All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.

Post Reply New Topic

Wrong again. I brought up artificial insemination because it refutes your premise. If you didn't want others to obviate where your premise falls apart, the you should have said so in the first post.

If anyone has to pay 100% then they should get 100% custody. I'll go join the French Foreign Legion and drop out of society before I give someone 100% and not have custody myself.

I think the solution would be to raise the salary of women.

you're overlooking the fact that sperm donors forfeit any rights to parenthood

That's foundational to my premise. Sperm donors should not have to pay to support a child that is not legally theirs. To take it further, no man should have to pay to support a child that is not legally his, thus eliminating a woman's ability to freely commit paternity fraud.

No reason at all but we are not talking of two parent families.

The courts lean towards women more than men because they know that they are better, in most cases, at rearing children and are more likely to take that to an end game than men would.

The courts are right and if the man wants to do the right thing, as you say, then they will not allow the mother to hold the child over the man's head.


"And let me guess, you probably oppose abortion too huh?"

I see no relevance in this question but even as I dislike the killing of any potential human in a womb, it is not to me to tell women what to do with their reproductive responsibilities.

Regards
DL

I will write a book for you next time to cover all the bases you think should b covered. I hope you have a few hours to read it.

Regards
DL

I agree that that would solve many problems but would not restrict the increase to women as men who make more will also share more.

Bernie is the only candidate to date who is making right kind of noise on raising wages and would do the right thing of raising the minimum rate to $15.00.

Being Canadian, I cannot vote for him though.

Regards
DL

The problem with that is that men who have no home and no real connections are also less likely to have a job with which wages can be garnished. Also, someone with nothing to lose is more willing to commit a crime which will put that person in prison (and hence, no income) or kill them which leaves the child with no father anyways. In other words, putting someone in a position of nothing to lose will make things worse, not better.

That ability dis with DNA testing.

"no man[/i] should have to pay to support a child that is not legally his,"

I agree with this and as a taxpayer, I resent having to foot he bill for the dole that a mother would get because of a deadbeat dad.

So with that good attitude of yours, can I take it that you agree that fathers, be they deadbeat dads or not, should pay for all the needs of his child and caregiver?

Regards
DL

If he is that big of a loser to begin with, then he is not a worthy citizen and belongs in jail where he cannot make other babies for someone else to support.

To let such a useless man off the hook is not a good way for a government to act as it just encourages more deadbeat people to just keep on doing what they are doing in terms of producing children that they do not want to care for.

Regards
DL

they already do not have to. your premise is faulty.

Perhaps I misunderstood part of your point then. I read it as though you were stating men should always pay for everything, separated or not. If I misunderstood that portion of your point, then I can see where you are coming from, though I still don't know I agree. As the child of a single mother, with zero involvement from my biological father, I still don't see why he should have borne the entire burden financially. Though he should have been making larger contributions.



Fair. I agree with this. But it still creates a situation where men can be held hostage by the fact that they want to be a part of their child's life but the mother is a manipulative b---- who likes to use the child as a weapon to get what she wants. This is probably more common than you may think. I know someone going through this right now.



But this is not how it works in practice. Because of your above point, the default ruling is in favor of the woman, and the man would have to prove overwhelmingly that he should retain custody. It is not illegal to threaten to use this to your advantage if you are a woman. Maybe it should be, but it's outside of the courts jurisdiction. Being manipulative doesn't preclude someone from getting custody.



My apologies then. I was assuming, based on your opinion here and in other places, that you would be fully anti-abortion, as in, advocating against it. It's relevance, while not made clear, was that being anti-abortion at the same time as these views would create more of the very problem you want to eliminate. Unwanted kids not being cared for and being a strain on the system.

Fact is, many pregnancies are unwanted. I speculate, and pretty obviously so by my estimation, that this number is a far higher percentage than it used to be in generations past. Some people abort, some have the kids anyway and be crap parents (or one does) and the lucky kids have their parents step up and do the best they can. Unfortunately, the latter seems to be the rarest variety.

Draconian laws base on generalist and populist ideas tend to work very poorly in practice.

Mostly these idea are based on misconceptions.

UK has had massive decline in teenage pregnancies
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1219036 ... agers.html

http://visual.ons.gov.uk/teenage-pregna ... s-reality/

It is a similar picture elsewhere.

I hasn't been abstinence education, and old fashioned ideas that has helped achieve that.

Forcing someone to pay for child rearing who doesn't have the money creates even more problems. Some of these men will commit thefts before they ever admit that they don't have adequate money to pay (even for half). Trust me it happens. You force a man who can't afford it to pay 100% then that man is going to be stealing money from your mail.

You keep referring to deadbeat dads. But I know men who can't afford to pay 50% let alone 100% who are trying their hardest. Unfortunate but true.

beakybird

We are on about the same page and I think I am moving a bit more to your side because of speakers and opinions as shown in this well balanced piece.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0zQf5NMG8E

Both men and women as well as the legal system needs to revue what they do and adjust for changing conditions.

Regards
DL