Welcome to Gaia! ::

In this case, it has nothing to do with bodily integrity. It has to do with not wanting to support a child financially, and opting out of being a parent.



You are also being punished if you are forced into parenthood, even fiscally.



No, that’s called paying taxes, something every citizen of this country is required to do.



In those cases, you owed the victim a duty of care, which was neglected, resulting in physical harm. In that case, it is a punishment, because you ******** up and hurt somebody. Instead of sending you to jail (or, in the case of doctors, revoking their license), you pay a fine.



See above. Taxes = being a citizen. Paying child support = being forced to be part of a kid’s life that you don’t want.



Just because the kid has my DNA, doesn’t mean I’m obligated to take care of it. If that were the case, adoption wouldn’t be allowed as an option for people who give birth, but don’t want to raise the kid.



C) is the one I’m curious about: Why does it take two? Why can’t one parent raise a child by themselves, if they chose to raise it? Why, just because the kid shares DNA with both parents, must both parents pay (literally)?



Did I say abortion was “purely-money-based”? Show me where I did, because I didn’t. In my example, a woman chose to abort for PURELY financial reasons. I never said it was purely money based.

The words. You shove them in my mouth.



Stop dragging in bodily domain. This debate is about being forced into parenting fiscally. It has nothing to do with a woman’s right to her body.



Thank you for telling other people what to do with their sex lives and their bodies. I’ll remind my fiancé before we make love tonight that we shouldn’t be having sex, because I might get pregnant, and he will have to deal with it if it were to happen.



This. Has. NOTHING. To. Do. With. Bodily. Domain.

You keep dragging it in as a red herring. Please stop. It is getting quite old.



Here’s what irks me the most: We, in this guild, can all agree that NOBODY, NOBODY has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. Why are you suddenly allowed to turn around and say to a man who, even though he is child-free, might not like being cut open even a teensy bit, and say: “Sorry, do it anyway if you don’t want kids!”

It is HIS body. It is HIS choice what to do with it. Nobody should tell him what to do in regards to it.



Just because you cannot think of one, does not mean they do not exist, first of all.

Secondly, there are quite a few payments within our society that are punishments. Traffic tickets, court settlements, etc. All of these are implemented when someone does something wrong, or against the law.

What was wrongly done in the case of a person becoming a parent, when they did not wish to be one?



Again, thank you for telling people what to do with their sex lives. I’m sure men who cannot afford vasectomies the world over will appreciate your advice.

And here I thought one of the points within the pro-choice movement was that nobody has any business in their bedroom but those directly involved?



I never said they were easy choices. Either stop putting text into my posts that I did not imply or say directly, or I will refuse to continue this discussion.

You have yet to show me how consent to sex = consent to parenthood. Consent to the possibility, of course, but not consent to becoming a parent. You have also yet to show me why sharing DNA is such a special bond that requires a judge to move in and say “you owe X amount per month”.



Why?

And I’m not saying that to be a b***h, I seriously want to know why DNA = you’re suddenly responsible.



And what of when shelling out child support effects another’s standard of living? Does the child then trump the parent that is now hurting financially?

I don’t understand why it’s “Help the children, and ******** anybody else who might be hurt over it.”



See below.



Bullshit. It is bitchy. When a court says “pay for your kid,” that person is forced to be a part of that kid’s life, however minute it may be. It forces one into parenthood who didn’t consent to it. It punishes a person for having sex, and not being able to control their sperm/egg and the fertilization that resulted. In quite a few cases, a parent suffers because of these payments, which can, sometimes, amount to more than the taxes they pay on their income per month. Why should the parent not be able to defend their assets?

The level of discontent in here is starting scare me.. crying Guys don't fight...mew..

