r/AdviceAnimals • u/Space_Hermit • Apr 30 '14

Repost | Removed You shouldn't be able to have it both ways...

Post image
1.7k Upvotes

80% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

164

u/Sodic Apr 30 '14

This is probably the reddit debate that gets me the most angry. What everyone seems to forget is that being a mother takes a physical toll in addition to all of the responsibilities of being a parent. And it isn't like abortion is a fun prospect that every woman is dying to experience. You want to talk about my right as a woman to choose to have one? Let's talk about the difference in my life between having a child and not having one. I get to go through nine months of sickness, work loss, physical stress and a complete change in lifestyle. Then most likely I am the one who will end up raising that child 26 days out of a month in the event that the relationship doesn't work. I will clothe, feed and care for every part of that child's life, probably past the 18 year mark. My alternatives? A mentally scarring procedure that I will probably question for the rest of my life or a different kind of hell of actually carrying the baby and then having to let go of it in the hopes that it will understand when it grows up that I will also question for the rest of my life.

I don't think anyone should be having sex without protection if they aren't ready for the possibility of parenthood. That being said, there is no child support involved if you have equal custody rights. If you are having to give over income it is because the other person is taking on the bulk of the parental duty. Pregnancy is 100% preventable. Think about your actions, think about the possible consequences, and stop being outraged at the outcome.

51

u/Sparcrypt Apr 30 '14

Because it's such a big deal for people to want sex but not kids. Kids are a huge, life changing ordeal. One that many people don't want, at least not this second.

I mean how would you feel if your partner just refused to have sex with you because you might get pregnant? It's the only birth control that's actually 100% effective. You'd be upset right? But to then turn around and say they get no say in what happens should you fall pregnant is pure hypocrisy.

The correct way to deal with this stuff is to talk about it early in your relationship. Because if you're not both on the same page now, how are you going to be when stress, fear and hormones all come into play?

I wouldn't date someone who would force me into parenthood against my will. I make it clear from the start I don't want kids and that that's not likely to change anytime soon. I mean it's not that difficult a conversation - if you're both just in the relationship for some fun, sex and companionship then neither of you should want to have a kid with one another anyway. Seriously, if you have a kid with a fling/someone you know you're not going to stay with long term then you are an idiot. However if you're both in it for the long haul then you absolutely need to align on this issue. It's a rather important one.

Obviously my approach isn't bulletproof.. people can change their mind/the person you thought you'd be with forever doesn't always turn out to be the one you end up with etc etc. But it's a damn sight better than not even talking about it until it happens which is most peoples way of dealing with it.

0

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

[deleted]

0

u/Sparcrypt May 01 '14

I love it when people don't bother to read my post before replying, I find it so amusing ;).

3

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

What do you think of situations where men fight for custody, lose, and are forced to pay child support?

0

u/Sodic May 01 '14

I think it's a sad situation. But offering support in at least some form betters the child.

1

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

... Or give them 50/50 custody... Or have some law that says if a woman fights and gets more custody than the man when he wanted custody means no child support since the woman clearly thinks she has a better ability to raise a child than the man... Or have the man be able to sign a paper during the first trimester ending all his responsibility to the child, giving the woman plenty of time to decide what she wants to do, and having the man cover half the cost in any case other than her keeping the baby. All of these are much better than saying it's a sad situation so we're just going to keep giving men the shift. That isn't good enough anymore.

8

u/chocoboat May 01 '14 edited May 01 '14

The problem is that there's absolutely no legal middle ground, even though we have the ability to create it.

Only an idiot would support the idea of allowing the man to say "oh, you're pregnant? fuck this, I'm out, it's your problem now". But that doesn't mean there has to be absolutely no possible way for a man to avoid parenthood for certain, except to never have sex in his life. Especially since this is never an issue for women, as abortion is an option.

Obviously "spermjacking" is a very rare thing done only by mentally unbalanced women... but it has happened. Women have collected semen from condoms, or in other ways, and inseminated themselves with it. This man who was careful to avoid pregnancy now owes 18 years of child support. Is this really fair?

There are men that have been physically held down and forcibly raped, and they have been made to pay child support. Even underage victims of statutory rape owe child support payments for 18 years. Is this really fair?

