alimoney, child support and so on.

[RGacky3]

I'm interested in what is your view on things like Alimoney, and child support, especially those who are pro-choice. Do you think the father of a child has any obligation financially to that child (As is the case now, at least in the US.) And if a couple gets divorced, do you believe that the husband should have to pay alimoney? That the wife should get half of the property, regardless of how much she has earned. Or that a married woman should have a right to the what the husband legally? (and of coarse vise versa).

Of coarse this is all within the Capitalist framework, obviously in a Communist society the whole dynamics of it would change. But non the less I'd like to get pro-choicers opinions on that. I find it would be very hard to support these policies, while still being pro-choice.

[Bud Struggle]

Well, I'm no Commie, but a man should take care of his kids. Period.

As far as the wife goes, she's a human being that should be able to take care herself, but often she can't. She he MAY owe her something.

[Demogorgon]

Men who refuse to provide for their kids are scum. Incidentally the same applies to women who run off leaving the father to look after the children on his own, but that is less common.

Anyway, if a parent is destitute, quite plainly they can hardly be expected to provide child maintainance, but those who can afford to do so, must.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

The state or society should pay in full all child support and the living expenses of those who unable to take work due to parenting, including providing free child support on a community wide level (pre-school and crèche rather than a nanny per family).


Men who refuse to provide for their kids are scum. Incidentally the same applies to women who run off leaving the father to look after the children on his own, but that is less common.

Anyway, if a parent is destitute, quite plainly they can hardly be expected to provide child maintainance, but those who can afford to do so, must.


people fail to live up to other people's needs and standards in all realms of life, it doesnt make them scum at all, except where the media who want low taxes so their owner doesnt have to pay the workers so much.

The media brand these men "dead beat dads" and that kind of stuff, in the same way wealthy people in Britain put white feathers on mens clothing when they refused to be conscripted to stigmatise them, because they were not living up to their *duty* for the benifit of an imperial war.

dont make any mistake in thinking Rupert Murdoch cares about children living in poverty, he just cares about the state having to pay money to help raise children. thereby increasing taxes and increasing the minimum amount needed to be paid to average workers.

Why should men have to pay for children when they have clearly chosen that they are unable to cope with it. It not only lets off the state, it makes the "dad" resent being their children, and it makes the next 20 years of their life an absolute misery, trapped in a relationship to another human being that is clearly exploitative.

It's hardly freedom to enforce payments, or freedom to stigmatise people into being social outcasts.

[pusher robot]

The state or society should pay in full all child support and the living expenses of those who unable to take work due to parenting, including providing free child support on a community wide level (pre-school and crèche rather than a nanny per family).

Are you sure that's a good idea? Remember that what you subsidize, you are guaranteed to get more of. Do we really need that many more children?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Well, higher levels of subsidisation doesn't correlate to higher levels of children produced. I think most developed countries have low population growth rates, and most underdeveloped and developing countries have higher growth rates.

but so long as the children grow into adults who can earn a living and produce (in the abstract) as much as they need to live on, then im not sure it matters if the birth rate increases.

anyway, its often the very poorest families (which live of government aid) have lots of children because basically they rarely or never work, which means the wages they might get arent enough of an incentive to pursue a career.

[Demogorgon]

I neither took the Rupert Murdoch line nor said that parents should remain together. Rather I said that men who fuck off and refuse to provide financial aid for the raising of their children, even though they are able to are contemptible.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I neither took the Rupert Murdoch line nor said that parents should remain together. Rather I said that men who fuck off and refuse to provide financial aid for the raising of their children, even though they are able to are contemptible.

why are they *their* children though?

clinging to bourgeois morality are we?

children aren't owned by anyone. and should be entitled to a standard of living independent of what biological parents are can or are forced to provide.

you are putting a 20 indentured slavery if you agree with Murdoch style social stigmatising.

[freakazoid]

The state or society should pay in full all child support and the living expenses of those who unable to take work due to parenting, including providing free child support on a community wide level (pre-school and crèche rather than a nanny per family).

Aren't there some people who basically live off of that, simply having more kids so they get even more money from the .gov?


It not only lets off the state,

Let off the state for what? The state should be demolished, not made bigger.


why are they *their* children though?

