My point was the woman either has to pay for a highly evasive medical procedure or has to full time raise a child . Meanwhile he waltz off to work jobs for untraceable money horde it then lie about it . In my job in Domestic we hunted down countless numbers  of these assholes. They always have money for everything else.  But never when it's time to pay the support. Always it a alternate bank account or a "Friend"  hiding the money. They are never in my experience are dead broke. Just good at lying about it or hiding the(often not small) amounts of  money they do make. Well often making plenty of "accidents" along the way . As for society if were talking the laws nope woman may have the ability to get child support but the system is so often limp wristed it not even funny. So no it's not like jokers are being dragged in irons to the gallows . They often  go  there whole lives without paying a cent . And no I won't take a dead beat dad at his word because in my experience they almost always lie.

---

To further elaborate my first point

http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2017/03/the-man...rnity.html

(July 5, 2017 at 11:24 pm)pool the matey Wrote: "My body, my choice."

Okay, it does makes sense. You don't want others telling you what to do with your body, that's fine, you know? A unilateral power over whether a baby lives or dies is with it's mother because it's her body and it's her choice, which is fine, but what happens when a woman gets pregnant and the man she had sex with does not want to keep it but she does? 

I mean, obviously, you can't force an abortion, so what do you do for the guy? So my position is that the guy should be able to opt out of parenthood in that situation, so like, no parental obligations whatsoever, it'd be like it isn't even his kid. 
Anyway, that's my position, I think that's fair to everyone involved but I was wondering what pro-choice supportive folks think about it. 

Are you supportive or not supportive of it, why?

He should of used a French Letter. Or better yet, kept it in his pants.

If you had a share in bringing a baby into the world, then you should have a share in raising it.

(July 7, 2017 at 5:26 am)Tizheruk Wrote: My point was the woman either has to pay for a highly evasive medical procedure or has to full time raise a child .

Oh, I feel ya there.  Obviously the cost should be split if the decision was mutual and our ridiculous government should pony up cash when people cant afford it.  It's cheaper than welfare.  

Quote:Meanwhile he waltz off to work jobs for untraceable money horde it then lie about it . In my job in Domestic we hunted down countless numbers  of these assholes. They always have money for everything else.  But never when it's time to pay the support. Always it a alternate bank account or a "Friend"  hiding the money. They are never in my experience are dead broke. Just good at lying about it or hiding the(often not small) amounts of  money they do make. Well often making plenty of "accidents" along the way .

Some guys are dicks.  That probably shouldn't inform your opinion on law and equality, thought, right?  I'm not talking a bout some schmuck walking out on a kid (or tons of kids) anyway..nobody can do that without consequence and that's how that should be.  I'm talking about a male having the same reproductive choices as a female insomuch as they don't violate a females rights.  There is a way for a female to legally, acceptably, and unilaterally decide not to be a parent -before- a child is born but after conception.  Why is there no way for a male to do so, and why shouldn't there be?  

Quote:As for society if were talking the laws nope woman may have the ability to get child support but the system is so often limp wristed it not even funny. So no it's not like jokers are being dragged in irons to the gallows . They often  go  there whole lives without paying a cent  . And no I won't take a dead beat dad at his word because in my experience they almost always lie.

The system is fucked up, that's an argument for improving the system..not for punishing bad men™ with fatherhood.  Perhaps, if there were fewer bad men™ to chase down the system could handle the remainder? Perhaps some of the bad men™ aren't really bad men in the first place. Funny thing about dragnets like child support enforcement..they're shitty at catching criminals, intentional offenders. They're a whole lot better at catching guys who aren't hiding, who do report, but fail to comply. My stepfather went 20 years without paying a single cent to -two- women for 6 kids. I had to go to court to avoid 30 days in jail because I was 20k in arrears on day for one child due to how the state backdates child support to the date that a divorce was sought, and mine took over a year in arbitration. Got picked up for a busted taillight, lol. I have no idea how he got away with it, no uidea why his child support commitment for 6 kids was $100 buks a month, either. Mine is $200 a week plus half of medical expenses and college until she's 24. Took me awhile to catch up, what with the state charging me interest like it was a loan and not being able to claim that expense for purposes of public assistance even though the recipient -can- claim it as income. I said it at the start, I'll say it again. Patriarchy is bad, even for men. I know that some low level shitweasel somewhere thought they were hammering a bad man™ in my case, riding in to save the poor downtrodden damsel (who walked away with everything I owned and left me with her debts...lol). Probably had to deal with a string of terrible motherfuckers before me and I was just another name, just another deadbeat who surely had money squirreled away somewhere.

The system is fucked up. It fails to support the people it's supposed to help but succeeds in extorting and intimidating people for whom there is no earthly reason to do so. Ultimately, though..that's not what we're talking about. I pay because I wanted a child. I made that commitment - I'm not talking about changing that. I'm not suggesting that, when daddy is tired of mommy and his kindergartner..he can waltz.

