Argus Posted June 1, 2014 Report Posted June 1, 2014 Seriously? Even if he has contributed his semen? He can't take back that semen no matter how hard he tries. Not sure what you mean by this statement. As soon as that baby is born, he is a biological father, whether he wants to be or not. But we're in the age of the morning after pill. It isn't as if there has to be a baby. The woman has a number of options to ensure she doesn't have one. If she decides she wants a baby, well, that's HER decision. Why should the man be forced to pay for it? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 1, 2014 Report Posted June 1, 2014 I would say there is no need to take the male off to the side. He made his decision when he had sex. Perhaps accepted the risk would be more accurate Well, then, so did the woman. So no abortions, and no giving the child up for adoption. She will have to carry it to term and raise it. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 1, 2014 Report Posted June 1, 2014 The orphanages have been closed. Foster parents are few and far between. Child services are overstreched. If the parents don't make some effort to take care of the child that in 99% is the not-surprising result of their sexual congress, who will? The state? Actually, there are tons of people willing to adopt babies. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 1, 2014 Report Posted June 1, 2014 There are two different things. Bringing a child into the world means you are responsible for the child. Unless you're a woman. If you're a woman you can quite literally disown the child, give it to the government, and walk away. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Peter F Posted June 1, 2014 Report Posted June 1, 2014 Well, then, so did the woman. So no abortions, and no giving the child up for adoption. She will have to carry it to term and raise it. I don't follow. She took the risk so no abortion? how does one follow the other. The father isn't carrying it to term so why should the mother? Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
Guest Posted June 1, 2014 Report Posted June 1, 2014 Perhaps if the woman carries the child to term, and gives it up for adoption, she should be required to pay child support to the adoptive family? Quote
WestCoastRunner Posted June 1, 2014 Report Posted June 1, 2014 Perhaps if the woman carries the child to term, and gives it up for adoption, she should be required to pay child support to the adoptive family? When you give a child up for adoption, you relinquish all rights to that child. If you have no rights, then no support is required. Not sure where you are going with this statement. Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
WestCoastRunner Posted June 1, 2014 Report Posted June 1, 2014 Why should the man be forced to pay for it? Because he is the biological father. Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
Guest Posted June 1, 2014 Report Posted June 1, 2014 When you give a child up for adoption, you relinquish all rights to that child. If you have no rights, then no support is required. Not sure where you are going with this statement. Could the same rules apply to a man, then? If he relinquishes all rights, then no support is required? Quote
TimG Posted June 1, 2014 Report Posted June 1, 2014 (edited) Could the same rules apply to a man, then? If he relinquishes all rights, then no support is required?Of course not silly. The objective of these laws is to turn men in slaves in service of former girl friends/wives under the pretense of child support. Fairness and justice are irrelevant. The fact that the law allows women to collect child support from multiple men for the same child underscores the true objective of these laws. Edited June 1, 2014 by TimG Quote
Peter F Posted June 1, 2014 Report Posted June 1, 2014 Be it resolved, then, That parents can absolve all responsibility to children. The state will pick up the responsibility for them. All in favour? Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
Guest Posted June 1, 2014 Report Posted June 1, 2014 How about, instead, be it resolved that either both can, or neither? I'm good with neither. How about you? Quote
WestCoastRunner Posted June 2, 2014 Report Posted June 2, 2014 Of course not silly. The objective of these laws is to turn men in slaves in service of former girl friends/wives under the pretense of child support. Fairness and justice are irrelevant. The fact that the law allows women to collect child support from multiple men for the same child underscores the true objective of these laws. Sounds like a hate on for women. I think the objective is for men to become fathers to their children, both financially and emotionally. Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
TimG Posted June 2, 2014 Report Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) I think the objective is for men to become fathers to their children, both financially and emotionally.If that was the real objective then access would be connected to child support. As it stands a woman can repeatedly deny access without facing any repercussions. Men, OTOH, who miss a few support payments are labelled 'deadbeats'. I am not against a system that tries to ensure kids are taken care of but the current system is just insane in the way that starting a relationship with a woman with kids can mean you are on the hook for support for the next 18 years - support that is in addition to the support that woman still gets to collect from the bio-dad. Support that is calculated based on the payers income and not the needs of the kids. What is the matter with pushing the pendulum back to the middle and recognizing that any settlement must be fair to all parties. Edited June 2, 2014 by TimG Quote