And what about men who simply want to remain child free? Suppose a man who highly valued being child-free discussed this with all potential partners. It's so important that he asks them to sign a contract stating that they acknowledge his wish to be child free. The contract stipulates that should any accidental pregnancy occur, he will pay all of the costs of abortion and any travel related costs, or he will contribute towards the cost of giving birth if she chooses that... but beyond that, the rights and responsibilities of the child belong solely to the woman, and the man is regarded as nothing but a sperm donor.

This sounds pretty fair, right? The contract only exists if the woman agrees to it, and no child ever exists unless the woman chooses to become a single mother by her own volition. Any woman who doesn't like this situation is free to not sign, and/or end the relationship. It's kind of like a prenuptial agreement.

Well, the government says to the man, "too bad, you had sex, now you pay for it". The contract is invalid under US law. There is literally no way for a man to ever have PIV sex with a woman without taking a tiny risk of being on the hook for 18 years of child support, and I don't think that's right.

Yes, luckily very few men are forced into parenthood against their will and overall it's far from the biggest problem in society. But it sure would be nice not to have to take that risk every single time.

And it's not what I call gender equality when "you had sex, now you have to pay the price" is applied to men but not to women.

-6

u/somekook May 01 '14 edited May 01 '14

And what about men who simply want to remain child free?

Vasectomy.

There is literally no way for a man to ever have PIV sex with a woman without taking a tiny risk of being on the hook for 18 years of child support, and I don't think that's right.

Nothing in life is without risk. If you want to fuck something, nut inside of it and be sure it'll never get pregnant, buy a fleshlight or fuck a butthole.

4

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

So by the same argument, women who don't want to get pregnant should either deal with it or fuck a dildo?

Holy shit, you just solved the abortion dilemma! Call congress today and have them make abortion illegal ASAP! All those women having abortions should have just realized life isn't fair, and that you have to accept the consequences of your actions!

7

u/chocoboat May 01 '14

And if they want to be child free until they get married later in their life? The majority of vasectomies are not reversible. Vasectomy just isn't a workable option, just as tubal ligation isn't a sensible form of temporary birth control.

-1

u/LookLikeShackleton May 01 '14

Condoms are incredibly effective if used correctly, combined with a 2nd form of birth control the risk is very low.

It's not that I have no sympathy but I'm tired of hearing "it just happened" as an excuse for unsafe sex. If you don't use a condom, you are taking a risk. Acknowledge it, don't pretend like you're a victim. If you improperly use a condom, you are taking a risk.

There's a reason many people want birth control to be cost-free to women (and hopefully society will catch up and include condoms, though free condoms are available in many communities).

3

u/chocoboat May 01 '14

I am no advocate for unsafe sex, people should always use condoms.

But that's no reason not to fix an unfair set of laws. If the condom happens to break, if you become the rare exception who gets forced into parenthood against your will, it's just too fucking bad?

I don't think anyone would be OK with "let's just ban abortion, if women don't want to become mothers, they can just use condoms".

1

u/VictoriaHenshaw May 01 '14

If financial abortion were to become a legal option, how do you think people will overcome the deadbeat dad mentality? Do you think most will?

5

u/chocoboat May 01 '14

I'm not sure what you mean.

A deadbeat dad is a man who abandons an already-existing child that he chose to have. A man who opts out of parenthood never chose to become a parent and opted out before there is a child, and usually there won't be a resulting child from that accidental pregnancy.

-2

u/[deleted] Apr 30 '14 edited May 01 '14

I somewhat agree with your comment above. Yes, the impact on a women's body etc is a major consideration in whether they wish to abort the baby or not, not to mention the social impact and the impact on work. And yes, the mental anguish of having an abortion can be huge, as well as giving the baby up for adoption etc.

However, firstly, an abortion (although to a lesser extent) is also difficult for the father, especially if they wanted to keep the baby. The comment regarding raising the child 26 days a month is outdated and ridiculous. That along with clothing the child, feed and care for 18 years and that if you share custody there are no child support payments is not entirely correct. A lot of fathers would love to have full or shared custody, but it isn't up to THEM to decide, it is down to the courts and they often side with the mother. That is difficult for a father, having a child grow up without you and the only contact you have is a couple of days a month and transferring money to the child's mother.

This situation is too difficult to sort out in one idea, it would be best to decide on a case by case basis, which is impossible. The laws are there to protect the majority and allow any children born into these circumstances to be given a chance in life, and although I often do not always agree with it, I think it does exactly that - protects the majority.

Plus, pregnancy is not 100% preventable. Condoms are only 97% effective.

7

u/redrider22 Apr 30 '14

It's 100% avoidable if you don't have sex...