Quote:

---

To further elaborate my first point

http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2017/03/the-man...rnity.html

A positively horrible idea for a bill.  Yet another way for someone to consign someone else to parenthood.  However, ask yourself this......what makes it horrible?  Is it horrible because..in the event it became a bill, a female could be forced to become a parent against her will because the other party refused to go along with an abortion?  Well..golly gee...that's exactly where a male is at the moment.

(The universe delivered a sick sort of karmic justice on my stepdad, btw. Since he legally adopted me to change my name to his own, ad since I was the eldest..I became not only his legal heir and next of kin..but the only child h had that was of age when he died. I became the executor of his estate..which included a half interest on one of my families homes and..sadly, full interest on his parents home..the two of which died shortly after he died. I didn't cry for him, I did cry for them - my grandfather just grunted and stared into space for a few months before he gave up - couldn't handle his sons death, but the proceeds of the sale of that home squared things away for my mother and the other woman, and one of his daughters ended up living in one of the two homes..which she desperately needed..since she decided to have one of those deadbeat dads kids and couldn't have afforded rent - in that case he at least had the courtesy to OD and die..so now his son gets his ss. She's about to do it again..only this time the guy was pretty clear on not being able to afford a kid and not wanting one..she just can't have an abortion - far too catholic, lol. I feel for him, I've known him since he was five..there isn't a shitty bone in his body. Ah well, such is life and the fucked up state of our system.)

---

(July 7, 2017 at 7:46 am)Tazzycorn Wrote: He should of used a French Letter. Or better yet, kept it in his pants.

If you had a share in bringing a baby into the world, then you should have a share in raising it.

Maybe you should put that on a piece of project board and picket an abortion clinic with it?  

An interesting point of law is that a husband is responsible for supporting any babies his wife has, even if they aren't his. This made sense back in the days when paternity was uncertain, but I think if you impregnate another man's wife, they should be able to go after you for child support.

He's still responsible for them even if the mother, or the state, -does- seek child support from the other daddy (and they can, ofc, provided the new daddy hasn't done something hilariously stupid like adopting the kid out of fear of being seen as an actual cuckold....    ).  Mommy is on the hook too, for any children that daddy has in his custody from another marriage...but also, through marriage, for any children that the daddy has with another woman who -aren't- in their custody.  That was a big sticking point for me...after the divorce and before remarriage.  Making sure the current wifey understood that her life and her children's lives would be impacted..for better or for worse.  That she was buying into paying out - by marrying me.

We're very familiar with the injured spouse claim, vis a vis the irs and property law...at this point, lol. We've got things set up so that our assets are as isolated from each other as the law allows them to be. So that, for example....should we become destitute and I go deep into arrears again...the house that she and our children live in cannot be liened by the state. So that the state cannot force the sale of her private assets to cover my past poor taste in women. We have joint and private accounts - as well as our jointly owned LLC and all of it's assets. Shit is bulletproof...but it;s kind of depressing to have to make those sorts of decisions with a woman who loves you just because the last one stopped doing so, lol. Ah well, tanglked webs and human relationships I guess.

I'm willing to bet that some portion of peoples idea that "deadbeat dads are always hiding something" is -that-...and not anything nefarious. I've already had ichor spit at me for aggressively pursuing the interests of my current wife and our children. Fortunately, those interested in doing so can pound sand. Most folks..though, can;t afford a decent lawyer and don't get the same good ole boy treatment in a court that I do...showing up clean shaven in a tie..for reasons™. So..they get to watch as the state fucks them and the children they have, and society cheers them on because deadbeats..hur dur.

(July 6, 2017 at 10:47 pm)Khemikal Wrote: I somehow doubt that you have clarity of thought on this issue, Astonished.  

In any case, no Tiz - they aren't the same, but since no one is suggesting..as far as I can tell, that a man should be able to force some girl to have an abortion..I don't know why that matters?  Both parents can do 100 things to prevent pregnancy, but that's the sort of small minded "you should have done this or that" thinking that leads inexorably to misery and we don't accept it as a rationale for preventing women from having abortions.  We do not, as a society, feel that we can force a person to become a parent..unless that person is swinging richard, apparently. People could have done this or that, sure, but they didn't and don't...so now what?  

Well, a female can abort, and both parents can put a child up for adoption.  Notice that one of these two things doesn't require the fathers consent?  If a male had some means available to him to opt out, and indicated a desire to do so...that probably ought to factor into whether or not the female carries the child to term...don't you think?  I mean, more power to her if she wants to have the kid and raise it anyway, but that's on her.  Society doesn't make it easy, at all, for either parent to walk away.  I don't know why either of you thinks it does?  People just do it anyway...that's how little they wanted the child, or how incapable they are of supporting a child.  

