3 ms·

Child support needs to be abolished wholesale. If a woman wants a mans support, then she either needs to be married to him or convince him to do so of his own

Child support needs to be abolished wholesale. If a woman wants a mans support, then she either needs to be married to him or convince him to do so of his own free will. This simple change would inject much needed sanity into this entire process.

facepalm 12y ago
The problem is that you don't want to punish the children. They are innocent.
- tomjen3 12y ago
  If the father dies the child also gets nothing, so no real punishment.
  - facepalm 12y ago
    It's not punishment if a father dies? I mean, you imply that kids whose father dies are not worse off than kids with a father. Because if they were worse off, they would be "punished" compared to the kids with fathers.
    - tomjen3 12y ago
      A kid with a dead father is no worse of (financially) than a kid with a father who just left the mother, really.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- alexeisadeski3 12y ago
  Removing a child from the custody of a parent who was not financially prepared to raise the child is not punishment.
  - facepalm 12y ago
    I thought it is just about the money. Giving the child less money is punishment.
    - alexeisadeski3 12y ago
      If the mother doesn't have enough money to raise the child, she was clearly being irresponsible and should be relieved of her ward. Of course, I assume that women are volitional human beings and thus should be held responsible for their actions. A concept quite foreign to the Ango-Saxon legal tradition.
      - facepalm 12y ago
        You seem to be talking about something else than the OP. I was under the impression he was talking about fathers paying up for kids, not kids being taken away from their parents. Let's check if I understood you correctly, though: your opinion is that parents who can't afford their kids anymore should have their kids taken away from them. And you are sure that is what is best for the kids?
        alexeisadeski3 12y ago
        I'm staying one step ahead of the conversation. We're all talking about parents taking care of their kids: If moms have the option not to have to take care of their kids - as they currently do - then fathers should have that option as well. Once fathers have that option, and women are thusly treated as responsible adults, then we will come across situations in which mothers claim not to be able to care for their children. They will require assistance, or so they shall claim. Simple solution: If the caretaker is sufficiently irresponsible as to have children without the means to care for them - which is precisely what they are claiming - then the children should be removed from their irresponsible care. Offer the father custody, and if he isn't interested then off to foster care. Why is this so important? Why am I being so callous? Why is this relevant? Simple. You incentivize behavior, you get more of it. Current law in Anglo-Saxon nations incentivizes irresponsibility by women. Get rid of these silly laws and you'll have less of this silly behavior.
- Dewie 12y ago
  Maybe the child should be put up for adoption if not both of the parents want to be parents.

facepalm 12y ago

The problem is that you don't want to punish the children. They are innocent.

tomjen3 12y ago
If the father dies the child also gets nothing, so no real punishment.
- facepalm 12y ago
  It's not punishment if a father dies? I mean, you imply that kids whose father dies are not worse off than kids with a father. Because if they were worse off, they would be "punished" compared to the kids with fathers.
  - tomjen3 12y ago
    A kid with a dead father is no worse of (financially) than a kid with a father who just left the mother, really.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
alexeisadeski3 12y ago
Removing a child from the custody of a parent who was not financially prepared to raise the child is not punishment.
- facepalm 12y ago
  I thought it is just about the money. Giving the child less money is punishment.
  - alexeisadeski3 12y ago
    If the mother doesn't have enough money to raise the child, she was clearly being irresponsible and should be relieved of her ward. Of course, I assume that women are volitional human beings and thus should be held responsible for their actions. A concept quite foreign to the Ango-Saxon legal tradition.
    - facepalm 12y ago
      You seem to be talking about something else than the OP. I was under the impression he was talking about fathers paying up for kids, not kids being taken away from their parents. Let's check if I understood you correctly, though: your opinion is that parents who can't afford their kids anymore should have their kids taken away from them. And you are sure that is what is best for the kids?
      - alexeisadeski3 12y ago
        I'm staying one step ahead of the conversation. We're all talking about parents taking care of their kids: If moms have the option not to have to take care of their kids - as they currently do - then fathers should have that option as well. Once fathers have that option, and women are thusly treated as responsible adults, then we will come across situations in which mothers claim not to be able to care for their children. They will require assistance, or so they shall claim. Simple solution: If the caretaker is sufficiently irresponsible as to have children without the means to care for them - which is precisely what they are claiming - then the children should be removed from their irresponsible care. Offer the father custody, and if he isn't interested then off to foster care. Why is this so important? Why am I being so callous? Why is this relevant? Simple. You incentivize behavior, you get more of it. Current law in Anglo-Saxon nations incentivizes irresponsibility by women. Get rid of these silly laws and you'll have less of this silly behavior.
Dewie 12y ago
Maybe the child should be put up for adoption if not both of the parents want to be parents.