Child support- what do you think?
Replies
-
Unfortunatly I had to learn a whole lot about child support about a year ago. I had a lot of fears and assumptions until I got a lawyer. My situation is a bit tricky. I was married young, we had a baby, we got a divorce. He's a good dad, I'm a good mom. We split cusody and coparent and no money exchanges hands.
My son's dad however...we were together for 5 years. Long story short he needed help he refused to get, ended up leaving, then hit rock bottom and moved back to England to live with mom and dad. He's 40.
While he was here I learned that in Nebraska child support is desinged to make both parents income equal. I also learned that child support has nothing to do with visitation rights. Non-custodial parent can no longer write a check to the child support office. Wages will be garnished. If the custodial parent files for assistance with the state they will look into how much dad is paying.
After he went back to England I learned that even though America and England have an agreement it is very hard to get child support collected across seas. I also learned that even though he pays a little here and there he isn't paying through the child support office. He has his dad deposit money directly into an account set up for our son. This will cause a problem if he tries to get back in the states. At some point his passport will be revoked. Even if I vouche that he has paid, it won't make any difference becuase the state makes money off of child support. Since he refuses to pay through them he may end up shooting himself in the foot.
All that being said, each situation is different. You have a friend with a child that needs to be supported. It is difficult to pin point exaclty what basic needs would cost, so it's based on income. There does need to be a change with the system to be fair for the child. What that would be, I don't know. I just know that your friend should seek child support becuase right now it's all that is reasonably availble. If she can find a way, I would also have her get a lawyer. It's just a smart move to start having a small understand of how everything works as well as protecting herslef and the child should he decide to ever seek custody.0 -
I knew a pro athlete for a while and he said they taught him early in training camp that his semen was about to become a valuable commodity and that some women would be willing to lie and steal to get it. He was told to always use a condom, and to always rinse or flush it afterwards. I believe all single men should think along those lines.
Wow rinse or flush. I never thought of that but I bet some women see dollar signs the minute a pro athlete takes it out. Yup take responsibility...push Pfizer to make a birth control for you. Kills viable sperm temporarily.0 -
So, the only thing that matters is your own, selfish, feelings?
A child is not a choice. It's a human being. If you want to harm yourself, go for it. You don't, or should I say, shouldn't have the right to harm the child. Where is his/her choice?
It's nonexistent until they're an actual baby, capable of living outside of the womb.
These arguments are both a matter of opinions, and no matter how much each side weighs in, nothing is going to deter the other from their opinion, so let's put down the swords here and just agree to disagree, shall we?
I pretty much knew this when I started. There's just always that slim chance that someone might come over to the other side. To save a child, I'll always try it.
Edited for spelling.
Awwwww... it's always worth the fight isn't it? :drinker:0 -
So, the only thing that matters is your own, selfish, feelings?
A child is not a choice. It's a human being. If you want to harm yourself, go for it. You don't, or should I say, shouldn't have the right to harm the child. Where is his/her choice?
It's nonexistent until they're an actual baby, capable of living outside of the womb.
These arguments are both a matter of opinions, and no matter how much each side weighs in, nothing is going to deter the other from their opinion, so let's put down the swords here and just agree to disagree, shall we?
I pretty much knew this when I started. There's just always that slim chance that someone might come over to the other side. To save a child, I'll always try it.
Edited for spelling.
Have you thought about adoption? That's a great way to save a child!0 -
But that is the risk he took when he allowed the DNA to leave his body. Without being crude, he put that DNA in her body and essentially gave her the right to do with it whatever she chooses to. He was well-aware of that risk, and he still failed to prevent pregnancy.
Sorry, but there's no way you're going to convince me that he should be responsible for her choosing to be a single mother to a baby she can't afford. And yes, it sucks and is horribly sad for the child. Hopefully she meets a good man who wants to be a father and is happy to step in where someone else stepped out. In the meantime, yeah, legally she can go after him for money, right or wrong. And as a mother who would do anything to make sure my child has her basic needs met, yeah, she probably should go for either child support or welfare, both of which piss me off in this situation. This lady wasn't financially set when she decided to have the child and then fell on hard times. She couldn't afford to have a baby and she did it anyway. So now either this guy has to pay for her choice, or we the tax payers have to pay for her choice. It's not fair to anyone, least of all her child.