Trouble is, only one party in this little drama can do so legally, or unilaterally.  I can't help but think that people might make smarter reproductive choices (you know..those 100 things?) if the system wasn't so punitive, and the punitive nature of the system probably has alot to do with why there's so much damned misery about it.  We shame the sluts who get abortions..and we shame the deadbroke dads.  We tell them both that they "should have thought about that". - and now, by god, we'll make them pay.  

Maybe we ought to accept both of them at their word.  They do not want or are not fit to raise a child - so now what.

Dude, get fucked to death. Seriously.

Oh I try...but I'm just too stout.  Probably how I ended up with so many kids. 

(July 7, 2017 at 10:16 am)Khemikal Wrote: Oh I try...but I'm just too stout.  Probably how I ended up with so many kids. 

Well whose fault is that? How much thought went into the possibility that a co-parent marriage or general relationship wouldn't work out? Why the fuck is it so hard to prevent this kind of thing to the point where we're not looking at a reality where at least half the country is in this kind of situation?

The kids get absolutely no fucking say in any of it. "No, I don't want that part of my identity ripped away from me! No, I don't want to have zero idea of family history for medical or other reason!" You decide to fuck, you live with the goddamn consequences, whatever preparations you take, and you agree ahead of time on contingencies if the unforeseen should happen regardless. What. the. fucking. SHIT. is so difficult about this amazingly simple concept? Even among non-theists who don't subscribe to the 'birth control is bad, but so is fornication, but that's not AS bad, so..." school of non-thought, though probably statistically less frequently. "If you and mom are getting a divorce, why did you have me? Why do you want to break apart our family?" Is there an answer for those? Even if there is, is it remotely acceptable?

I don't entirely lack empathy with you (see one of the below paragraphs)-I just put emotion completely aside when I consider how two (or more) sexual partners, whatever the depth of their relationship otherwise is, should approach the subject. Yes, the best laid plans can go off the rails but as I said, contingencies. Practical, logical people will not be afraid to discuss worst-case scenarios with one another and if they are, that person probably isn't 'the one'. I'm sure nothing kills the mood like the discussion of a binding legal contract but even a one-night stand could do with more 'protection'. This all probably wouldn't be so big an issue if not for generations upon generations of religious sexual suppression and its effect on the zeitgeist but here we are.

I've heard plenty of divorcee dads with child support issues bitch and moan about it and their ex-wives do sound like vindictive cunts, forcing these poor bastards to work multiple shitty jobs while they sit at home and never let the guys see the damn kids. But myy first thought is, "Well, how well did you know that person before you porked them?" or sometimes, "Are you sure you're completely blameless in whatever might have triggered that?" Both sides seem to be wanting to avoid even partial responsibility for anything that sounds fucked-up about it. But why even discuss trying to split it evenly down the middle? That's just not practical because it's fucking impossible (except for Arnold Schwarzenegger in that one movie). No one's really thinking about the child, anyway, they're thinking of their own egos and not weighing pro-con situations with that in mind. That's a totally healthy attitude to have when sharing custody of a kid, forcing them to choose sides. If one of them is even around to play that role at all.

We're already ballistically overpopulated as it is. But people somehow treat the idea of moderation in knocking up or getting knocked up (intentionally or not) like an attack on their ability to fuck. So let's just give up, let everyone do whatever the fuck they want, raise confused kids to grow up not knowing what a healthy relationship looks like, not knowing what it means to take responsibility with their lives, have backward ideas about gender roles because of a lack of one parent as a role model, and just let the whole thing crash into an iceberg. At least someone'll make 2 billion out of that climax. Once again we make the ass-backwards mistake of wanting to lament the result of our fuck-ups instead of trying to prevent them. Congratu-fucking-lations.

(July 7, 2017 at 10:49 am)Astonished Wrote: Well whose fault is that? How much thought went into the possibility that a co-parent marriage or general relationship wouldn't work out? Why the fuck is it so hard to prevent this kind of thing to the point where we're not looking at a reality where at least half the country is in this kind of situation?

In my experience, between two people in love - not much thought is given to that.  Personally, I've always been a cynic.  My mother was married three times.  End of the day I was willing to go all in even if it all went wrong.  Still am, still could.  If it does, I'll do it again.  I know that I'll end up losing out every single time.....but I'm not the kind of guy who quits just because something is hard.  In any case, it isn;t..or at least shouldn;t be hard to prevent it..but it also shouldn;t be -harder- to prevent it just because a person was born packing peen. That's my point, my only point. As it stands, a mans only choice in this situation is to pay or run. Fewer would choose the later if they weren't forced to do the former. You could..for example, know who your biological father was and have access to his medical history if providing that information did not incur a lifelong punitive sentence of fatherhood. He'd have to officially apply to opt out, eh? That might even have given you -some- sort of closure.