Who's are they then? They had to come out the body of somebody.


Why should men have to pay for children when they have clearly chosen that they are unable to cope with it.

So a guy could go around getting women pregnant and then leaving them with the financial burden and get off scot-free? Why does the women have to be the one to take care of them, is it because she is the one that gave birth to them so she has to be sole provider? Why not the dad? What if he stays with her for a while then bail on her? It's not about having to cope with it. It is them not wanting to have to actually take responsibility.

[Robert]

Aren't there some people who basically live off of that, simply having more kids so they get even more money from the .gov?

You know what's really freaky to me about that question? You put the period before the "g" instead of after the "v." You are a modern man.

Anyway, there are very few women who sit down and decide to have another baby so that they can get a "bigger check." The law changed in '97 under Clinton to discourage what you describe. Your politics will govern whether you like the results.

At any rate, "welfare" in the USA is now the comparatively restrictive TANF, or Temporary Assistance to Needy Families.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Assistance_for_Needy_Families

You can get up to a maximum of 5 years of assistance under this program over the term of your life, you have to identify the father of the baby for who you want benefits, and have to go to work within 2 years of going on to the program.

It hasn't done much if anything to reduce poverty, but it obviously has reduced the numbers of people on welfare.

[freakazoid]

You know what's really freaky to me about that question? You put the period before the "g" instead of after the "v." You are a modern man.

I'm not sure what you are implying but I did it on purpose. .gov is used by people who view the government as bad and turning into a police state. It comes from the part in a web address for government sites. kind of like some sites have .com or .net
Although the rest of your post was much appreciated because my knowledge in that area is lacking. :)

[RGacky3]

Men who refuse to provide for their kids are scum. Incidentally the same applies to women who run off leaving the father to look after the children on his own, but that is less common.

Anyway, if a parent is destitute, quite plainly they can hardly be expected to provide child maintainance, but those who can afford to do so, must.

I'm going to assume your not pro-life, ok, a man has casual sex with a woman, the woman is pregnant, now she has a choice, she can or cannot keep the baby, the father has no say in this, so why should he be expected to give any support for that child? She decided to have it, not him.


clinging to bourgeois morality are we?

What is this bourgeois morality you speak of, as far as I know, most working class and poor people have the same idea of a family unit that rich and bourgeois people do, words like bourgeois morality are meaningless.


Also what about the whole divorce 50/50 thing?

[Robert]

I did it on purpose. .gov is used by people who view the government as bad and turning into a police state.

.I knew you did, but didn't know why .Now I know

[freakazoid]

lol :laugh:

[Demogorgon]

why are they *their* children though?

clinging to bourgeois morality are we?

children aren't owned by anyone. and should be entitled to a standard of living independent of what biological parents are can or are forced to provide.

you are putting a 20 indentured slavery if you agree with Murdoch style social stigmatising.
Of course they are their children. The word "their" does not necessarily refer to ownership. I can refer to [i[my[/i] friends without saying I own them.

Of course children should be entitled to a high standard of living regardless of the means of their parents, but the fact is that they are not getting this. Consequently parents that can provide should. Calling it slavery is just ridiculous. Are you saying children are exploiters now?

We need to live in the real world here. Men (or women) who will not provide for their children are not exercising liberty, rather they are behaving in an appalling and selfish manner.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

freakazoid


Aren't there some people who basically live off of that, simply having more kids so they get even more money from the .gov?

not most people. those people are long term unemployed anyway, they cant get a wage which is worth them leaving government aid, and children give men at least something to live for, although i do think they're wasting their life.



Let off the state for what? The state should be demolished, not made bigger.

urgh, okay i was using the state in a pluralistic sense not a specific maxist or anarchist sense. i think the state is bad too, blah blah blah. just replace state with society or government or commune or whatever.



Who's are they then? They had to come out the body of somebody.


Yes they did, but we dont believe that a children are under the authority of any biological parent, as we remove the children from unsafe people, like child abusers or drug users.

Foster and adoptive parents are as much parents as biological parents.