It is my understanding from the OP that they were in a long term relationship, so unless no kids was discussed, she may have been expecting him to be happy for her and for them to be a family. I don't know you, and I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Do you have children? When I was young, and found out I was pregant with my first child, I was far enough along when I found out that they did my sonogram the same day of my appointment. Hearing that little heartbeat on the monitor made it impossible for me to think about anything other than the little life growing inside of me. So for me, with the information given in the OP, I say he is responsible. He did the deed, and without knowing what conversations they had about children, saying I don't want one after you have already put it in there does not let you off the hook. So respectfully, I agree to disagree :-)0 -
Personal bias admittance: I am a single dad. However, I am not paying child support. I am raising my children. They visit their mom, and I have never sought child support from her.
The whole child support system is skewed. I know how much money I would have to pay if I did not have custody of my kids, and the amount that actually cost is a small fraction of that. What child support then equates to is ex wife/ex gf/ex mistress/ex whatever support. Because it is way above and beyond what is actually needed to help raise kids, assuming the dad has a decent job.
I am of the firm belief that if child support were more in line with 1/2 the actual cost of raising kids (two parents, each should pay 1/2 the cost), you would see more people willingly stepping up to take care of it. There is no reason that child support should be based on salary, because the cost of raising the child is not changed by how much dad earns. No guy wants to be saddled paying a ton of money, of which only a fraction is actually needed to raise the kids. The end result is they are supporting a child AND the childs mother. It is immoral to expect a man to financially support a woman for 18+ years because he had a child with her. The child, yes. The woman, no.
There should be a baseline cost for raising kids, with locality adjustments. When child support is to be paid, the paying parent pays 1/2 that amount. It doesn't matter how much you make, you are equally responsible to support the child. And it should be adjusted to account for visitation. If the dad has the kids 30% of the time, his payment should be reduced to reflect that he is feeding, clothing, and sheltering the child 30% of the time.
I commend you for being a responsible Dad, but disagree with your statement that the cost of raising a child is not changed based on the father's income. Usually children of "wealthier" parents live very different than those of lower income parents. Better clothes. Able to be involved in more activities. More toys and more expensive toys etc.
To OP: I think your friend needs to go for child support, both for the sake of her child's quality of life and also just because her child's wife deserves to know what a douche she is married to.0 -
Yeah... did you catch the philosophy joke at the end?? Guess that one went over your head
Oh, thank goodness! What can I say? It's Friday afternoon. My sarcasm meter is ready for the weekend!0 -
I have never asked for help, never will and like it that way. yes it is hard some months but I GET TO DECIDE EVERYTHING with no interferance from him at all. I have been on my own from the start and he has not come around or even called once! so guess what she is ALL mine! and I walked away with the best gift of all, a wonderful child and my freedome from an deadbeat!
This is what's wrong. If he pays support, he's not BUYING your kid, he's just being responsible and taking care of his kid. You don't get custody just bc you pay support and you can't deny custody/visitation just bc the parent stops paying. You're letting your child go through hard times bc you want her all to yourself. Based on what you mentioned, he doesn't want to be in her life, so why not just file for support so that your child doesn't have to struggle?
This. Right of access/visitation and child support are independent of each other. He could be required to pay without being given any decision making powers with respect to the child. Likewise, he could get visitation even if he doesn't pay a cent in child support. Both concepts are seen as a benefit to the child, not the parents.. That is, access/visitation to the child isn't treated as some reward for the parent, it's viewed as the right of the child to have a relationship with his/her parent.0 -
The system isn't flawed anymore than your logic on this topic. I can only imagine what the arrears would be on 3 years of unpaid child support.
