NationStates Jolt Archive

Guy 1
- One night stand with girl, gets her pregnant.


Guy 2
- Dates a girl for awhile, gets her pregnant, they break up a few months later.


Who should pay child support?
Why?

Saying "Both" is a salomonic decision for me, so, both should.

both.

I say do a DNA testing to find out who the father is, and have the biological father pay the child support.

Guy 1
- One night stand with girl, gets her pregnant.


Guy 2
- Dates a girl for awhile, gets her pregnant, they break up a few months later.


Who should pay child support?
Why?

Is there any particular reason you had in mind why "both" shouldn't be the obvious answer?

I say do a DNA testing to find out who the father is, and have the biological father pay the child support.
Hmm.. I think you're thinking they slept with the same girl. I meant it as 2 situations.

Is there any particular reason you had in mind why "both" shouldn't be the obvious answer?
I feel Guy 1 shouldn't because it's not like it meant to happen.
I feel I just made an ass out of myself there.

both...

I feel Guy 1 shouldn't because it's not like it meant to happen.
I feel I just made an ass out of myself there.
it doesn't mean if you "meant" for something to happen, responsiblility isn't about what you planned for, it's about taking care of what needs to be taken care of.

If someone crashed into my car would they not have to fix it because they "didn't mean to wreck it"? nope. You break it you fix it.........that's how the world works.

it doesn't mean if you "meant" for something to happen, responsiblility isn't about what you planned for, it's about taking care of what needs to be taken care of.

If someone crashed into my car would they not have to fix it because they "didn't mean to wreck it"? nope. You break it you fix it.........that's how the world works.
He made a bad argument, and one that was applied incorrectly to boot.

If the first guy was only involved in a one night stand and the mother does not consult, or try to consult, him at any other time, there should be no expectation of support from him. If she can't support the child alone after maknig all decisions alone, she shouldn't keep the child, ie adoption.

It takes two sets of genes to make a new life, in each seperate case, both the males should pay. half their genes = half their responsibility!

He made a bad argument, and one that was applied incorrectly to boot.

If the first guy was only involved in a one night stand and the mother does not consult, or try to consult, him at any other time, there should be no expectation of support from him. If she can't support the child alone after maknig all decisions alone, she shouldn't keep the child, ie adoption.
well, of course if she doesn't contact him he wouldn't have to pay, how would he know where to send the check?

however I don't agree that just because she decides to keep the child that he is not liable for child support. It doesn't seem fair to me that he would have the power to make her abort the baby.

Well, it's really a bit more complicated then that isn't it? I mean, putting it like that, we don't have any informormation, so I can't say anything at all.

Both should pay. The baby might be an accident, but if you get into a car accident you still pay. Why should an accidental pregnancy be any different?

It only takes one time to make a baby. If you make a baby, you should pay. If you dont want to pay then take precautions to prevent a baby. It's not difficult to work out, just because the guy only dipped his wick the one time, he is the father of the baby, just like the woman is the mother, she only did it the one time too..she doesn't get out of it, why should he?

Neither granted both abortions and 10 hours counselling are available to the mother free.

Abortion was not mentioned in the original question, which was about who should pay child support. I assume that the baby would need to be born.

Not everyone wants to have an abortion, even if they could. I personally would not want to.

Abortion was not mentioned in the original question, which was about who should pay child support. I assume that the baby would need to be born.

Not everyone wants to have an abortion, even if they could. I personally would not want to.

Upon the legal precedent extolled by the recent embryo case, if the birth is not mutually consented, an abortion ought to be provided concurrent to counselling, and if it is refused, child support should be withdrawn.

Hmm.. I think you're thinking they slept with the same girl. I meant it as 2 situations.

Ahh, well, the question made it sound like there was 2 guys and one girl involved.

Neither, she should have insisted on protection and/or birth control. Solution? Two abortions.

A drunken one night stand is not "accepting the risks". Combine hormones with liquor, and higher brain functions, such as thoughts like "mayby I should wear a condom," or "what happenes if she gets pregnant," are nigh impossible in situations like that. To then be blindsided with something like this by a person who's name you barely knew, much less anything else, and have a large percentage of your income disappear because of her morality hardly seems right.

That may sound callous, but honestly, how would you react?

maybe then you just shouldn't drink.

being drunk really isn't a reason not to deal with the consequences of your actions......I am sure a lot of drunk drivers who have killed people can tell you that.

maybe then you just shouldn't drink.

being drunk really isn't a reason not to deal with the consequences of your actions......I am sure a lot of drunk drivers who have killed people can tell you that.

But, by that rationale no one should ever do anything recreational that is mind altering in any way due to bad things that may happen in your altered state. In that case, let's ban jogging, or weight lifting, or any sport for that matter, I mean, endorphines and adreanalin alter you minds perceptions, and you might do something stupid.

All I'm saying is that alcohol lowers your inhibitions, that's not some nebulous pseudo-science. Combine that with the base instinct to have sex, which is far, FAR more compelling than the urge to drive, and you have a recipe for bad things. Is it right to take a large piece of a persons livelyhood for nearly a quarter of their lifetime for an act that they had little to no control over?

All I'm saying is that alcohol lowers your inhibitions, that's not some nebulous pseudo-science. Combine that with the base instinct to have sex, which is far, FAR more compelling than the urge to drive, and you have a recipe for bad things. Is it right to take a large piece of a persons livelyhood for nearly a quarter of their lifetime for an act that they had little to no control over?
Yes, but by that same argument why should the woman have to pay either?

Yes, but by that same argument why should the woman have to pay either?

I never made a gender reference in the post you quoted, and it could be equally applied to both the man, or the woman.