So a guy could go around getting women pregnant

look yes a guy can go around making women pregnant, there isnt a law against that as the Christian right dont make the laws.

they can also use protection to stop pregnancy occurring, it is 2008. also most of the time, people have sex and there are no babies 9months later, because most people aren't totally stupid.



then leaving them with the financial burden and get off scot-free?

scot-free, yes.



Why does the women have to be the one to take care of them, is it because she is the one that gave birth to them so she has to be sole provider? Why not the dad?

the woman doesn't have to take care of them, or the man, give the baby up to let the government take care of it.

the single mother if she wants to raise the kid should have the full support of the society to help her, allow her time to relax and have a normal and fun life. same if it were a lone dad.



What if he stays with her for a while then bail on her?


if he stays then bails, the woman should just get more government aid to help her replace the lost income.



It's not about having to cope with it. It is them not wanting to have to actually take responsibility.

Yes, so what? life can be hard for everyone, and shirking responsibility is normal and natural. you might understand that if you weren't a social conservative.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Of course they are their children. The word "their" does not necessarily refer to ownership. I can refer to [i[my[/i] friends without saying I own them.

Of course children should be entitled to a high standard of living regardless of the means of their parents, but the fact is that they are not getting this. Consequently parents that can provide should. Calling it slavery is just ridiculous. Are you saying children are exploiters now?

We need to live in the real world here. Men (or women) who will not provide for their children are not exercising liberty, rather they are behaving in an appalling and selfish manner.

It isn't down to individual to provide for *their* own children.

Its not nearly so simplistic as you make it out to be.

and look up the term 'indentured'. And then think about people who feel compelled to provide for others (for 20 years) against their own desires.

We need to live in the real world, men (or women) dont have to provide security for biological offspring, even though most do because they love them. We need the social society as that is the best parent anyone can have.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I'm going to assume your not pro-life, ok, a man has casual sex with a woman, the woman is pregnant, now she has a choice, she can or cannot keep the baby, the father has no say in this, so why should he be expected to give any support for that child? She decided to have it, not him.


most women do consult their partner when they first get pregnant, actually. He isnt powerless at all, as people dont make these kinds of choices in isolation of the people their closest too, very often.



What is this bourgeois morality you speak of, as far as I know, most working class and poor people have the same idea of a family unit that rich and bourgeois people do, words like bourgeois morality are meaningless.


Also what about the whole divorce 50/50 thing?

The ideology of the family unit comes from above, not below. There is little reason to assume outright that the family unit will remain forever as the social wealth increases and increases.

what about divorce?

[Demogorgon]

It isn't down to individual to provide for *their* own children.

Its not nearly so simplistic as you make it out to be.

and look up the term 'indentured'. And then think about people who feel compelled to provide for others (for 20 years) against their own desires.

We need to live in the real world, men (or women) dont have to provide security for biological offspring, even though most do because they love them. We need the social society as that is the best parent anyone can have.
Yes we do need to live in the real world and in the real world when a man runs off leaving his former partner to raise the kids on her own, she suffers greatly, while he is Scot-Free. It is ridiculous to side with him here.

[eyedrop]

Yes we do need to live in the real world and in the real world when a man runs off leaving his former partner to raise the kids on her own, she suffers greatly, while he is Scot-Free. It is ridiculous to side with him here. If you want to play the emotional card we can imagine the poor guy who has a one night stand after spending an evening out clubbing. Then he wakes up after the next morning and is indebted for the next 18 years. Would you side against him?


What need to be established is the notion that children are not something that happens just by chance. Getting children should always be a conscious action as long as we have the technology, which we do now. Noone should really become a parent without wanting to become a parent. Just because you had unprotected sex shouldn't make you have to become a parent.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

no its ridiculous to think that playing the "dead beat dad" social stigmatisation approach will change anything at all. In the real world it isn't wealthy men who don't pay for *their* kids, its the men who are already struggling.

The only solution is a increasing progressive taxation or obviously socialism.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

If you want to play the emotional card we can imagine the poor guy who has a one night stand after spending an evening out clubbing. Then he wakes up after the next morning and is indebted for the next 18 years. Would you side against him?