The money isn't for the "EX _____" it's for the child; and if there is a surplus after all the necessities are met it should go towards that child's future education. Now, I'm aware a lot of people don't do this but that's the purpose behind it.
And because most do not put the money towards the childs education (honestly I never heard that in my life) and typically do not use most of the money for the childs needs this makes the VERY FLAWED.0 -
Yeah... did you catch the philosophy joke at the end?? Guess that one went over your head
Oh, thank goodness! What can I say? It's Friday afternoon. My sarcasm meter is ready for the weekend!
RIGHT!! Come on weekend! :drinker:0 -
The moral of this thread, never have sex.
or put it into a different hole with no uterus attached. Jeesh, do I have to think of everything.
Glad you said it and not me! :drinker:
Also, all this makes me feel better about my method. I pull out aim to the face and scream " BAM! No kids!".
:laugh: funniest thing of the day0 -
Personal bias admittance: I am a single dad. However, I am not paying child support. I am raising my children. They visit their mom, and I have never sought child support from her.
The whole child support system is skewed. I know how much money I would have to pay if I did not have custody of my kids, and the amount that actually cost is a small fraction of that. What child support then equates to is ex wife/ex gf/ex mistress/ex whatever support. Because it is way above and beyond what is actually needed to help raise kids, assuming the dad has a decent job.
I am of the firm belief that if child support were more in line with 1/2 the actual cost of raising kids (two parents, each should pay 1/2 the cost), you would see more people willingly stepping up to take care of it. There is no reason that child support should be based on salary, because the cost of raising the child is not changed by how much dad earns. No guy wants to be saddled paying a ton of money, of which only a fraction is actually needed to raise the kids. The end result is they are supporting a child AND the childs mother. It is immoral to expect a man to financially support a woman for 18+ years because he had a child with her. The child, yes. The woman, no.
There should be a baseline cost for raising kids, with locality adjustments. When child support is to be paid, the paying parent pays 1/2 that amount. It doesn't matter how much you make, you are equally responsible to support the child. And it should be adjusted to account for visitation. If the dad has the kids 30% of the time, his payment should be reduced to reflect that he is feeding, clothing, and sheltering the child 30% of the time.
Well thought out response from the other side of the fence. Thank you for your logic, the world is in short supply.0 -
So, the only thing that matters is your own, selfish, feelings?
A child is not a choice. It's a human being. If you want to harm yourself, go for it. You don't, or should I say, shouldn't have the right to harm the child. Where is his/her choice?
It's nonexistent until they're an actual baby, capable of living outside of the womb.
These arguments are both a matter of opinions, and no matter how much each side weighs in, nothing is going to deter the other from their opinion, so let's put down the swords here and just agree to disagree, shall we?
I pretty much knew this when I started. There's just always that slim chance that someone might come over to the other side. To save a child, I'll always try it.
Edited for spelling.
Have you thought about adoption? That's a great way to save a child!
Personally? No. I never had a doubt who would be raising my children. And, providing for them.
For others, it's an option. I've never had a problem with adoption being an option.0 -
So, the only thing that matters is your own, selfish, feelings?
A child is not a choice. It's a human being. If you want to harm yourself, go for it. You don't, or should I say, shouldn't have the right to harm the child. Where is his/her choice?
It's nonexistent until they're an actual baby, capable of living outside of the womb.
I am pretty sure that the baby growing in my belly as I type is not nonexistent.... it's in there moving around and kicking.
:huh: That's not what I meant. She asked where is the "child's" choice. The "child's" choice is nonexistent until there is a baby that can actually survive outside of the womb.
So just the plain practice of "existing" in the womb would not be considered a choice to live? Do you not think a growing fetus is already choosing to live by simply existing? Does it have a choice to grow it's bones and little body?
(Pull out the philosophy books folks)
You're joking, right? I mean, you have to be joking.
Can a fetus *choose* to live?! No! Why? BIOLOGY!!!