Honestly I don't think the father should be apart of any kind of decisions if he chooses to walk out on his kids and wife/girlfriend/whatever you want to call it. Simply because it was his choice and he probably won't give the kids the TLC that they need in order for them to function psychologically. I don't honestly think that child support should be a punishment. You can't punish someone for making mistakes. That is not how humans act. Everyone makes mistakes, we're only human, we're not perfect. In a perfect world there wouldn't be any dead beat dads, single moms etc. But that's not thinking logically. Bottom line: Child support does not = Father being involved. All it does is empty the dad's pocket books and makes him do something totally stupid because he's desperate for cash to pay the child support. But that's my opinion anyways. So Tragic don't yell at me for having a different opinion.

I may be 17 but I do know I am entitled to an opinion and I can express it. If you don't like it, tough. We're supposed to be agreeing on matters like these. We share a common goal, am I right?

Expect a lot of C&Ps, because it's that easy to respond to irrelevant claims.


Then stop complaining that a supposed "right" to not pay child support applies within the context of pregnancy and abortion.

Seriously, why does "wah, my monies" apply in a guild about reproductive choice? Isn't that just reinforcing what I've been saying all along? Not paying for your child's well-being has nothing to do with aborting a fetus with no rights. You're spouting on about "punishment" and paying for a kid's right to basic things like food and shelter (OH THE HUMANITY), but you're conveniently ignoring the bodily context of a woman's right to not be a mother. If you're acknowledging that abortion and opting out of child support are not the same, and that a violation of your body and a "violation" of your paycheck aren't the same, then stop claiming that "punishment is punishment."


Logical failure. Taxes require you to pay for s**t that doesn't even apply to you, like childless people paying for public education, rich people having to pay for welfare, healthy people paying for the disabled, and innocent people having to pay for criminals. All of those people are being "punished" and "forced" into being responsible for others with whom they don't even share a familial connection. Or are you arguing from some backward pretext where you're obligated to help complete strangers, but you're not obligated to help your own children? Wait, that still wouldn't work, seeing how people are arguing that they should be able to treat their kids like strangers. Funny how things work out, huh?


So what's wrong with requiring a citizen to look after his or her own children like any other parent? Society runs on a basis of people helping each other out, as everything would collapse without their tax money supporting infrastructure, social services, etc. Judging by the current state of the U.S, this system is stretched thin as it is. The adoption system is glutted with unwanted children, and it would completely collapse if we declared that parents no longer have an obligation to the born children they helped create. DNA is what determines important things like next of kin, inheritance, and custody in the event of death, so society isn't going to do away with its emphasis any time soon. Now why should we abolish a working system in favour of individual wangsting, especially when there is no such thing as an irrevocable right to your money? If you're arguing from a point where "stranger" and "child" are interchangeable, then what makes a child any different from any other socially dependent person? If the government taxed your income for child support, what makes this different from any other tax?


You owe your children a duty of care because you were responsible for their existence in the world. They obviously cannot control this. If you're going to act all indignant at the idea of DNA connection binding you to your born offspring again, help yourself to that delicious C&P below.


Logical failure. Taxes require you to pay for s**t that doesn't even apply to you, like childless people paying for public education, rich people having to pay for welfare, healthy people paying for the disabled, and innocent people having to pay for criminals. All of those people are being "punished" and "forced" into being responsible for others with whom they don't even share a familial connection. Or are you arguing from some backward pretext where you're obligated to help complete strangers, but you're not obligated to help your own children? Wait, that still wouldn't work, seeing how people are arguing that they should be able to treat their kids like strangers. Funny how things work out, huh?

So what's wrong with requiring a citizen to look after his or her own children like any other parent? Society runs on a basis of people helping each other out, as everything would collapse without their tax money supporting infrastructure, social services, etc. Judging by the current state of the U.S, this system is stretched thin as it is. The adoption system is glutted with unwanted children, and it would completely collapse if we declared that parents no longer have an obligation to the born children they helped create. DNA is what determines important things like next of kin, inheritance, and custody in the event of death, so society isn't going to do away with its emphasis any time soon. Now why should we abolish a working system in favour of individual wangsting, especially when there is no such thing as an irrevocable right to your money? If you're arguing from a point where "stranger" and "child" are interchangeable, then what makes a child any different from any other socially dependent person? If the government taxed your income for child support, what makes this different from any other tax?


