All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.

Post Reply New Topic

No they do NOT. Because women who get abortions are choosing not to bear children. But since we are talking about child rearing, women who get abortions and have no children presently are not pertinent to this discussion. In fact, abortion rates in the US are declining.

What matters here is women who choose not to abort and to HAVE their babies. You do realize in the US, there there are certain demographics where the majority of women choose to keep their babies instead of opting for abortion: I'm talking about Latinos(AKA
"hispanics").

Now if you want deadbeat dads to pay their share then what you are advocating is child support enforcement. However, the idea that the mother has no financial responsibility for child rearing, particularly in cases where she has chosen to live separately from the father and has been granted fully custody of the kids + earns enough money to provide for them, is ridiculous and unacceptable.

What you want is a return to 1950s Norman Rockwell style families where the dad is the sole breadwinner and bears the financial burden for child rearing. But women actively rebelled against that in the late 60s/early 70s and so your nuclear family renaissance is just not gonna happen. Why? Because that situation puts women in a position of economic dependency and surprise surprise, many women really *don't* want to be dependent on someone else. In many cases the father doesn't earn enough money to support the entire family and mom's gotta work too.

"No they do NOT."

Yes they do unless you think women intentionally get pregnant just to abort which would be ridiculous.

Most women with deadbeat dads end on the dole so they are dependent on taxpayers. That is why I want governments to have a higher impact on making deadbeat dads more financially responsible.

Regards
DL

Nice strawman. I wanna see some stats that the majority of single mothers in the US are on welfare/living in poverty still.


But do you have any statistics about the majority of single mothers in America being on welfare? The title of this thread is that men should pay 100% of child rearing costs even if the mother is the primary custodian and they have only visitation rights. Are you reneging on that now?

IF you are saying that deadbeat dads should be hauled into court and forced to pay child support then we're in agreement. But the ONLY condition where they pay 100% of it is on the condition that:

The mother has no income and no family of her own willing to pitch in financial assistance AND the father is able to afford to pay the costs.


But in the case where the mother is employed and earns enough to support the children then the baby daddy should NOT have to foot 100% of the bill particularly if he is unemployed and/or not earning enough money. What you *seem* to be advocating is a situation where the father has to pay 100% but still doesn't get to be involved in the kids life while the mother can spend money she earns on herself and possibly her new partners. Or worse when mom has a drug habit and spends child support funds on getting her fix instead of her kids.

We could nickel and dime every possible scenario. I will let you play that game.

The thrust of my thread is to try to get deadbeat dads to recognize their duty to their children and to have others recognize that the numbers of single family homes rising to the levels they are at is showing that men especially need to smarten up and start flying right.

Men are ignoring the duty they owe their children and their fellow citizens who have to carry the load that they are not stepping up to carry.

Regards
DL

GnosticBishop,

I am curious as to why you have formed this opinion.
Did you come from a single parent home?
Are you yourself a dad?

I don't deny the responsibility of parenting ideally falls on parents but to suggest one should support 100% and another 0% under almost any circumstance is a bit mad if you ask me. The dead beat dads you speak of, yes they should pay their child support. But let me ask you something, what happens if they pay out money to their child to a point where they can no longer afford to look after themselves and maintain a job in order to keep paying? What then? The child still loses.

What cost do you think should be covered?

I put it at all the needs of the child including a happy and contented guardian/mother, if possible, and all the creature comforts including logging. I would also include all the education the child wants.

The courts have set a standard for the rich that says the fathers are to keep their ex wives and children in the same lifestyle that they were used to.

Should we do less for the children and wives of those who are not as rich when we know that the ex husband can meet that standard?

Regards
DL

You conveniently dodge any questions that would affirm you have a bias in your argument, while also avoiding questions which consider more than the one or two scenarios you may possibly (in your mind) have a solution for. Way to go.

Do you mean these?

Did you come from a single parent home?
Are you yourself a dad?

I do not like to go personal but no, I do not come from a single family home. I do come from a dysfunctional family that was sometimes together and sometimes not. Mostly not. I was in an orphanage for perhaps a year and a reform school tor perhaps a year and a half.

I fathered two children with my first wife and took on the responsibility of two more with my second wife.

I have been a relatively happy person for most of my life.

I am not particularly proud of my parents but think they did the best they could with what they had and were at the time.

Neither contributed much to my moral bias which is what is at work in this thread. It was formed by my own experiences and what I have learned over time.

That is all you will get from my personal experience.

Regards
DL

Stop moving goalposts!

You're trying to be provocative and self-righteous by placing all of the responsibility on men. In the US, the precedent is that rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. Women have fought hard for their reproductive rights, and now they must accept the responsibilities that go along with those rights.

And yes, I DO believe that both parents should shoulder the financial burden of child rearing. Child support payments should be decided on a case-by-case basis with the only universal rule of each parent according to their ability. Your wife, if she exists and you're telling the truth, made the choice to have children inside wedlock. More and more women choose to have children out of wedlock and not just because of accidents.

You still have failed to provide any statistical data about single mothers in the US in terms of economic status.

Well if you were in an orphanage keep in mind that your mother is just as guilty as your father for putting you there. I did not come from a single parent home. So yeah, mommy shirked her responsibility for raising you as well as daddy! In fact, she might have even run off on HIM and then decided she didn't want the burden of caring for her own child.


I personally have seen examples of women who get pregnant out of wedlock with their bf's child and keep the baby without his agreement to start a family. And what infuriates me the most about the stupidity of your position is the fact that reproductive coercion by women is something that women have been able to get away with for a long time as it's much harder to prove when the woman does it.


Women need to stop being so f*cking selfish and stop creating children to use them as bargaining chips or accessories to get what they want and/or prove something to society.

If you want stats, get them yourself. Too often I have provided such and someone says they do not like where I get them.

You say women have to stop being selfish when the number of single parent homes with women in them is nearing 50%.

You want to hear where I got that stat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... gAu1i6aChs

Regards
DL

That's because more than 50% of the time, custody of the children is awarded to the MOTHER. This deadbeat dad stereotype is another bogus myth propagated by irresponsible women trying to blame men for their poor life choices.

Sure it is.

Regards
DL

Your idea is the way things *used* to be >50 years ago. But those days are NOT coming back because the majority of men and women actively oppose a return to it! Why? If men provide 100% of the funding for child rearing then women with kids will become economically dependent on men! A father paying child support has visitation rights and if the mother is poor he could potentially coerce her into getting back together with him even when she has already decided she doesn't want him back in her life. I know of one single mom who had a baby last year who actively choose to not list the father on the birth certificate because she claims he's abusive and she doesn't want him around her son. This way women get to be independent; even though they have more responsibilities but that's the way it should be.

Any man can demand a DNA test to show his the father if a woman tries to deny it.

We presently have close to 50% of households with a single female parent.

You go ahead and believe that women want that all you like.

Anecdotal rendering like yours are always interesting but they are worthless when you ignore statistics.

Regards
DL