By this logic, a newborn baby (no longer a "fetus," right?) also doesn't "*choose*" to live simply because he/she doesn't have the mental capacity/intelligence/whateveryouwannacallit to make that decision. Also not a good argument.0 -
But the point you are missing is that he consigned her choice by not protecting himself. If you consigned a loan, wouldn't the other party be as responsible as you for that loan?
But that's where we have a fundamental disagreement. I don't think it's right that men should be at the mercy of a woman's choice unless we're going to respect their choices. We don't get to choose to terminate or place to adopt, without their input, and also get to choose to give birth, without their input, and hold them financially responsible. Or I guess we get to, but I don't think it's very moral or becoming of us to do so.0 -
But that is the risk he took when he allowed the DNA to leave his body. Without being crude, he put that DNA in her body and essentially gave her the right to do with it whatever she chooses to. He was well-aware of that risk, and he still failed to prevent pregnancy.
Sorry, but there's no way you're going to convince me that he should be responsible for her choosing to be a single mother to a baby she can't afford. And yes, it sucks and is horribly sad for the child. Hopefully she meets a good man who wants to be a father and is happy to step in where someone else stepped out. In the meantime, yeah, legally she can go after him for money, right or wrong. And as a mother who would do anything to make sure my child has her basic needs met, yeah, she probably should go for either child support or welfare, both of which piss me off in this situation. This lady wasn't financially set when she decided to have the child and then fell on hard times. She couldn't afford to have a baby and she did it anyway. So now either this guy has to pay for her choice, or we the tax payers have to pay for her choice. It's not fair to anyone, least of all her child.
Oh yes it's all that horrible *kitten*'s fault right? Give me a break.. The child is entitled to support, period. It's not about who's the good guy and bad guy, it's about the best interests of the child.0 -
So, the only thing that matters is your own, selfish, feelings?
A child is not a choice. It's a human being. If you want to harm yourself, go for it. You don't, or should I say, shouldn't have the right to harm the child. Where is his/her choice?
It's nonexistent until they're an actual baby, capable of living outside of the womb.
I am pretty sure that the baby growing in my belly as I type is not nonexistent.... it's in there moving around and kicking.
:huh: That's not what I meant. She asked where is the "child's" choice. The "child's" choice is nonexistent until there is a baby that can actually survive outside of the womb.
So just the plain practice of "existing" in the womb would not be considered a choice to live? Do you not think a growing fetus is already choosing to live by simply existing? Does it have a choice to grow it's bones and little body?
(Pull out the philosophy books folks)
You're joking, right? I mean, you have to be joking.
Can a fetus *choose* to live?! No! Why? BIOLOGY!!!
By this logic, a newborn baby (no longer a "fetus," right?) also doesn't "*choose*" to live simply because he/she doesn't have the mental capacity/intelligence/whateveryouwannacallit to make that decision. Also not a good argument.
Which is why I originally said to pull out the philosophy books... LOL it's so funny!0 -
But that is the risk he took when he allowed the DNA to leave his body. Without being crude, he put that DNA in her body and essentially gave her the right to do with it whatever she chooses to. He was well-aware of that risk, and he still failed to prevent pregnancy.
Sorry, but there's no way you're going to convince me that he should be responsible for her choosing to be a single mother to a baby she can't afford. And yes, it sucks and is horribly sad for the child. Hopefully she meets a good man who wants to be a father and is happy to step in where someone else stepped out. In the meantime, yeah, legally she can go after him for money, right or wrong. And as a mother who would do anything to make sure my child has her basic needs met, yeah, she probably should go for either child support or welfare, both of which piss me off in this situation. This lady wasn't financially set when she decided to have the child and then fell on hard times. She couldn't afford to have a baby and she did it anyway. So now either this guy has to pay for her choice, or we the tax payers have to pay for her choice. It's not fair to anyone, least of all her child.
Oh yes it's all that horrible *kitten*'s fault right? Give me a break.. The child is entitled to support, period. It's not about who's the good guy and bad guy, it's about the best interests of the child.