Once again, adopting out a kid involves severance of parental rights from both parties involved. Adoption also isn't an answer for millions of unwanted kids, otherwise there wouldn't be such an effort to make parents responsible for their own offspring. God forbid that children not get passed around from home to home, or eventually "age out" of the system upon turning 18 with nothing to their name.


The abysmal child poverty rate among single mothers say a big ******** YES. Are all those children going to magically disappear if they're made to be given up for adoption by parents who wanted them (but can't properly care for them due to the other parent's pouting)? You seem to have a very poor grasp of how much a stable family structure means to a government that can't properly look after children who aren't white, healthy, and fresh out of the v****a.


You only think that because you're not understanding the argument properly. I repeated many times up to this point that a medical procedure can't be compared to a severance of financial responsibilities. If you don't want people to stop addressing your arguments as they are, then stop complaining that a supposed "right" to not pay child support applies within the context of pregnancy and abortion.


Then stop complaining that a supposed "right" to not pay child support applies within the context of pregnancy and abortion.

Seriously, why does "wah, my monies" apply in a guild about reproductive choice? Isn't that just reinforcing what I've been saying all along? Not paying for your child's well-being has nothing to do with aborting a fetus with no rights. You're spouting on about "punishment" and paying for a kid's right to basic things like food and shelter (OH THE HUMANITY), but you're conveniently ignoring the bodily context of a woman's right to not be a mother. If you're acknowledging that abortion and opting out of child support are not the same, and that a violation of your body and a "violation" of your paycheck aren't the same, then stop claiming that "punishment is punishment."


Oh noes! Reminding people to think of the possibility of abortion or birth (which are the ONLY POSSIBLE ACTIONS you can make when it comes to pregnancy) is telling others to do with their sex lives! I guess we shouldn't tell people to drive without insurance or to take on risky jobs without thinking of how they'll pay for it physically or financially; they'll think it's an invasion of their private lives. rolleyes If you're not prepared to deal with an abortion OR birth, then what exactly do you plan to do if a pregnancy takes place by accident? Ignore it and hope it goes away?

There's being open-minded, and then there's being so open-minded that your brain falls out. Every action has a positive or negative consequence. Telling people to think (what a concept!) before they do something that could potentially harm them is not judgemental.


Then stop complaining that a supposed "right" to not pay child support applies within the context of pregnancy and abortion.

Seriously, why does "wah, my monies" apply in a guild about reproductive choice? Isn't that just reinforcing what I've been saying all along? Not paying for your child's well-being has nothing to do with aborting a fetus with no rights. You're spouting on about "punishment" and paying for a kid's right to basic things like food and shelter (OH THE HUMANITY), but you're conveniently ignoring the bodily context of a woman's right to not be a mother. If you're acknowledging that abortion and opting out of child support are not the same, and that a violation of your body and a "violation" of your paycheck aren't the same, then stop claiming that "punishment is punishment."

The guilt of waving around red herrings fell a long time ago on the people who thought they could compare a medical procedure to a termination of financial responsibilities. Why else would they be posting here? If you're going to champion for the right to your money, then do it in a place made for the purpose.


Since you seem to know absolutely nothing about the childfree movement and what kind of discussions go on in their communities, I'll repeat this part:

A childfree man getting offended at someone's suggestion of vasectomy is like a pro-lifer being offended at the idea of having kids.

By that same token, a childfree woman getting offended at the idea of tubal ligation or any other method of surgical sterilization is like a pro-lifer being offended at the idea of having kids. So much for "those poor mans, you are mean to them!"

And:

Oh noes! Reminding people to think of the possibility of abortion or birth (which are the ONLY POSSIBLE ACTIONS you can make when it comes to pregnancy) is telling others to do with their sex lives! I guess we shouldn't tell people to drive without insurance or to take on risky jobs without thinking of how they'll pay for it physically or financially; they'll think it's an invasion of their private lives. rolleyes If you're not prepared to deal with an abortion OR birth, then what exactly do you plan to do if a pregnancy takes place by accident? Ignore it and hope it goes away?

