People, or men?Effectively we all are paying, sure. It's the principle of not incentivizing people to be reckless.
People, or men?Effectively we all are paying, sure. It's the principle of not incentivizing people to be reckless.
People, or men?
Alternative is kids starving on the streets, growing into broken adults that will come and take your little 25 centsIt's the principal.
I don't care with it's just an extra 25 cents or a dollar, I'll be dammed if my taxes go up even 1 cent just because some dudes want to opt out of providing financial surpport for their children.
No the alternative is people handling their direct responsibilities.Alternative is kids starving on the streets, growing into broken adults that will come and take your little 25 cents
That's what I thought
Can’t govern responsibility.No the alternative is people handling their direct responsibilities.
You also don’t have to govern additional burden on taxpayersCan’t govern responsibility.
i literally gave a legal out and a personal story of gettin out of child support..
I’m not advocating to abolish child support like some goofy nikkas in hereYou also don’t have to govern additional burden on taxpayers
Try again
We aren’t having the same discussion. I’m purely talking about the notion that men should be able to relinquish rights and have those cost passes on to taxpayersI’m not advocating to abolish child support like some goofy nikkas in here
Just saying as a society we foot the bill for taking care of those who can’t take care of themselves. That’s kinda why society exists.
In reality there’s more than enough resources for every one to be ok. It’s the way our country is governed that creates these imbalances in the first place. This wouldn’t even be a debate if everyone got equal access to things like education and healthcare, quality housing, etc.
It can be done as we see in other modern wealthy societies. But Americans are too stuck on fighting with each other about their tax dollars and freedoms
I’ve got an idea. Chasity belts for everyone. They don’t get unlocked until you get married. Then mandatory vasectomies and tubes tied for any married couple that doesn’t want children. And No divorces no matter what.
That’ll reduce abortion rates, increase marriages, decrease stds, decrease the need for child support, decrease divorce, decrease premarital sex and these discussions.
I don't understand why people keep bringing up the woman carrying the child. She can carry the child and then give it up for adoption and abortions are less of a health risk than pregnancy.This is how it should work:
Chris impregnates Ashley. Chris says "I don't want to be involved in the child's life financially, physically, emotionally etc." Chris tells her this very early...like as soon as she learns she's pregnant.
They go to a judge and Ashley agrees to release Chris from his duties. It's legal precedent and set in stone. That's the only way it COULD work. He can't just smash and knock her up and then be like "I don't wanna be the daddy" unless they both feel the same way.
However.....the courts look at what's best for the child. That makes sense. The child needs someone to be their advocate. The mom may not want the dad involved because she thinks he's an "ain't shyt nikka" but the courts say that he needs to AT LEAST contribute financially even if he's not there in the flesh.
While the system feels unfair, men don't carry children. In a 50/50 situation, the woman is going to get the nod because ultimately they take on the risk of carrying a child. Men can impregnate 20 women/week if we wanted to. Women can only carry around the child/twins/triplets etc., of one man once they are preggo.
I’ve got an idea. Chasity belts for everyone. They don’t get unlocked until you get married. Then mandatory vasectomies and tubes tied for any married couple that doesn’t want children. And No divorces no matter what.
That’ll reduce abortion rates, increase marriages, decrease stds, decrease the need for child support, decrease divorce, decrease premarital sex and these discussions.