And further more... the guy had a choice to put on a condom didn't he?? I mean geez.... make it sound like women choose to accidently get pregnant!0 -
The laws are designed to protect the interests of the children (at least in my state) and I am very grateful for that because at 19, I believed an equally young and stupid boy, when he said "I want to make a baby" and "yes I will help you take care of it." Of course, later he tried to back out of it. He asked me to get an abortion. If the laws were set up to protect his interests because he couldn't make the choice for me to terminate, then it would have been he said/she said situation in court. And I wouldn't be able to provide my two beautiful, intelligent, and innocent (of their own creation) daughters with the life that they deserve.0
-
So, the only thing that matters is your own, selfish, feelings?
A child is not a choice. It's a human being. If you want to harm yourself, go for it. You don't, or should I say, shouldn't have the right to harm the child. Where is his/her choice?
It's nonexistent until they're an actual baby, capable of living outside of the womb.
I am pretty sure that the baby growing in my belly as I type is not nonexistent.... it's in there moving around and kicking.
:huh: That's not what I meant. She asked where is the "child's" choice. The "child's" choice is nonexistent until there is a baby that can actually survive outside of the womb.
So just the plain practice of "existing" in the womb would not be considered a choice to live? Do you not think a growing fetus is already choosing to live by simply existing? Does it have a choice to grow it's bones and little body?
(Pull out the philosophy books folks)
You're joking, right? I mean, you have to be joking.
Can a fetus *choose* to live?! No! Why? BIOLOGY!!!
By this logic, a newborn baby (no longer a "fetus," right?) also doesn't "*choose*" to live simply because he/she doesn't have the mental capacity/intelligence/whateveryouwannacallit to make that decision. Also not a good argument.
Which is why I originally said to pull out the philosophy books... LOL it's so funny!
I feel like I should be quoting Ian Malcom from Jurassic Park: "Life finds a way"
Bahahahahahahahahhahahahaha0 -
So, the only thing that matters is your own, selfish, feelings?
A child is not a choice. It's a human being. If you want to harm yourself, go for it. You don't, or should I say, shouldn't have the right to harm the child. Where is his/her choice?
It's nonexistent until they're an actual baby, capable of living outside of the womb.
I am pretty sure that the baby growing in my belly as I type is not nonexistent.... it's in there moving around and kicking.
Woah, this argument could get huge! I'm 28 weeks.
Not trying to get into a debate, but this got me to think.
15-20 years ago a baby born at 22 weeks would not have survived. Now with the advancement of medical technology that child has a fighting chance to survive outside of the womb.
No debate just got me thinking as medical technology gets more advanced that bar of survival gets pushed further and further back. It will make the ethics here much more grey in the future.
This is totally off topic by the way from the OP.0 -
Well this thread blew up while I was lifting. I never said the dad shouldn't support the kid. I said that he should pay 1/2 the cost to meet the childs needs. In no way should a man have to raise the living status of a woman. Ever. If he chooses to do so, fine. That is his choice.
To everyone who said he should want to elevate the status of the child (and the mom by proxy), that should be his choice. If parents are together, they are not required to do any more than meet the childs needs. If they choose to do more, that is on them. Them not be together should have no impact on this issue. Neither should be required by law to do any more than meet the kids needs, same as they wouldn't be if they were together. If they aggree to do more, fine. If one wants to do more and the other doesn't, it is should be up to the parent that wants to do more.
Hell, I make more than the dad that is discussed in the OP. Yet I live in an ~1400 sq ft 3 br 2 bath that costs under 100k. My kids wear mostly second hand clothes, and I wear several articles of clothing that I wore in high school. I don't feel the need to have any lavish lifestyle because I make 6 figures. I live about the same way I did when I made 1/2 as much. Should I be required by law to up the living standards of my kids and I just because I make more money and can afford it? Because many of you are suggesting that the dad should be required to pay to up the living standard of the kids and their mom to match his salary. That is the exact same as butting in and requiring me to up my childrens living standards. Even though they are healthy, happy, and their needs are met and then some.