WestCoastRunner Posted June 2, 2014 Report Posted June 2, 2014 If that was the real objective then access would be connected to child support. As it stands a woman can repeatedly deny access without facing any repercussions. Men, OTOH, who miss a few support payments are labelled 'deadbeats'. Do you have anything to back up this ridiculous statement. Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
TimG Posted June 2, 2014 Report Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) Do you have anything to back up this ridiculous statement.It is not ridiculous, it is a fact. Talk to any divorce lawyer. The system is completely obsessed with extracting money from non-custodial parents and the system is set up to chase non-custodial parents that fail to live up to their financial obligations while parents that fail in their non-financial obligations are given a pass. To be fair, it is a lot easier to determine if financial obligations have been met (money was given or not) and to enforce them (garnishing wages) than it is to establish that one parent is unfairly denying access. So I am open to the idea that it is laziness on the part of the court system rather than an deliberate bias against men. But the system, as it stands, is grossly unfair to non-custodial parents and this imbalance needs to be addressed. Edited June 2, 2014 by TimG Quote
Guest Posted June 2, 2014 Report Posted June 2, 2014 Sounds like a hate on for women. I think the objective is for men to become fathers to their children, both financially and emotionally. Would you say then, that the same rules ought to apply for men and women equally, as I asked you in the post that the response you quoted was in response to? Quote
Peter F Posted June 3, 2014 Report Posted June 3, 2014 (edited) There is no 'accident'. A man marrying a woman with children (or vice-versa) and living with that woman/man and the children, will inevitably take on parental responsibility. I will quote the court again (that Cybercoma linked) regarding obligations explicitly agreed to: The manifestation of the intention of the step‑parent cannot be qualified as to duration, or be otherwise made conditional or qualified, even if this intention is manifested expressly. Once it is shown that the child is to be considered, in fact, a child of the marriage, the obligations of the step‑parent towards him or her are the same as those relative to a child born of the marriage with regard to the application of the Divorce Act. note the words following the bold text..."even if this intention is manifested expressly." IE: No pre-nup can exist that absolves anyone from being a parent. If you wish to have no responsibility to the children of the woman you love then don't get married and most certainly DO NOT live with them. Edited June 3, 2014 by Peter F Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
guyser Posted June 3, 2014 Report Posted June 3, 2014 Sorry. Simply getting married to someone does not mean you choose to be a parent. If the children are underage......its EXACTLY what it means. Not to put too fine a point on it, but your attitude is exactly why the system is the way it is. For far too long men could walk away scot free. So the pendulum has swung the other way hopefully becoming centrist in time. THe 20's called , they want their ideals back Quote
The_Squid Posted June 3, 2014 Report Posted June 3, 2014 Setting aside the clumsy manner in which Trudeau said it, please tell me what the difference is between Harper and Trudeau on this issue: Trudeau says - You can hold whatever views you wish but on the issue of abortion you must vote with the party in favour of women's rights above any anti-abortion feelings you may hold. Harper says - The Cons will never open up this issue for a vote, so even if you hold anti-abortion views, there will never be legislation from the Conservative Party on this issue. Essentially, both party leaders have forced their party into the same stance on abortion. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 4, 2014 Report Posted June 4, 2014 it comes with legal rights for both parties!!! Exactly. He simply has not addressed this. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 4, 2014 Report Posted June 4, 2014 One thing for sure: if you are entering a second marriage(common law or actual) and there are children on either or both sides, you better be damned sure you have both a will and a pre nuptial or everybody can end up disenfranchised.it was already mentioned that you can't sign away your parental obligations. Quote
TimG Posted June 5, 2014 Report Posted June 5, 2014 (edited) Moved. Edited June 5, 2014 by TimG Quote
Charles Anthony Posted June 5, 2014 Report Posted June 5, 2014 Some posts have been split off from this thread and placed into a new thread called: "Step Parent Child Support Laws and Ethics" Quote We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.