What need to be established is the notion that children are not something that happens just by chance. Getting children should always be a conscious action as long as we have the technology, which we do now. Noone should really become a parent without wanting to become a parent. Just because you had unprotected sex shouldn't make you have to become a parent.

absolutely, unsafe sex doesn't mean conservatives have the right to stigmatise you and take your money (exchanged for labour power in most cases) just because *golly* you wanted to *have sex* with no repercussions.

You cant have people free to have sex, but let them know that they are liable to recieve 20 years of indentured labour to a child that was born, all because they are the biological parent of it.

[Demogorgon]

If you want to play the emotional card we can imagine the poor guy who has a one night stand after spending an evening out clubbing. Then he wakes up after the next morning and is indebted for the next 18 years. Would you side against him?


What need to be established is the notion that children are not something that happens just by chance. Getting children should always be a conscious action as long as we have the technology, which we do now. Noone should really become a parent without wanting to become a parent. Just because you had unprotected sex shouldn't make you have to become a parent.

Maybe not. But the men generally required to pay child support are the ones who have been in the child's life before buggering off later.

The notion that they should not have to help pay for the kid is ridiculous as far as I am concerned.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

they will though, through their taxes!! like everyone else

[eyedrop]

Maybe not. But the men generally required to pay child support are the ones who have been in the child's life before buggering off later.

Not disagreing here, after they have agreed to parenthood it's a completely different case.



The notion that they should not have to help pay for the kid is ridiculous as far as I am concerned. In todays society I agree.



And I prefer using the term parent as I don't see the need for a distinction after the baby is done suckling boobs. There are mothers who flee from their children too.

[Demogorgon]

Not disagreing here, after they have agreed to parenthood it's a completely different case.

In todays society I agree.



And I prefer using the term parent as I don't see the need for a distinction after the baby is done suckling boobs. There are mothers who flee from their children too.

I think we are in agreement. As for your point about parents, you are right, as I pointed out in my first post. Sometimes it is fathers who are left in the lurch, but there is no denying it is usually men who do a runner.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

bloody_capitalist_sham is more-or-less upholding a communist position here, and cutting against popular bourgeois ideology. His analysis of the origin and the character of the bourgeois family (including "ownership" of children) is spot on. He's also correct when he puts forward that all children should have a certain of quality of life guaranteed, regardless of the situation of their biological parents.

This is all tied into women's liberation and the need for socialist revolution to bring sweeping change, the need for public childcare and similar institutions to free women from domestic servitude, etc.


You can get up to a maximum of 5 years of assistance under this program over the term of your life,

Yeah.. in many cases this is broken up into 3 month sections. They tell you that every adult (over age 17) in your household needs to be employed in order to get food stamps, or they'll be cut off after 3 months.. but often when every adult is employed, your household income is just high enough to take you out of eligibility for assistance.


you have to identify the father of the baby for who you want benefits,

So they can make him pay back all the assistance they "give" the other parent (in reality making it like a 3rd-party loan.. except if you don't pay this loan back, you go to prison, have your driving and professional licenses revoked, etc.).


and have to go to work within 2 years of going on to the program.

Yep.. the "lesser-of-two-evils" Democrats and their Republican partners gutted the gains workers made in the area of welfare during Clinton's presidency.

[Bud Struggle]

He's also correct when he puts forward that all children should have a certain of quality of life guaranteed, regardless of the situation of their biological parents.

Exactly backward. All children should have a quality of life guaranteed by their parents regardless of the situation of government subsidies.

A man's gotta work to support his family. If he can't afford one he shouldn't have one. Actually if a man has a family and and can't afford one--he's really not a man at all, is he? ;)

[eyedrop]

Exactly backward. All children should have a quality of life guaranteed by their parents regardless of the situation of government subsidies.

A man's gotta work to support his family. If he can't afford one he shouldn't have one. Actually if a man has a family and and can't afford one--he's really not a man at all, is he? ;)If one follows your logic, why should it be the child who has to pay for it? He had a father who wasn't a "man"?

[Bud Struggle]

If one follows your logic, why should it be the child who has to pay for it? He had a father who wasn't a "man"?

And why should "I" as a taxpayer have to pay for it if the child's father isn't a "man"?