Is that why you are naked? Maybe you should go buy a new shirt.
0 -
Too many variables and missing information - did she accidentally get pregnant while on the pill or using condoms? Did he make it clear he did not want children from the start? Were there options for her to choose to not keep the child, knowing he would not be present, and she would be a single parent?
I was a single mom whose partner took off when I became pregnant. He did not want to have the child - I did. I never pursued him for child support because it was not his choice to have the child. I could have had an abortion or given my child up for adoption if I decided I did not want to be a single mom doing it all myself.
Just because "it takes two" to make a baby doesn't mean everyone just has to acquiesce to whatever the woman wants. She has total control of her body and her choices (as she should!), and that means that she has the responsibility to make the right choice for herself and the fetus growing inside her.
He needs to pay the consequences for his actions plain and simple.0 -
Personal bias admittance: I am a single dad. However, I am not paying child support. I am raising my children. They visit their mom, and I have never sought child support from her.
The whole child support system is skewed. I know how much money I would have to pay if I did not have custody of my kids, and the amount that actually cost is a small fraction of that. What child support then equates to is ex wife/ex gf/ex mistress/ex whatever support. Because it is way above and beyond what is actually needed to help raise kids, assuming the dad has a decent job.
I am of the firm belief that if child support were more in line with 1/2 the actual cost of raising kids (two parents, each should pay 1/2 the cost), you would see more people willingly stepping up to take care of it. There is no reason that child support should be based on salary, because the cost of raising the child is not changed by how much dad earns. No guy wants to be saddled paying a ton of money, of which only a fraction is actually needed to raise the kids. The end result is they are supporting a child AND the childs mother. It is immoral to expect a man to financially support a woman for 18+ years because he had a child with her. The child, yes. The woman, no.
There should be a baseline cost for raising kids, with locality adjustments. When child support is to be paid, the paying parent pays 1/2 that amount. It doesn't matter how much you make, you are equally responsible to support the child. And it should be adjusted to account for visitation. If the dad has the kids 30% of the time, his payment should be reduced to reflect that he is feeding, clothing, and sheltering the child 30% of the time.
I commend you for being a responsible Dad, but disagree with your statement that the cost of raising a child is not changed based on the father's income. Usually children of "wealthier" parents live very different than those of lower income parents. Better clothes. Able to be involved in more activities. More toys and more expensive toys etc.
To OP: I think your friend needs to go for child support, both for the sake of her child's quality of life and also just because her child's wife deserves to know what a douche she is married to.
Only if the parents choose to do so. I make more than twice the average income where I live. Probably closer to 3-4 times. But you would never know it by looking at me or my kids. See my previous post. And I will add to that that I drive a 3 year old ford focus, and have a 15 year old truck (I live out in the country, trucks are sometimes needed). Just because someone makes more does not mean they or their children live a lavish lifestyle. And it is no reason for the courts to force a parent to provide a lavish lifestyle, whether the parents are together or not.0 -
But that is the risk he took when he allowed the DNA to leave his body. Without being crude, he put that DNA in her body and essentially gave her the right to do with it whatever she chooses to. He was well-aware of that risk, and he still failed to prevent pregnancy.
Sorry, but there's no way you're going to convince me that he should be responsible for her choosing to be a single mother to a baby she can't afford. And yes, it sucks and is horribly sad for the child. Hopefully she meets a good man who wants to be a father and is happy to step in where someone else stepped out. In the meantime, yeah, legally she can go after him for money, right or wrong. And as a mother who would do anything to make sure my child has her basic needs met, yeah, she probably should go for either child support or welfare, both of which piss me off in this situation. This lady wasn't financially set when she decided to have the child and then fell on hard times. She couldn't afford to have a baby and she did it anyway. So now either this guy has to pay for her choice, or we the tax payers have to pay for her choice. It's not fair to anyone, least of all her child.