There's being open-minded, and then there's being so open-minded that your brain falls out. Every action has a positive or negative consequence. Telling people to think (what a concept!) before they do something that could potentially harm them is not judgemental.


Still doesn't address the nifty fact where you have the right to all of your paycheck, or you don't. A judge is likely to act on existing precedents that allow the government to tax and fine you accordingly, instead of "omg, this dude/chick is being violated 'cuz they're not being allowed to let their kid go unfed."



No wrong has been committed by becoming a parent. It's a standard duty to look after your kids. It's only when people fail that duty that they get taken to court and are ordered to pay a set amount according to their income. Just like when you fail your duty to pay your taxes or certain bills, the appropriate agencies will subtract the amount and penalties from your paycheck.


Since you seem to know absolutely nothing about the childfree movement and what kind of discussions go on in their communities, I'll repeat this part:

A childfree man getting offended at someone's suggestion of vasectomy is like a pro-lifer being offended at the idea of having kids.

By that same token, a childfree woman getting offended at the idea of tubal ligation or any other method of surgical sterilization is like a pro-lifer being offended at the idea of having kids. So much for "those poor mans, you are mean to them!"

And:

Oh noes! Reminding people to think of the possibility of abortion or birth (which are the ONLY POSSIBLE ACTIONS you can make when it comes to pregnancy) is telling others to do with their sex lives! I guess we shouldn't tell people to drive without insurance or to take on risky jobs without thinking of how they'll pay for it physically or financially; they'll think it's an invasion of their private lives. rolleyes If you're not prepared to deal with an abortion OR birth, then what exactly do you plan to do if a pregnancy takes place by accident? Ignore it and hope it goes away?

There's being open-minded, and then there's being so open-minded that your brain falls out. Every action has a positive or negative consequence. Telling people to think (what a concept!) before they do something that could potentially harm them is not judgemental.


Then stop complaining that a supposed "right" to not pay child support applies within the context of pregnancy and abortion.

Seriously, why does "wah, my monies" apply in a guild about reproductive choice? Isn't that just reinforcing what I've been saying all along? Not paying for your child's well-being has nothing to do with aborting a fetus with no rights. You're spouting on about "punishment" and paying for a kid's right to basic things like food and shelter (OH THE HUMANITY), but you're conveniently ignoring the bodily context of a woman's right to not be a mother. If you're acknowledging that abortion and opting out of child support are not the same, and that a violation of your body and a "violation" of your paycheck aren't the sme, then stop claiming that "punishment is punishment."

And again there's bullshit about consent, as if there aren't obvious biological divides and bodily integrity issues that make pregnancy more than a matter of just choosing parenthood. If you think that opting out of child support is the same thing as opting out of a pregnancy, then you are comparing a financial issue to a physical and financial issue. If you think that paying for an unwanted child is the same thing as being forced into a bodily violation, then you are comparing your money with her body.

If you're trying to argue against child support without bodily integrity, you're not doing a very good job of it by bringing up comparisons that involve bodily integrity to begin with.


What's wrong with requiring a citizen to look after his or her own children like any other parent? Society runs on a basis of people helping each other out, as everything would collapse without their tax money supporting infrastructure, social services, etc. Judging by the current state of the U.S, this system is stretched thin as it is. The adoption system is glutted with unwanted children, and it would completely collapse if we declared that parents no longer have an obligation to the born children they helped create. DNA is what determines important things like next of kin, inheritance, and custody in the event of death, so society isn't going to do away with its emphasis any time soon. Now why should we abolish a working system in favour of individual wangsting, especially when there is no such thing as an irrevocable right to your money? If you're arguing from a point where "stranger" and "child" are interchangeable, then what makes a child any different from any other socially dependent person? If the government taxed your income for child support, what makes this different from any other tax?