[Robert]

Someone above was shedding tears for the poor father who wakes up after a night of debauchery to discover he spewed his seed in fertile ground. If you don't want the father to support his children, who should? The grandparents? The mother/girl? All alone? The state? I though we were going to eliminate the state.

Who's left? Church-run orphanages? You? You are going to take care of my little kids so I can continue clubbing and fucking indiscriminately and spending my money on beer?

Or will we just let toddlers fight off rats and dogs in the street because they aren't working yet and are thus parasites?

[Demogorgon]

And why should "I" as a taxpayer have to pay for it if the child's father isn't a "man"?

Because you can afford to. Children really can't afford to grow up malnourished in poor accommodation with old damaged clothes.

[Bud Struggle]

I understand and agree. And that is what "charity" is all about.

[eyedrop]

You are going to take care of my little kids so I can continue clubbing and fucking indiscriminately and spending my money on beer? I manage just fine to continue clubbing and fucking indescriminately without getting a child. We are past the time where sex leads to children, back in year 500 we weren't. (Written from a euro-centric view to be fair)


You also got some warped views about what abolishing the state would mean.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Tomk, tax payers subsidise the operations of charities all over the world lol. They basically couldn't operate otherwise.

[Bud Struggle]

Tomk, tax payers subsidise the operations of charities all over the world lol. They basically couldn't operate otherwise.

It's a petty good system. I donate to Catholic Charities, LDS is pretty good, too.

[Robert]

I manage just fine to continue clubbing and fucking indescriminately without getting a child.

Well, bully for you, stud, but that's hardly the issue. The issue is who takes care of the child when you do "get a child." Well?


Because you can afford to.

In reality, Tom and I will contribute to taking care of the offspring of indiscriminate, impecunious copulators. That's already the system and it's not going to change.

The father owes us nothing in return? You wouldn't make wage slaves out of us, would you?

See you at the disco. Maybe we'll pick up some
American foxes with large American breasts. "I like the nightlife, I like to boo-gay, on the disco hi-i-i-i-i-i-i-gh way." That's still in the top 40, right?


I donate to Catholic Charities, LDS is pretty good, too

Which are not subsidized by taxpayers. What is he talking about? And why the "LOL"?

[eyedrop]

Well, bully for you, my mirthless stud, but that's hardly the issue. The issue is who takes care of the child when you do "get a child." Well?

Well I won't get a child before I would like to get one. When I want one I'm also ready to take care of it, why would I otherwise want one?

[Robert]

Eyedrop, if you're trying to argue with me, I have no idea what our disagreement is. You want to tell me?

Since we leprous cappies apparently can't start new threads,
I guess we're doomed to comment on abortion, deadbeat dads, and Cuba till doomsday. Unless we hijack threads. So...

do you guys think Tony Romo and Jess will get back together? I hope they do.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

wait, OI'ers can no longer start threads?

[Bud Struggle]

wait, OI'ers can no longer start threads?

Yea. It's freaking hell around here. I'm not going to tell you all the gymnastics I've been trying--but we can't start threads. When I could psot a thread--other Oiers tried having me post threads for them. then it didn't work.

I did try to register as TomK2 (not trying to fool anyone) and that's even been blocked.

It's a pain in the ass.

Any help would be deeply appreciated.

Tom

[eyedrop]

Eyedrop, if you're trying to argue with me, I have no idea what our disagreement is. You want to tell me?

Basically your insinuation that someone "who wakes up after a night of debauchery to discover he spewed his seed in fertile ground" deserves to have fatherhood trust upon him against his wish. Which shouldn't happen with todays birth-prevention technology.

Too bad you can't start treads now, just PM me a post and I'll start a tread for you.

[Robert]

It's not a policy, but it's reality for me and I think Tomk. It's a "tags" issue. We try to start the thread and the message says we are "not authorized to create new tags," even when we're not trying to create a tag. It's okay, I'm fine letting others start them.

[Jazzratt]

I'll keep these posts in this thread, but I'll try to make this the last word on the off topic issue, if you guys can co-operate? I've no idea what the fuck is happening with tags, something to do with the board automatically creating tags based on the thread title, the admins should sort it out (although I wouldn't hold your breath - the admins are people too, with their own responsibilities and lives - not to mention other important functions on the board). Until then, if cappies want to start a new thread I will be more than willing to take PMs from you guys and turn them into threads (Give the thread title somewhere and the opening post) - I can't promise instant satisfaction (especially on weekends) but it's a hold over solution.