It is my understanding from the OP that they were in a long term relationship, so unless no kids was discussed, she may have been expecting him to be happy for her and for them to be a family. I don't know you, and I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Do you have children? When I was young, and found out I was pregant with my first child, I was far enough along when I found out that they did my sonogram the same day of my appointment. Hearing that little heartbeat on the monitor made it impossible for me to think about anything other than the little life growing inside of me. So for me, with the information given in the OP, I say he is responsible. He did the deed, and without knowing what conversations they had about children, saying I don't want one after you have already put it in there does not let you off the hook. So respectfully, I agree to disagree :-)
I am a parent and I spent years of battling infertility to become a mother. I get what you're saying, and when I think of it as a mother, without putting my emotion aside, yeah, my first instinct is that this guy should pay. But I'm trying my very best to think of the man and his position. It's tough b/c I don't think that all responsibility should be removed from him. But I don't think it's fair that women get to make all of the choices after the deed is done. And since I firmly believe in a woman's right to choose being between her and her doctor ONLY, without input from the man, I'm left with believing that the man should have some choice in whether or not he is a parent.0 -
But the point you are missing is that he consigned her choice by not protecting himself. If you consigned a loan, wouldn't the other party be as responsible as you for that loan?
But that's where we have a fundamental disagreement. I don't think it's right that men should be at the mercy of a woman's choice unless we're going to respect their choices. We don't get to choose to terminate or place to adopt, without their input, and also get to choose to give birth, without their input, and hold them financially responsible. Or I guess we get to, but I think it's very moral or becoming of us to do so.
You have decided that she tricked him. He actually deceived her.
Sure, in some cases women would use getting pregnant to manipulate a man.
But, the vast majority of the time it is the woman that is impacted most by getting pregnant. She goes through the pregnancy (sometimes with complications), gives birth, breastfeeds, and unless she abandons her child (I'm not talking about adoption, I mean if she chooses not to adopt and then abandons her child) she will raise the child, and she can't get out of it by claiming that it's not her child or that she was tricked. No ordinary person "gets rich" by becoming pregnant (it's really quite the opposite in reality). Sure, those professional athlete's situations are different, but that is not the norm for most people.
It just seems like people are going to such extremes. Women and men can do things to manipulate and harm and use children in the process. Mothers and fathers can be harmed by the decisions in court (custody battles). I don't want to get into the details, but it's really horrendous (for the children).0 -
But the point you are missing is that he consigned her choice by not protecting himself. If you consigned a loan, wouldn't the other party be as responsible as you for that loan?
But that's where we have a fundamental disagreement. I don't think it's right that men should be at the mercy of a woman's choice unless we're going to respect their choices. We don't get to choose to terminate or place to adopt, without their input, and also get to choose to give birth, without their input, and hold them financially responsible. Or I guess we get to, but I think it's very moral or becoming of us to do so.
Women should not be at the mercy of a man's choice. His choice was to keep his DNA in his body. Believe me, it pains me to hear stories about men that WANT to raise children and women go behind their backs to abort. But at the same time, if you say that men aren't responsible for the consequence of having unprotected sex with a woman simply because he can't participate in the decision to terminate that responsibility, then the child is ultimately the one that suffers.0 -
But that is the risk he took when he allowed the DNA to leave his body. Without being crude, he put that DNA in her body and essentially gave her the right to do with it whatever she chooses to. He was well-aware of that risk, and he still failed to prevent pregnancy.
Sorry, but there's no way you're going to convince me that he should be responsible for her choosing to be a single mother to a baby she can't afford. And yes, it sucks and is horribly sad for the child. Hopefully she meets a good man who wants to be a father and is happy to step in where someone else stepped out. In the meantime, yeah, legally she can go after him for money, right or wrong. And as a mother who would do anything to make sure my child has her basic needs met, yeah, she probably should go for either child support or welfare, both of which piss me off in this situation. This lady wasn't financially set when she decided to have the child and then fell on hard times. She couldn't afford to have a baby and she did it anyway. So now either this guy has to pay for her choice, or we the tax payers have to pay for her choice. It's not fair to anyone, least of all her child.