Because of everything that's been said so far, thanks to the art of C&P. Having someone own up to the well-being of children they created is considered to be far less detrimetal than having to take care of millions of unwanted children on top of the ones that are being failed by the current adoption system.


I see all this wanking and fussing, but I don't see anyone considering the much-reiterated fact that child support payments are assessed according to income, and therefore, cannot deprive anyone of a basic standard of living. I brought up statistics that explain the unwarranted poverty that the children with single parents face, but I don't see statistics about non-custodial parents falling into the same bracket. I see people whining about the non-existent right to retain all of their income, but I see no acknowledgement of the child's inability to gain an income in the first place. It's amazing what perspective can do.


But it's just a standard thing when the government says "pay for your fellow citizens, although nothing binds you to their existence." The minute involvement in all those people's well-being, the horror of it all. Being "bitchy" is worse than preventing kids from starvation, neglect, and a shitty start at life!

Also, logical failure. Taxes require you to pay for s**t that doesn't even apply to you, like childless people paying for public education, rich people having to pay for welfare, healthy people paying for the disabled, and innocent people having to pay for criminals. All of those people are being "punished" and "forced" into being responsible for others with whom they don't even share a familial connection. Or are you arguing from some backward pretext where you're obligated to help complete strangers, but you're not obligated to help your own children? Wait, that still wouldn't work, seeing how people are arguing that they should be able to treat their kids like strangers. Funny how things work out, huh?


Here we go again with bullshit about consent, as if there aren't obvious biological divides and bodily integrity issues that make pregnancy more than a matter of just choosing parenthood. If you think that opting out of child support is the same thing as opting out of a pregnancy, then you are comparing a financial issue to a physical and financial issue. If you think that paying for an unwanted child is the same thing as being forced into a bodily violation, then you are comparing your money with her body.

If you're trying to argue against child support without bodily integrity, you're not doing a very good job of it by bringing up comparisons that involve bodily integrity to begin with.


Much like how taxes punish a person for being a contributing member of society, amirite? If you have sex, you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that it may or may not result in a born child somewhere down the line. Your subjective definition of "punishment" does not change the needs of this child, it does not change the limitations of the adoption system, and it does not change the fact that your income will be taxed to help those in need, regardless of your relation to them. The "right" to determine how your paycheck is taxed does not exist for any other societal dependent, so why does it suddenly come into effect when your biological children are involved?


How dare we have laws that prevent men from forcing abortions on thier partners, or committing infanticide!


Suffering, to the point of making up a HUGE portion of the impoverished demographic like single-parent families? I don't think so.

On an ending note:

You can argue all you want how it ought to be, but society is always going to protect those who need the most protecting. The laws allow choice on male parenthood by giving unmarried birth fathers to contest adoptions if their names are on putative fathers' registries, or their children's birth certificates (meaning no parental rights are legally forfeited, and the father can gain custody and child support). This is out of concern for the children involved and the need to have less wards of the state. This means that they're more likely to favour keeping parents and children together as a functioning unit than to concede to one parent's money-based objections. A mother's refusal to get an abortion does not justify child deprivation, a divorce does not justify child deprivation, and the lack of uteruses for fathers does not justify child deprivation. The fact that one parent is incapable of gestating unborn life does not take away from the needs of born children. When you cannot control a pregnancy, there is no capacity (or point) to dwell on choices that do not exist. As I've repeated many times by now, women acknowledge the physical and financial risks of sex, pregnancy, abortion and birth. There is no reason why men should feel left out about weighing their own non-bodily risks when it comes to sex. Unless child support payments develop into a phenomenon where the man is in danger of disability and death from gestating large sums of money in his body and painfully expelling it later, his stake is not remotely comparable.

That doesn't make any sense. If a man always has a right to his money, and forcing him to pay child support is a 'punishment', then he should be able to keep his money regardless of the attachment. The way you've presented it, making a man pay child support is tantamount to cutting off his damn p***s, so why can't this man opt out? When does his money, stop being his money?