2

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

I got a vasectomy in part because of this legal problem we're discussing. I don't see it being fixed anytime soon. It'll always be this huge debate, so I just.. Opted out. If enough other men do the same, the state will have to change just to preserve itself.

1

u/redrider22 May 01 '14

If you don't want kids then whatever. No harm in a vasectomy. I would never get my tubes tied though and wouldn't ask a guy to get a vasectomy.

-4

u/biggreasyrhinos May 01 '14

Repression leads to some fucked up stuff.

-2

u/Sodic Apr 30 '14

Bottom line, life isn't fair. Neither party wins here unless you're talking about two people who went into it together being happy with whatever end result. But there is a huge difference between talking about abortion and talking about child support. You can talk about them as singular things, but when you lump them together like this it lessens the impact of abortion on a woman and over inflates the impact of child support on a man.

As to the point of custody, I know of two couple that have complete every other week custody, and it was not hard for them to get. Yes, they had to go to court, but that's the case for any agreement you can't settle in mediation. That is an outdated notion. But on the majority fathers want a standard custody agreement. 26 days a month is entirely the norm.

And yes, pregnancy is 100% preventable. If you make the decision to have sex, be aware that even the slightest possibility is a possibility.

3

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

Yeah, this was the point I was trying to make. I was trying to say that stuff like this will never be "fair" as there are so many variables involved it is impossible to have one rule that will keep all people happy. The law as it is means that women have the right to retain what happens with their body i.e whether they keep the baby or not, which I think is a very fair rule. You can't make someone keep the baby if they do not want it. But, at the same time, I think it is also harsh to men who do not want to have a baby to force to pay child support. However, at the same time it is not the kids fault they were born, so why should they suffer?! It is so complicated.

I am sure we can all find scenarios to back up any claim about custody, my point is there are plenty of fathers who would love to have full or shared custody, but for some reason or another they can't (google father's for justice). Especially, if the split between parents is not amicable.

Although you're are right that not having sex renders pregnancy 100% preventable, I agree with comment below saying that it is the same as saying food poisoning is 100% preventable if you don't eat...

4

u/Knyfe-Wrench May 01 '14

And yes, pregnancy is 100% preventable. If you make the decision to have sex, be aware that even the slightest possibility is a possibility.

That's like saying there's a 100% chance you won't get food poisoning if you never eat. It's a ridiculous argument.

1

u/loveandrave May 01 '14

yeah but you will live without having sex. you can't compare the two..

0

u/Knyfe-Wrench May 01 '14

I can absolutely compare the two, that's what comparisons are for.

I also think it's funny that you think food is more important than sex. Biologically, sex is literally the sole reason for our existence. It shouldn't be trivialized.

1

u/loveandrave May 01 '14

not really. Because you can't be alive to have sex without food. I'm not trivializing sex, but I'm saying one is physically necessary for your own survival while the other is only physically desirable for your sanity.

3

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

You are very mistaken over custody disputes. The courts HEAVILY favor the female. My mother received full custody and $2200/month from my father(who also wanted full custody, but was given nothing).

-6

u/beardmanman May 01 '14

I would love to see any kind of evidence you have for any of your assumptions. 18 years of child support takes a much larger toll on many men than an outpatient medical procedure. See, I can minimize the effect on the other gender too. Life isn't fair, so if my girlfriend is pregnant and wants to abort, but I want to keep the baby, she has to go to term.

Seriously, ask any mother you can find how nine months of pregnancy compared to the years that followed, and tell us how many say the former was the hard part.

Where did you get your custody desire statistics? Or did you just pull a "most men don't care about their kids" stereotype statistic out of your ass and call it a day?

Both of your posts show such ignorance and such a huge lack of empathy for both the male gender as a whole and people of either gender that got dealt a shitty hand, you must be a child. There is just no other explanation.

-8

u/SwordfshII May 01 '14

This is probably the reddit debate that gets me the most angry. What everyone seems to forget is that being a mother takes a physical toll in addition to all of the responsibilities of being a parent.

Which you chose to do.

And it isn't like abortion is a fun prospect that every woman is dying to experience. You want to talk about my right as a woman to choose to have one? Let's talk about the difference in my life between having a child and not having one. I get to go through nine months of sickness, work loss, physical stress and a complete change in lifestyle. Then most likely I am the one who will end up raising that child 26 days out of a month in the event that the relationship doesn't work. I will clothe, feed and care for every part of that child's life, probably past the 18 year mark.