Quote:The kids get absolutely no fucking say in any of it. "No, I don't want that part of my identity ripped away from me! No, I don't want to have zero idea of family history for medical or other reason!" You decide to fuck, you live with the goddamn consequences, whatever preparations you take, and you agree ahead of time on contingencies if the unforeseen should happen regardless. What. the. fucking. SHIT. is so difficult about this amazingly simple concept? Even among non-theists who don't subscribe to the 'birth control is bad, but so is fornication, but that's not AS bad, so..." school of non-thought, though probably statistically less frequently. "If you and mom are getting a divorce, why did you have me? Why do you want to break apart our family?" Is there an answer for those? Even if there is, is it remotely acceptable?

Again, your angst and disappointment doesn't make a very solid foundation for law.  Perhaps you could take some cold comfort in knowing that families who were forced to stay together by law or societal pressure almost invariably become abusive or deficient in some palpable way - you dodged that bullet even if you got hit by many others.

Quote:I don't entirely lack empathy with you (see one of the below paragraphs)-I just put emotion completely aside when I consider how two (or more) sexual partners, whatever the depth of their relationship otherwise is, should approach the subject. Yes, the best laid plans can go off the rails but as I said, contingencies. Practical, logical people will not be afraid to discuss worst-case scenarios with one another and if they are, that person probably isn't 'the one'. I'm sure nothing kills the mood like the discussion of a binding legal contract but even a one-night stand could do with more 'protection'. This all probably wouldn't be so big an issue if not for generations upon generations of religious sexual suppression and its effect on the zeitgeist but here we are.

Empathy with me for what?  I've never not wanted kids.  A provision allowing for a guy to opt out wouldn't mean jack shit to me beyond my penchant for equality in the rule of law.  I didn't offer my own backstory for empathy, but as a counterpoint to the hur dur deadbeat narrative that fuels the patriarchal shell game to save the mommy and the kid from the bad man.  We end up supporting and saying shit that would make our skin crawl if we applied it to the other half in the same issue. As ever, punitive laws and attitudes aimed at "the bad hombres" never manage to hit the bad hombres as hard as they hit the not so bad hombres. Mostly because the bad hombres are...you know..bad hombres.

Quote:I've heard plenty of divorcee dads with child support issues bitch and moan about it and their ex-wives do sound like vindictive cunts, forcing these poor bastards to work multiple shitty jobs while they sit at home and never let the guys see the damn kids. But myy first thought is, "Well, how well did you know that person before you porked them?" or sometimes, "Are you sure you're completely blameless in whatever might have triggered that?" Both sides seem to be wanting to avoid even partial responsibility for anything that sounds fucked-up about it. But why even discuss trying to split it evenly down the middle? That's just not practical because it's fucking impossible (except for Arnold Schwarzenegger in that one movie). No one's really thinking about the child, anyway, they're thinking of their own egos and not weighing pro-con situations with that in mind. That's a totally healthy attitude to have when sharing custody of a kid, forcing them to choose sides. If one of them is even around to play that role at all.

Sure, there are two side to any divorce, and any custody battle, and any child support enforcement issue.  Personally, I still love the ex as much as I ever did..I think she's a great person who's made a wonderful mother and I'm sure that she's going to make some girl a very, very happy woman someday.  I see pictures from time to time that she sends my family.  She did what she did because she'd lost that loving feeling, I'm a hard man to love even if I'm an easy man to breed with. My family likes to crack jokes about how she got the best of me and left the rest for others to put up with, my genes, lol.

Quote:We're already ballistically overpopulated as it is. But people somehow treat the idea of moderation in knocking up or getting knocked up (intentionally or not) like an attack on their ability to fuck. So let's just give up, let everyone do whatever the fuck they want, raise confused kids to grow up not knowing what a healthy relationship looks like, not knowing what it means to take responsibility with their lives, have backward ideas about gender roles because of a lack of one parent as a role model, and just let the whole thing crash into an iceberg. At least someone'll make 2 billion out of that climax. Once again we make the ass-backwards mistake of wanting to lament the result of our fuck-ups instead of trying to prevent them. Congratu-fucking-lations.

It's like you have a million thoughts all running over each other.........none of which to do with anything I proposed.

Just no . You say you want consquences for men who walk  away multpule times . So what gonna stop them ?Why should it be more then one instead of one? If your gonna argue one was a mistake how will you determine it? My veiw is not coloured it's tampered by reality . I agree the system needs to be changed so we can catch the dodgers . Not make it easier for them to dodge.

And again no
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/20...-children/

There is no such thing as forced fatherhood
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/13/there_is...od_crisis/

And not it can't be a choice
http://www.salon.com/2013/11/07/no_child..._a_choice/