there is a little something not right. People need take the time to really get to know people before you mix bodily fluids with them. And, even after you marry, give it a year or two before popping out the baby. Make sure the person really is who they presented themselves to be.

The problem seems to me that men and women both seem to want to pretend "I have no control over my genitals." When, in fact, you do. You do not have to hump everyone you like within hours or days of meeting them, often completely unprotected. And even if you like them enough to marry them, you do not have to have a baby right away. And if you already have one or two babies you are paying for, maybe skip baby three and four with the next woman you hook up with.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


If it's all about the kids like people claim, then they can damn well make it work. How hard is it to be civil? Seriously, my first few girlfriends screwed me over bigtime, in many ways. I am still able to be civil. Like I said, in cases where someone is a psycho, that wouldn't work. But in most cases, why can't you both suck it up and come to a decent agreement for christ sakes? It seems to me a lot of women out there really don't want it to change, as long as it is working out for them.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by CobraCommander
 


Ummmm... its not a logical fallacy. You just dont seem to realize how stupid your argument is.

A man has control over who he sticks his penis into. (Biology) If you cannot, or are not willing to pay for a baby, do not stick your penis into a woman. Because babies are made by putting penises into women. Im sure of it.

Or, if you WANT to stick your penis into women and you do not want to pay for babies, get a vasectomy. Then, you can stick your penis into as many women as you want and the odds of your ever having to pay child support become very, very low.

Or, forgot the AIDS question. You can if she knew she had it and deliberately didnt tell you, and you had asked. If you did not know, and she did not know, then no. Its your responsibility for sticking your dick into someone you did not take the time to get to know. SOME people make their partners get tested for STDs before they screw them. You could have too. Some people use condoms. You could have too.

And child support is not "a woman suing you for making her pregnant." Its you paying for your half of that baby. She is also paying for that baby. And if you factored in the hours of labor to care for the baby, she is probably paying a lot more than you for her half.


edit on 2-6-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


I agree with you to a point. Sex is not the problem though. I have plenty, with a few different women, but it comes down to what you said about knowing people. I hook up with women who are like me, enjoy being independant, and do not want kids. If you cannot discuss such things, then you probably do need to keep it in your pants, that goes for both sides. If you are a dude, buy your own rubbers with spermacide, learn how to put them on correctly. Use waterbased lube, and you really don't have to worry about them breaking.

And also buy the correct size.... Buying a comdom made for a 20 inch penis don't make your penis look any bigger

edit on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 22:01:46 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 





Both pay 50%, on a house where the children live 100% of the time, and a tiny little apartment. The parents switch between the apartment and house, that way the kids are not jerked back and forth between two residences, both get some time to themselves in the tiny apartment, and both spend time with the kids.


The biggest problem I see with that is evenly splitting who stays there with the kids. Because of work schedules, often times parents live some distance apart, I don't see it as a very practical solution. An idea that some parents might be able to make work, but it would take SUBSTANTIAL financial resources. Because now you have actually split the family into THREE separate households, whereas splitting in tow is often enough to create severe economic hardship for all those involved. You now have three rents, three utility bills, three security deposits, etc.

And of course, given that economic strain, fat chance of getting the woman or the man out of that apartment if they should lose their job.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Aeons
 


If it's all about the kids like people claim, then they can damn well make it work. How hard is it to be civil? Seriously, my first few girlfriends screwed me over bigtime, in many ways. I am still able to be civil. Like I said, in cases where someone is a psycho, that wouldn't work. But in most cases, why can't you both suck it up and come to a decent agreement for christ sakes? It seems to me a lot of women out there really don't want it to change, as long as it is working out for them.


It simply won't work. People get remarried. They have other children. They die. They become sick. People have mental disorders and personality disorders.

This just doesn't work.

If the solution of "suck it up" and be decent worked....we wouldn't be having this conversation.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by CobraCommander
 


Seriously, someone figure out which state this guy is in.

The idea that someone who understands a guy assaulting a pregnant woman, or advocating understanding for people who kill their families should NOT be running a foster home.

This is quite horrifying.

I'm guessing NY. Now to narrow it down a bit more.
edit on 2011/6/2 by Aeons because: (no reason given)


Still trolling for my personal information eh? Isn't that a serious offense on ATS?



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Aeons
 


If it's all about the kids like people claim, then they can damn well make it work. How hard is it to be civil? Seriously, my first few girlfriends screwed me over bigtime, in many ways. I am still able to be civil. Like I said, in cases where someone is a psycho, that wouldn't work. But in most cases, why can't you both suck it up and come to a decent agreement for christ sakes? It seems to me a lot of women out there really don't want it to change, as long as it is working out for them.


Women are psychos, hell-o!
(except my woman of course.
)



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by CobraCommander
 


You have foster children, and you are talking about killing women and children and beating pregnant women into miscarriage in an admiring way.

I don't CARE.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


Grow up lol. I understand why people do a lot of things. Doesn't mean I am giving a blessing, or would go out and do things myself.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


One of my best guy friends had a pregnancy scare recently, and he whined all to high heaven. What happened? He had been having casual sex with his ex, whom had been in love with him since their teenage years, who had wanted a baby badly the whole time I knew her, and whose biological clock was ticking loudly, oh, yeah, and without condoms.

How stupid can anyone get? Honestly. And I told him that too when he complained about feeling "tricked." Luckily for him, he dodged that bullet. But if YOU dont want babies, YOU use the birth control. My friend NEVER wants babies, so why not get snipped? Because he is a lazy snip who would rather have the female do all the dirty work for him.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Aeons
 


Grow up lol. I understand why people do a lot of things. Doesn't mean I am giving a blessing, or would go out and do things myself.


If I had a home for teenage boys, and spoke admiringly of serial killers who hacked off penises of men to teach them a lesson....would you be concerned?



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join