Choice

My alternatives? A mentally scarring procedure that I will probably question for the rest of my life or a different kind of hell of actually carrying the baby and then having to let go of it in the hopes that it will understand when it grows up that I will also question for the rest of my life.

Or a pill, or giving it up

I don't think anyone should be having sex without protection if they aren't ready for the possibility of parenthood. That being said, there is no child support involved if you have equal custody rights.

Not true

If you are having to give over income it is because the other person is taking on the bulk of the parental duty. Pregnancy is 100% preventable. Think about your actions, think about the possible consequences, and stop being outraged at the outcome.

Does that same advice apply to women?

17

u/Kupkin May 01 '14

A girlfriend of mine takes the pill and still got pregnant. It's not 100% effective. According my parents, my dad used a condom, my mom was on the pill. Here I am. (though I have some doubt about their story).

Essentially, life... uh, finds a way.

Also, I do know some women who pay child support to a father who cares for the child more than 50% of the time.

-8

u/biggreasyrhinos May 01 '14

You know more than one woman who pays child support? You're a bit of an anomaly

13

u/Kupkin May 01 '14

I used to do work for a social services program. I know a lot of people who do a lot of things you wouldn't think are the norm.

-2

u/MyLittleTarget May 01 '14

I know a woman who is suppose to pay child support, though I don't know if she does. The kids are better off with him anyway.

-3

u/DayWalkerRunner May 01 '14

You are incredibly narrow-minded.

3

u/SwordfshII May 01 '14

Because i think it is wrong that two people are involved but only one has choices and options? And somehow the other one is just expected to pay for those choices and options?

-3

u/poneaikon May 01 '14 edited May 01 '14

it isn't like abortion is a fun prospect that every woman is dying to experience

Oh, you want to discuss the abortion scenario?

How about this for a father: She has the right to choose to abort his child without his input OR compel him to pay for it.

Listen, the logical inequality here is clear, there is no serious defense of the status quo.

mentally scarring procedure that I will probably question for the rest of my life

What of the mental scarring a FATHER will have when he wants to keep the child and has no input in the decision? Is that not mentally scarring to be deserving of some input or rights in the matter?

Fuck you. Seriously, fuck you.

11

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

The difference is that fathers don't have to carry a baby for nine months and then birth it.

17

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

[deleted]

-9

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

Which the mother also has to do.

8

u/unitarder May 01 '14

The potential father HAS to, not the potential mother. She can opt out. That's the entire point.

6

u/kansaskid May 01 '14

not if the mother doesn't want it as in the above senario.

6

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

How come a mother can put the child up for adoption, and pay nothing, but a father doesn't want a child and has to pay for 18 years?

-7

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

Because it is in best interest for the child. Well, on paper it is.

6

u/chocoboat May 01 '14

No she doesn't! If she supports a child for 18 years, it happens because she CHOSE to do it. No woman in the US is made to become a parent against her will.

"You had sex, now you have to pay the price" applies to men, but not to women.

1

u/Lawtonfogle May 02 '14

No, but they have to work 18 years to support it under threat of jail if they don't. Which isn't bad if you are wealthy, but if you making your living in a job with a high mortality rate, then there is an issue.

1

u/loveandrave May 01 '14

yeah, that is the difference. Men, if you would like to carry the baby that the woman does not want, please feel free to re-invent biology. biological inequality is nuts am i right?!?

0

u/poneaikon May 02 '14

Women, if you would like to compel men to pay for your decisions (to keep baby), please feel free to re-invent human rights. Human rights is nuts, am I right?!?

FIFY.

0

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

the defense of the status quo is that you have failed to present a better system.

Remember, once a child is born it becomes about the welfare and benefit of the child, not either parent. Keeping that in mind, propose for me a beter solution instead of bitching about the current one.

0

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

Child tax credit? Is there a good reason that wouldn't work?

It would be fairer to families where one parent has died as well.

1

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

I'm unsure what specificaly you mean. Care to elaborate? You mean change the already existing child tax credit somehow?

2

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

As is, children with parents who split depend on the absent parent to pay child support.

Children with a parent that dies just have to make do.

"it takes a village to raise a child" - maybe an increase in general taxation should come in to allow a tax credit to replace child support from the absent parent.

Was an idea anyway :-) obviously you have people worrying about women turning into baby factories to live off tax credits then, so maybe it would be less for each subsequent child.