[Robert]

"who wakes up after a night of debauchery to discover he spewed his seed in fertile ground" deserves to have fatherhood trust upon him against his wish. Which shouldn't happen with todays birth-prevention technology.


I think you're saying two things, one which I agree with (the 2nd) and the other which I don't understand. You don't "deserve" to have fatherhood, it's just a risk you assume by your actions. If I go scuba diving in Australia, I don't deserve to be eaten by sharks, but deserving or not, it's just highly more likely than if I go for a swim in a public pool. And I shouldn't sue Australia for my lost limbs.

I do confess to being repelled by indiscriminate sex if it's unprotected and the participants aren't ready to assume the risks of their own consensual behavior.

Are you Norwegian? If so, your English is really impressive.

Thanks for the offer to start threads, but I'm okay just mouthing off on those you guys start.

[Bud Struggle]

Thanks Jazzratt.

[RGacky3]

Someone above was shedding tears for the poor father who wakes up after a night of debauchery to discover he spewed his seed in fertile ground. If you don't want the father to support his children, who should? The grandparents? The mother/girl? All alone? The state? I though we were going to eliminate the state.

Who's left? Church-run orphanages? You? You are going to take care of my little kids so I can continue clubbing and fucking indiscriminately and spending my money on beer?

Or will we just let toddlers fight off rats and dogs in the street because they aren't working yet and are thus parasites?

Assuming the woman is pro-choice, its 100% her desicion to have a child, she decided to have it, its 100% her resonsibility, why should'nt the man continue debauchery, he's done nothing wrong, its the woman who made the desicion and she must live with it.

Now if a married man and woman have a planned child and the man wanted the child, thats a different story, but thats different because he has natural love for the child, and would want to see him. Again I'm talking about purely in a Capitalist system here.


Yes we do need to live in the real world and in the real world when a man runs off leaving his former partner to raise the kids on her own, she suffers greatly, while he is Scot-Free. It is ridiculous to side with him here.

Also when a woman leaves a man through divorce, many times he's left paying for everything, she gets half his stuff, whether she worked for it or not, and custody of the children. Aslo SHE chose to have the kids.

[Robert]

A
lso when a woman leaves a man through divorce, many times he's left paying for everything, she gets half his stuff, whether she worked for it or not, and custody of the children. Aslo SHE chose to have the kids.

You are misstating law and reality, at least as it operates in the USA. Maybe it's different where you live. She does not get "half his stuff" unless he agrees to give it to her in a settlement. She gets half their stuff, i.e., property accumulated during the marriage. She keeps her stuff, he keeps his. In grey areas, they litigate or compromise.

They also split the debts if they are community debts.

This "she chose to have the kids" business is disingenuous, unfair and unkind in my opinion. It's also in conflict with your complaint that she gets custody of the children, which itself is half true.

[freakazoid]

urgh, okay i was using the state in a pluralistic sense not a specific maxist or anarchist sense. i think the state is bad too, blah blah blah. just replace state with society or government or commune or whatever.

I get ya, :)


look yes a guy can go around making women pregnant, there isnt a law against that as the Christian right dont make the laws.

Thank God, lol. There are a bunch of nutters out there :laugh:.


they can also use protection to stop pregnancy occurring, it is 2008. also most of the time, people have sex and there are no babies 9months later, because most people aren't totally stupid.

Using protection isn't a guarantee that it will work. Of course there is always an abortion, if it is legal where they live, if the woman chooses so.


Yes they did, but we dont believe that a children are under the authority of any biological parent, as we remove the children from unsafe people, like child abusers or drug users.

Child abusers yes, nothing wrong with drug users.


Yes, so what? life can be hard for everyone, and shirking responsibility is normal and natural. you might understand that if you weren't a social conservative.

One shouldn't shrug off there responsibility, that is a dangerous mindset to get into. Sure I was supposed to actually do my responsibilities as a doctor and save this persons life, but so what? It is "normal and natural" to shrug them off. What would happen if we all did that and just let capitalism win? And what in the world is a "social conservative"?

[eyedrop]

I think you're saying two things, one which I agree with (the 2nd) and the other which I don't understand. You don't "deserve" to have fatherhood, it's just a risk you assume by your actions. If I go scuba diving in Australia, I don't deserve to be eaten by sharks, but deserving or not, it's just highly more likely than if I go for a swim in a public pool. And I shouldn't sue Australia for my lost limbs.
Well if one has indescrimenately sex, without a condom, one would, in todays culture, assume that the female-partner is on the pill, or some other kind of birth control. There is nothing wrong with asking but unless specified it's a natural assumption as we still haven't managed to develop a birth prevention pill for males. The female would be obliged to inform her partner if it is not so. At least if she wants to include his fatherhood in a baby.

In cases where there is no prevention it should be informed of before the sex. If they still want unprotected sex then we still have the regret-pill (or whatever it's called) or in more unfortunate causes abortion, because abortion is more hasslesome to do. So a baby is not really a risk on undertakes by having sex, except in extreme cases.



I do confess to being repelled by indiscriminate sex if it's unprotected and the participants aren't ready to assume the risks of their own consensual behavior.
Well if someone has sex completely unprotected with both parts knowing, then they are knowingly setting themselfes up for a big chance of getting a child. I fail to see why someone would knowingly do that if they don't want children, unless it's of financial causes. In most cases the male would assume the female would take a regret-pill the day after, and give her cash for half of the cost of it, or the female should specify if that is not the case.

But all this discussion is mostly just hyphotetical situations but I still think a female has the duty to inform if she is not on some kind of prevention, or plan to, because male birth prevention is so underdeveloped yet. Well a vasectomy (or how it is spelled) and a freeze with some sperm in it solves the whole situation before it starts though.

I don't like letting child birth be controlled by chance when we got the technology to control it.


Are you Norwegian? If so, your English is really impressive.
:blushing: Blame english television shows from an early age.


Thanks for the offer to start threads, but I'm okay just mouthing off on those you guys start. Suit yourself. I must say the OI'ers of today is a lot better than the OI'ers I saw here when lurking here 4-5 years ago which was just whining about how unfair it was that their freedom to troll the rest of the forum was restricted.

[RGacky3]

This "she chose to have the kids" business is disingenuous, unfair and unkind in my opinion. It's also in conflict with your complaint that she gets custody of the children, which itself is half true.

Why is it unfair and unkind? Its true, she (for pro-choicers) has the 100% decision over if she decides to keep or kill the child.

Also generally speaking the courts overwhelmingly give custody to the mother, allowing visits from the father while the father still has to put up much of the funds for the kid.

[QUOTE]You are misstating law and reality, at least as it operates in the USA. Maybe it's different where you live. She does not get "half his stuff" unless he agrees to give it to her in a settlement. She gets half their stuff, i.e., property accumulated during the marriage. She keeps her stuff, he keeps his. In grey areas, they litigate or compromise.[QUOTE]

Their stuff according to the law, (as far as I know) is'nt only property accumulated during teh marriage, it includes all common property which is everything, unless theres a prenup. Also this about she keeps her stuff he keeps his and in grey areas the compromise is in theory, in practice, most of hte time the man has to pay alimoney after the divorce, and the woman will take the husband to court to get it.

[Sharon den Adel]

Do you think the father of a child has any obligation financially to that child?
And if a couple gets divorced, do you believe that the husband should have to pay alimoney?

It depends. I am of the belief that before a couple enter into a sexual relationship, they must first speak about children, for the reason that accidents do happen. If the man was clear that he did not wish to have children, then he should not be expected to pay child support.
It is the womans choice as to whether she continues with her pregnancy, so it is she who should be considering whether she can afford the costs of raising that child. It isn't fair for her to have a child she cannot afford, and sue the father, knowing he has enough money to support them both.
In my opinion, if a man states outright he does not want children, then he has the opportunity to walk away from the relationship. However, he must walk away as soon as possible.
If he sticks around until the birth, then leaves, the mother should be able to sue for child support, for the reason that she was under the impression that she would be financially equipped to care for the child, and would have the support of a partner.