It is my understanding from the OP that they were in a long term relationship, so unless no kids was discussed, she may have been expecting him to be happy for her and for them to be a family. I don't know you, and I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Do you have children? When I was young, and found out I was pregant with my first child, I was far enough along when I found out that they did my sonogram the same day of my appointment. Hearing that little heartbeat on the monitor made it impossible for me to think about anything other than the little life growing inside of me. So for me, with the information given in the OP, I say he is responsible. He did the deed, and without knowing what conversations they had about children, saying I don't want one after you have already put it in there does not let you off the hook. So respectfully, I agree to disagree :-)
I am a parent and I spent years of battling infertility to become a mother. I get what you're saying, and when I think of it as a mother, without putting my emotion aside, yeah, my first instinct is that this guy should pay. But I'm trying my very best to think of the man and his position. It's tough b/c I don't think that all responsibility should be removed from him. But I don't think it's fair that women get to make all of the choices after the deed is done. And since I firmly believe in a woman's right to choose being between her and her doctor ONLY, without input from the man, I'm left with believing that the man should have some choice in whether or not he is a parent.
So by that logic, even if the man WANTS to be a parent and the mother does not, then she gets to abort the baby and not have the baby and give it to the father to raise? So really he doesn't have any choice.....0 -
Back on topic...
Ultimately it doesn't matter if the parents can expect to pay for their child's upbringing. The child, the innocent affected party, CAN expect its biological parents to care for it.0 -
But that is the risk he took when he allowed the DNA to leave his body. Without being crude, he put that DNA in her body and essentially gave her the right to do with it whatever she chooses to. He was well-aware of that risk, and he still failed to prevent pregnancy.
Sorry, but there's no way you're going to convince me that he should be responsible for her choosing to be a single mother to a baby she can't afford. And yes, it sucks and is horribly sad for the child. Hopefully she meets a good man who wants to be a father and is happy to step in where someone else stepped out. In the meantime, yeah, legally she can go after him for money, right or wrong. And as a mother who would do anything to make sure my child has her basic needs met, yeah, she probably should go for either child support or welfare, both of which piss me off in this situation. This lady wasn't financially set when she decided to have the child and then fell on hard times. She couldn't afford to have a baby and she did it anyway. So now either this guy has to pay for her choice, or we the tax payers have to pay for her choice. It's not fair to anyone, least of all her child.
It is my understanding from the OP that they were in a long term relationship, so unless no kids was discussed, she may have been expecting him to be happy for her and for them to be a family. I don't know you, and I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Do you have children? When I was young, and found out I was pregant with my first child, I was far enough along when I found out that they did my sonogram the same day of my appointment. Hearing that little heartbeat on the monitor made it impossible for me to think about anything other than the little life growing inside of me. So for me, with the information given in the OP, I say he is responsible. He did the deed, and without knowing what conversations they had about children, saying I don't want one after you have already put it in there does not let you off the hook. So respectfully, I agree to disagree :-)
I am a parent and I spent years of battling infertility to become a mother. I get what you're saying, and when I think of it as a mother, without putting my emotion aside, yeah, my first instinct is that this guy should pay. But I'm trying my very best to think of the man and his position. It's tough b/c I don't think that all responsibility should be removed from him. But I don't think it's fair that women get to make all of the choices after the deed is done. And since I firmly believe in a woman's right to choose being between her and her doctor ONLY, without input from the man, I'm left with believing that the man should have some choice in whether or not he is a parent.
I can respect that stance. I can agree that once impregnanted men have very few options, in fact none, they are at the mercy of the mother. I can't help but feel if they make the decision to have unprotected or barely protected sex with someone then they are knowingly giving them the power. Judging from the men posting on this thread, they are all aware once the woman is pregnant they are at her mercy, it seems like a concious decision to become a parent at that point. Thanks for the response! Congratulations BTW on successfully battling infertility!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions