rehmwa 2 #26 April 5, 2010 I have another option: Since any sex act can result in pregnancy, and which guy it is is just random chance - I'd propose that all of a woman's partners are 'responsible'. This is based on the comments "if he isn't prepared to raise a kid, he should keep it in his pants". Each sex partner has to contribute $$$ to the woman each time they have sex - say, $500 each time. She then has the financial support in the event of a pregnancy. on the flip side - here's another: they hook up - she gets pregnant, but she miscarriages. She assesses her life and decides she REALLY wants to be a single mom and adopts a baby. Since the first guy didn't choose to "keep his dick in his pants" and she actually did get pregnant by him he really does have a responsibility to at least some child somewhere - shouldn't he help raise this adopted child anyway? Can she pretty much elect to force any previous partner to support any child she ever has? Edit: my crapulence knows no bounds today ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #27 April 5, 2010 Quote uh huh - so you are offering what option for parity of choice??? If I may infer then, you are proposing the following: You can infer any notion you want. Just STFU with the whining already. Is the status quo (man has responsibility but no choice) unfair? No more than that pregnancy is grossly unfair for her. But if we're no longer pretending to talk (a real problem with you, Rehmwa, is you like to bounce randomly between serious and retarded): If you want to target the real unfairness, it's that for the most part, she decides when they fuck. So go tell the judge - she's completely responsible for this baby. We wouldn't have had sex without her say so. I had no involvement in the decision. It might work in the South. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #28 April 6, 2010 Quote Each sex partner has to contribute $$$ to the woman each time they have sex - say, $500 each time. She then has the financial support in the event of a pregnancy. $500 per sex partner or $500 per sex act? Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ZigZagMarquis 8 #29 April 6, 2010 Quote Quote Yeah, but what doesn't the woman have to pay too? You think she doesn't? Nope. * just enjoying the movie now * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ZigZagMarquis 8 #30 April 6, 2010 Quote Quote Each sex partner has to contribute $$$ to the woman each time they have sex - say, $500 each time. She then has the financial support in the event of a pregnancy. $500 per sex partner or $500 per sex act? Dude! That one was just too good to pass up... Anyway... re "$500 per sex partner or $500 per sex act?"... ya know what they call women who do that... and many get really pissed off if you call them that... but it doesn't necessarily mean they won't take your money for it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #31 April 6, 2010 Quote (a real problem with you, Rehmwa, is you like to bounce randomly between serious and retarded):. sure, and your real problem is you just stay on the retarded and sophmorically simple and trite. pretty much the stereotype of a resentful blue collar old timer ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #32 April 6, 2010 Quote Quote Each sex partner has to contribute $$$ to the woman each time they have sex - say, $500 each time. She then has the financial support in the event of a pregnancy. $500 per sex partner or $500 per sex act? either seems cheaper than the current reality. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
virgigirlie 0 #33 April 7, 2010 So this is my reply to a question from ZZM in the original thread and to the first post of this thread: QuoteQuote A couple of questions then... 1) Specifically speaking, did your mother get any child support from your father to help raise you? 2) Generally speaking, do you think single moms who don't name the biological father / don't name their children with the father's last name, thus, should forfeit getting child support from the father? 1. They were actually together for several years after I was born. He was abusive (to her), they never married, and he never paid any support. Though she was entitled to it, I don't think my mom would've taken his money anyway. She never asked him for support (although when they were dating he wanted her to pay him to "babysit" me so she could go to work). She didn't even put his name on my birth certificate. 2. Why should child support be forfeited just because the kid doesn't have his last name? He is still the parent. If the mother does give his last name to the kid does that mean she doesn't have to contribute financially (or otherwise?) to the kid's up-bringing? Or if the father is raising the kid and it has his last name, does that mean the mother shouldn't pay support? Parenthood is parenthood regardless of name. Unless the child has been legally adopted away from you, you're legally (and morally) responsible for your children. That said, I'm also all for visitation/shared custody rights provided there isn't an abuse/substance abuse/dangerous or detrimental situation going on. But even then I think the offending parent has a responsibility to help ensure that their child is taken care of, which can be somewhat accomplished through monetary support. Bottom line: Regardless of whose choice it is to abort, adopt, or keep, both genetic donors are responsible for the kid if one results and is kept. If you can't be or choose not to be in the kid's life, then you have to help support it somehow. As for support from both parties, what's the custodial parent gonna do, write her/himself a check? The custodial parent is already paying fiscally and emotionally and physically tons to raise that kid. Child support laws are not designed to punish people who do not act responsibly. It's not like the government's taking and keeping that money - it goes to your kid. Why should the custodial parent's wages be garnished? Even if you're married, plan out when you'll have kids, have them, then get divorced, someone's likely gonna have to pay support. Child support is meant to support the child(ren). Clothes, food, school supplies, tuition, things the custodial parent pays for. No woman gets a free pass just for carrying the kid - she either gets custody (which costs heaps of money/emotion/etc.) or has to pay support."If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning." ~Catherine Aird Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