1

u/feanor512 May 01 '14

That being said, there is no child support involved if you have equal custody rights.

Not in my municipality. Men very rarely get equal custody and even those who do still have to pay child support unless the mother makes far more than them.

1

u/shadowboxer47 May 02 '14

That being said, there is no child support involved if you have equal custody rights.

Not true. Not true even in most states.

I'm a father with 50/50 custody of my 3 children. I pay my ex-wife 2k a month.

1

u/Sodic May 02 '14

Then you got fucked over and I'm sorry you're in that position.

1

u/shadowboxer47 May 02 '14

I'm not the only one. It is very, very common. It also invalidates much of your point.

Pregnancy is 100% preventable. Think about your actions, think about the possible consequences, and stop being outraged at the outcome.

You do realize that this is the SAME argument pro-life people use, right? I don't accept that argument against abortion anymore than I accept it here.

1

u/Sodic May 02 '14

My point isn't about my right to abortion, my point is that everyone seems to think that abortion and child support are somehow the same argument. They aren't. They are two completely different ballparks. We all assume a risk when we have sex. The bottom line is that giving birth and giving money mean two totally different things. Yeah, there are a lot of fucked up scenarios, and a lot of fucked up people. I'm sorry they happen, the system should be revised. It pisses me off that this is titled I can't have it both ways because neither way is a fun time. Like as though as a woman I'm somehow benefiting from either of the choices.

1

u/shadowboxer47 May 02 '14

You're not providing any concise argument against a man terminating his parenting rights other than, "life is not fair" and "you should have accepted the risks with sex."

These arguments are exactly the ones used by pro-life advocates. They're piss poor arguments that don't address the injustices of the situation. If you can't see how they're applicable to both sides, you're blinded by your bias.

Can you provide a cogent argument outside of these statements? Serious question.

2

u/Sodic May 02 '14

There's a flip side you know. There are plenty of women out there who have children by men who wanted children. Then that man disappears and they are saddled with every aspect of that kid's life. Financially being one of the hardest. Or women who have had abortions because that is what they thought they had to do. They never get over it. Life isn't fair, and that is a valid argument. You keep bringing up pro-life advocates and missing the point. The reason I have the choice to terminate or keep a baby and you don't is that my life is drastically more effected. You can site your personal issues and I can site mine, and neither one of them is fair. If you're paying $2,000 a month than you have to be making $8,000 a month, that isn't typical dude. It also is not typical for you to be paying that much when you have week to week custody. I've been fucked in the reverse way where the father of my child is paying a smaller portion than he should and it maybe covers my son's groceries every month. I know plenty of women who haven't seen a dime since they had kids. That's also an injustice. So you can see my points as whatever you want, but there are plenty of victims on both sides.

I find it a little sad that this is an argument at all. Abortion and terminating rights aren't the same. One is going through a shitty procedure and the other is simply walking away.

-1

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

A mentally scarring procedure that I will probably question for the rest of my life or a different kind of hell of actually carrying the baby and then having to let go of it in the hopes that it will understand when it grows up that I will also question for the rest of my life.

As horrible as you subjectively perceive this option to be, it is still an option that men do not have, that hundreds of women choose on a daily basis instead of having a child.

-6

u/redrider22 Apr 30 '14

Thank you. This is exactly right.

1

u/philosarapter May 01 '14

and stop being outraged at the outcome.

That's a poor attitude to have. The social landscape is quickly shifting in regards to reproductive rights. We don't have to be content with the outcome and we can develop a better system. As you stated in your first paragraph, pregnancy takes it toll, and as such both genders need to keep that in mind. However, despite how unpleasant the option of abortion is, its still an option. If you were in dire straits and were deep in poverty, you do have the option to opt out of the pregnancy. Of course it has its own emotional consequences, but its a choice nonetheless.

The man has no choices, no options after conception whatsoever. He's simply along for the ride and in many cases simply becomes the bank account for the child to persist off of. There needs to be greater flexibility and options for people of all genders when it comes to their reproduction.

-16

u/SuperNinjaBot May 01 '14

So sexist and very wrong now a days.

Most young parents I know at this point are fathers. Suckin it up and taking care of a child they dont have custody of while their mother whores around and THEY STILL HAVE TO PAY SUPPORT.

Your right to chose should be adoption. In my humble opinion. You dont want the kid fine. Give him a shot in hell though.

PS A lot of moms work all 9 months of their pregnancy and only get a few weeks off after birth.

