Posted on 05/01/2008 6:17:27 AM PDT by sickoflibs
Let me know if I need to ping (rolling my eyes to the point I could part my hair without a mirror).
I don't want to pay for the illegals - or the children of irresponsible men. Can you give me one reason why I should be forced to support your children ? Just one reason...
Oh, I’d say this is definitely a W ‘re E ping. :p
“Can you give me one reason why I should be forced to support your children ? Just one reason...”
You think that the government is responsible for supporting the children of irresponsible people. That is why you should be forced to support the children of irresponsible people. BTW, I don’t have children.
But it's not too late to learn.
Here's my suggestion - in the future don't have sex with women until you understand what causes pregnancy and how to prevent it. If your problem is that you believe every woman who tells you she's on birth control actually is, then take a course in human relationships and find out by your so gullible.
I don't mean to sound harsh with you, but many of us are not interested in supporting your children ... or putting up with your anger when we don't agree with you. Which, by the way, might be another problem you have with women. Talk to other men in your family - those with good relationships - see what you can learn from them. Your life can get better - and it will - - as soon as you start taking responsibility for it...
You sound so bitter.
A few comments:
***The state uses extortion tactics like suspended drivers licenses, intercepting tax refunds, filing credit reports in order to collect child support.***
I suppose that “extortion tactics” as you say are better than simply hauling your deadbeat in violation of a court order arse to jail.
***If your ex wife inherits a million dollars while you’re living in a shack and making child support payments - well, that’s just too bad for you.***
Yeah, it must suck to have to actually support your kids. Let’s change your scenario a bit: Your ex marries a millionare and you are forced to live in a shack and make your payments. My reply: It must suck to actually support your kids and not pawn them off on some other man.
***Conversely, if your ability to pay is diminished by unemployment or changing market conditions, well that’s too bad for you too.***
Sucks, don’t it. Just shows that you better be careful where you stick your tool. Nobody forces men to father kids. It’s not like you don’t have a say.
Yeah, ok. I can tell I’m talking to someone who has no idea what they’re talking about.
“get a job and support your own kids. “ “I don’t mean to sound harsh with you, but many of us are not interested in supporting your children ..”
LOL What part of “BTW I don’t have children.” do you not understand?
Wow, what a jackass. You should work for the government, if you don’t already.
I think we have talked about this before. The fault model for divorces with children was way fairer and less destructive than this. Women would get alimony and child support when they were abandoned, but had an incentive to stick with the family, as the man did. This current system just encourages women to have kids with no father, like welfare did in the Cities.
I disagree-— IMOGLO NF Divorce is far more civilized than what came before.
Oddly enough, you’re willing to defend his “rights”, yet unwilling to require him to pay his child support or perform any other fatherly duties. Interesting outlook you have there.
I think whoever has custody of the children should pay for them. If he has custody, he should pay, If your daughter has custody she should pay. If they have joint custody then he should pay while they are in his care and she while they are in her care. What could be more fair than that?
Martello v. Martello - Dad gets 40% time with his kids. BUT .... $9,000/month gross income (before taxes) .... $5,600/month spousal support .... $2,800/month child support .... $862/month net income and FICA, State and Federal taxes not included yet.
Indeed not.
Take a look at the “Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act”
This law has been passed in seven or more states against only minimal opposition.
It allows you to be accused of being a ‘potential child abductor’ if you... (any one below is sufficient)
pick up your child’s school records !
or pick up your child’s medical records !
or obtain your child’s birth certificate.
quit a job.
terminate a lease
sell a house
close a bank account
have relatives who live in another state
have strong cultural connections to another state
have strong emotional ties to another state.
THE FASCISTS ARE UPON US - DO YOU CARE?
You're right on this - and both parents have an obligation to support those children. Just from your screen name I'd say you're involved with the kids - and from the numbers -- I hope your ex is doing her share too...
Reproductive rights does not exist as a legal concept for men, and men are regularly told that they have responsibilities and not rights. A man has no “reproductive rights” that a woman is bound to respect, whether in nor out of marriage, to keep the baby or not. The only right that men have is to keep their pants zipped up, as the course of their lives and their hope for posterity is entirely dependent on the woman’s “choice”.
I remember hearing a feminazi screeching about how vital “reproductive rights “ were for all human beings, insofar as their ability to determine the course of their lives is concerned. It got me to wondering how it is that no comparable “reproductive right” exists for men other than the right to keep your trousers zipped up. A man’s income can involuntarily be confiscated to care for children that he does not want, affecting the course of his life. Under the law, he is utterly responsible to support any children with his DNA, and often even for those without it. In many states, women are allowed to ABANDON newborn children that they do not want at hospitals or firehouses, no questions asked. Men don’t even have any “reproductive rights” in marriage, because his wife retains her “reproductive rights” if she “chooses” to exercise them.
I don’t think either sex should have these “reproductive rights”, and should deal with the concequences of a pregnancy, wanted or not. But if as the feminazi says, these rights are vital to human beings, than I wish to suggest the following remedies. An unmarried man, upon being promptly notified of an unwanted pregnacy by his mate, should have the option of a paternal veto (abortion) absolving him of financial and legal responsibility for the child. A married man who discovers that his wife has had an abortion against his wishes should recieve presumptive grounds for a divorce or annullment of the marriage, with the same holding true for one who concieves against his wishes.
Than again maybe the feminazi thinks that men shouldn’t qualify for “reproductive rights” since she probably thinks men aren’t human anyway.
My point is that men have no “reproductive right” that is INDEPENDENT of a woman’s choice, wheras women have options that can be and are exercised independently of a man’s wishes. Note that this feminine reproductive veto extends to nullification of the man’s wishes whether the man wants the child or not, whether in or out of marriage. While I am acutely aware that this is in large part due to the uniqueness of the reproductive process, this nevertheless leaves the man without any independent ability to influence the woman legally.
I am not even necessarily saying that this is a bad thing, but I do find it curious that we often behave as though the only party affected by the birth of a child is the woman, and to prevent a negative influence on the course of her life we must preserve her right to kill her unborn child. If unmarried, she can “choose” to keep the child and can enlist the support of the state to forcibly take money from the sperm donor against his will. And if he wants the child, then he must yield to her choice to abort.
The common response to the man is that you should have been more careful in your choice of partner, or you should have kept your trousers zipped up. Legally he is told that he has no option other than the one that the woman “chooses” to give him.
Again, I think that BOTH parties should allow a normal pregnancy to take it’s course, and come to a mutually agreed upon resolution. But if we insist upon a regime where a “reproductive right” is allowed for only half of the human race, than I think that men should have some LEGAL option to influence the woman’s “choice” in either direction, rather than act as though this isn’t a significant life altering event for them as well. The one option that I would absolutely forbid, of course is a forced abortion. Consider paternal veto for unmarried men or presumptive divorce grounds for a married man whose wife “chooses” against his wishes.
Having said all this, I do think it unlikely to happen. Men are legally held to the strictest of standard of responsibility where conception is concerned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.