If a couple decided to divorce, and children are involved, the father should pay alimony, as they are his children, and provided financially for them at one stage.

[pusher robot]

If a couple decided to divorce, and children are involved, the father should pay alimony, as they are his children, and provided financially for them at one stage.

You're talking about child support. Alimony is something different, it's based on the idea that in marriage one spouse tends to support the other, and extends that support past the end of the marriage. Children are irrelevant.

[Robert]

Their stuff according to the law, (as far as I know) is'nt only property accumulated during teh marriage, it includes all common property which is everything, unless theres a prenup.You are incorrect under every U.S. jurisdiction I know of. You are in California, right? Here's a fair synopsis of the law there, and it's pretty much the same everywhere, even in crazy Louisiana:

1) What is community property?
California law defines community property as any asset acquired or income earned by a married person while living with his or her spouse. Separate property is defined as anything acquired by a spouse before the marriage, or during the marriage by gift, d evise or bequest. The law requires that the community estate be divided equally if there is no written agreement to the contrary. This means that from the total fair market value of the community assets, the joint obligations of the parties are subtracted, yielding the net community estate. Unless agreed otherwise, each spouse must receive ½ of the net community estate.

I am sure there are many ex-husbands complaining that they got screwed over by some woman and the courts, and they may be right. But if you take reasonable care to keep track of your income and expenditures, there is usually little problem in equitably dividing assets and liabilities in a divorce. This is why most of them do not go to trial. They just get worked out amicably. As mentioned, nothing prevents the husband from giving the wife a wad of cash just to avoid the hassle, but that's his choice, not law.

May I ask why so many of you guys seem so hostile to divorcing women anyway?

[Sharon den Adel]

You're talking about child support. Alimony is something different, it's based on the idea that in marriage one spouse tends to support the other, and extends that support past the end of the marriage. Children are irrelevant.

Sorry, I got confused. Well, if each spouse supports the other, why is it always the male left to pay alimony? Seems a little discriminatory to me. Is it because the male tends to earn more money?:confused:

[RGacky3]

1) What is community property?
California law defines community property as any asset acquired or income earned by a married person while living with his or her spouse. Separate property is defined as anything acquired by a spouse before the marriage, or during the marriage by gift, d evise or bequest. The law requires that the community estate be divided equally if there is no written agreement to the contrary. This means that from the total fair market value of the community assets, the joint obligations of the parties are subtracted, yielding the net community estate. Unless agreed otherwise, each spouse must receive ½ of the net community estate.

I see, I stand corrected.


I am sure there are many ex-husbands complaining that they got screwed over by some woman and the courts, and they may be right. But if you take reasonable care to keep track of your income and expenditures, there is usually little problem in equitably dividing assets and liabilities in a divorce. This is why most of them do not go to trial. They just get worked out amicably. As mentioned, nothing prevents the husband from giving the wife a wad of cash just to avoid the hassle, but that's his choice, not law.

May I ask why so many of you guys seem so hostile to divorcing women anyway?

Dividing assents is different from alimoney and child support right? which are actualy ongoing payments.

I'm not hostile to divorcing women perse, I personally believe that marriage nowerdays has come to a point to where its a joke really, at least in most western countries and an institution thats been twisted by Catpitalism. I'm hostile to men being held accountable for something he should'nt be held accountable for.


If a couple decided to divorce, and children are involved, the father should pay alimony, as they are his children, and provided financially for them at one stage.

I think thats fair and natural, that is, if the father has equal access for his kids and is'nt reduced to seeing them once a week, which is a horrible crime in my opinion.

[Robert]

Dividing assents is different from alimoney and child support right? which are actualy ongoing payments.

Right. Although court-ordered child support orders are almost automatic when minor children are involved, I don't see a lot of alimony awards, or even claims for alimony, anymore. the fights are over the kids and the property. In Texas, the party claiming the alimony ("spousal suppport") has to show he/she can't provide even for his or her minimal needs, and that's pretty hard to do unless you're disabled. They always got openings at Walmart and Micky D's.

Oh, I see they call it "spousal support" in California too, and it looks like it works more or less the same. http://californiadivorce.info/legal.alimony.spousalsupportoverview.htm