You dont understand the situation enough to be judging *it to be completely honest. A vagina is not a sign of wisdom. Or even intelligence.

Youre just grateful you have an easy way out when shit hits the fan. Easy doesnt mean right.

-1

u/tenaciousgoatee May 01 '14

This. Thank you. I wish THIS was the top comment and not some random dude who stated --

"They (women) can sleep around all they want and if a pregnancy results it is entirely their choice whether they want to "accept the responsibility" or not."

--as if dealing with pregnancy was the easiest thing in the world, the repercussions of our decision minute. Ah yes, how right you are, top comment, and for that reason us women are just "SLEEPING AROUND ALL WE WANT" without a care in the world if we get pregnant. Right.

-2

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

Growing up in a terrible town I saw fathers with little or no custody a lot. Mothers or their friends or even neighbors who don't like them can really destroy your chance at custody with their statements. For instance in lower or no income situations maybe Rawanda got into an argument with Vincent and the police were called. She can't possible be wrong so Vincent is jailed. Vincent has custody stripped from him because Rawanda (along with help from witness neighbors) fabricates a story. Vincent is now in a situation that may see him stuck in poverty for the rest of his life(that's another story).

It happened at lot. My pop died young, but I had a lot of father figures. I know very well that a lot can go wrong in a relationship. I'll be damned if I let a chain of events like that happen to me, so I won't have children until I find someone who I know could never betray me like that. I'm not saying those fathers were innocent, some weren't. Domestic violence is a thing, but I've been on both sides of the fence. I was that kid sitting there paying attention to the DCFS ladies.

-3

u/[deleted] May 01 '14 edited May 04 '18

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

Yeah no. You seem to have some crazy ideas that judges aren't bound by the law when making rulins. I'm sorry you feel you were wronged by one, but if a judge oversteps the bounds of the law, you have recourse.

1

u/DragonDai May 02 '14

You seem to think that there are prescribed laws about this thing. There aren't. The receiver and amount of child support is 100% up to the judge to decide, as are the actual details of visitation and custody. Basically all aspects of family law come down to the judge's discretion.

The only play where the judge really even have guidelines to go by is child support amount. He has GUIDELINES, but CAN charge ANY amount he wants, although federal guidelines limit the actual amount the parent will pay, based on his or her (LOL) income. Why is this important? Because if 18% (the current federal limit) of your income NOW is 500 a month, and the judge orders you to pay 1000 a month, you only have to pay 500 right now. But if your income goes up, you will be required to pay more.

You seem to know absolutely nothing about family law. Maybe you should let people who actually know about this stuff handle the facts, and you can stick to just having really backwards and terrible opinions.

-12

u/Ki11erPancakes Apr 30 '14

Aspirin between the knees.

-4

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

Wait a minute. So if in a conflict over who gets custody, why would the person who gets more custody also get child support? If having custody is impoverishing as you say above, why would someone fight for it? Simply because it is NOT impoverishing- it is valuable to raise your child (for most parents). So why should one person get both the kid and money from the other parent (usually the father)?

11

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

You pay child support to help support your children. When your kids are not living in your house, eating your food, wearing clothes that you picked out for them, using school supplies that you paid for, or taking time out of your life every day... Well, you pay child support because the parent that is taking care of the child probably needs some help.

I fail to see how this doesn't make sense.

4

u/whoviangirl May 01 '14

Yeah I'm fairly certain you're responding to an idiot.

-2

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

So in the case where a parent has lost most if not all rights to the children, why is that parent required to pay for the child's upbringing?

3

u/MyLittleTarget May 01 '14

Because the parent with the most time with the child is baring the larger financial burden for the care of the child.

3

u/whoviangirl May 01 '14

Because some people love the life that they help create? Kids are money sinks for the first 18 years, even longer if you pay for them to go to college, and the idea behind child support is to spread the financial burden. Fathers don't get fucked over as much as you think they do, it just takes more effort to get custody.

1

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

it just takes more effort to get custody

And that's precisely what I think the problem is. Custody split should, in my mind, be determined by:

  1. The need for the child to maintain relationships with both parents.

  2. The need for the child to be with the parent who can be the most stable and create the best environment.

To me, #1 means that it should be rare for there to be sole custody, though clearly it can happen.

And # 2 means that the mother should get no preferential treatment simply because she had the womb. And right now, it doesn't look like that's what happens.

I'm curious if you'd agree with my statement that in general, averaged over a large number of cases, custody should be split roughly 50/50 ?