Both... and if they are having sex with random girls, they should be prepared to take the consequences, which can include child support if she has a baby from it. And if they're not prepared to take the consequences, they shouldn't be behaving in a way that can get them consequences they can't handle.

I never made a gender reference in the post you quoted, and it could be equally applied to both the man, or the woman.
Yes, but surely the man can 'escape' responsibility in such a way much more easily than a woman?

Neither!

See, a woman's pregnancy is purely a matter of her own body. It should be her choice. The man has no say, it's entirely up to her.
:fluffle:

Yes, but surely the man can 'escape' responsibility in such a way much more easily than a woman?

But due to the wonders of science, women also have the 'escape' option as well. So, that argument, while it would have applied 50 some odd years ago, is no longer valid. It now comes down to the woman's choice weathr to terminate or not to.

Guy 1
- One night stand with girl, gets her pregnant.


Guy 2
- Dates a girl for awhile, gets her pregnant, they break up a few months later.


Who should pay child support?
Why?
Both, obviously.

All I'm saying is that alcohol lowers your inhibitions, that's not some nebulous pseudo-science. Combine that with the base instinct to have sex, which is far, FAR more compelling than the urge to drive, and you have a recipe for bad things. Is it right to take a large piece of a persons livelyhood for nearly a quarter of their lifetime for an act that they had little to no control over?
So if somebody commits murder while drunk, they should not be prosecuted, right? I mean, it would be wrong to lock them up for a quarter of their lifetime for an act they "had little to no control over," right?

So if somebody commits murder while drunk, they should not be prosecuted, right? I mean, it would be wrong to lock them up for a quarter of their lifetime for an act they "had little to no control over," right?

Wow, way to blow an argument out of proportion. That's even better than the one I made on the previous page about sports!

Who should pay child support? Both. Of course, they should be doing a bit more than just paying child support. Even if they have no wish to be with the mother, these men should make an attempt to be an active part in their child's life. Just writing a check once a month doesn't cut it.



But, by that rationale no one should ever do anything recreational that is mind altering in any way due to bad things that may happen in your altered state.

Or they should take precautions to ensure that such bad things don't happen and not alter one's state to the point of being completely irrational. I've been drunk. I've gone out drinking. I've never once had a one-night stand. Weird, that.

There are all sorts of things one can do - not the least of which is just having a friend there to "keep you honest", as it were.

All I'm saying is that alcohol lowers your inhibitions, that's not some nebulous pseudo-science. Combine that with the base instinct to have sex, which is far, FAR more compelling than the urge to drive, and you have a recipe for bad things. Is it right to take a large piece of a persons livelyhood for nearly a quarter of their lifetime for an act that they had little to no control over?

If a person drinks to the point that they truly have little to no control over themselves, I'm afraid I don't have much sympathy for them. They chose to be freaking irresponsible.

I've been drunk. I've gone out drinking. I've never once had a one-night stand. Weird, that.

Lucky you. What do you want, a medal? You are hardly a large pecentage of drinking age people.


If a person drinks to the point that they truly have little to no control over themselves, I'm afraid I don't have much sympathy for them. They chose to be freaking irresponsible.

And so did the woman they went home with. Yet, the guy is the one who, in the end, comes out the worse for it.

I say do a DNA testing to find out who the father is, and have the biological father pay the child support.
Yes, I would only make the true father pay. Unless he's willing to go half and half on raising the child. Then they can figure that out.

But, by that rationale no one should ever do anything recreational that is mind altering in any way due to bad things that may happen in your altered state. In that case, let's ban jogging, or weight lifting, or any sport for that matter, I mean, endorphines and adreanalin alter you minds perceptions, and you might do something stupid
I am a very self control oriented person, I don't think you should do anything where you would be in the postition where you would have little or no self control. I am not talking about banning anything, I am just saying that if a person can't control themselves when drinking that maybe they shouldn't drink.

All I'm saying is that alcohol lowers your inhibitions, that's not some nebulous pseudo-science. Combine that with the base instinct to have sex, which is far, FAR more compelling than the urge to drive, and you have a recipe for bad things.
sure you do. That is why I said if you can't stop drinking when you still have control over yourself maybe you shouldn't drink at all.

Is it right to take a large piece of a persons livelyhood for nearly a quarter of their lifetime for an act that they had little to no control over?
define right?

If I got depressed and took some drugs and murdered my children is it right that I be locked up or possibly recieve the death penalty even though I didn't have total control?

And so did the woman they went home with. Yet, the guy is the one who, in the end, comes out the worse for it.
Actually...no. If the woman ends up keeping the child she has to raise it. Her life is completely changed from that point on. The dad has to pay a chunck of money each week but teh mom is the one that has to stay up when the child is sick, take it to school, cloth it, feed it. Teh fathers getting a premade kid with very little effort. No way in hell is the dad worse for it. :mad:

Actually...no. If the woman ends up keeping the child she has to raise it. Her life is completely changed from that point on. The dad has to pay a chunck of money each week but teh mom is the one that has to stay up when the child is sick, take it to school, cloth it, feed it. Teh fathers getting a premade kid with very little effort. No way in hell is the dad worse for it. :mad:

But that was her choice to make. She had more options than he did. He was never allowed into the descision making process, and the course of his life is now altered against his will. If she wanted to take on the responsibility of child rearing, fine. It was never forced upon her, because she had more than one option to avoid it.

If you are in foavor of a woman's right to make descisions regarding her own body, which I am, why can't a man descide not to be forced into a situation that he never wanted?

If I got depressed and took some drugs and murdered my children is it right that I be locked up or possibly recieve the death penalty even though I didn't have total control?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10556603&postcount=32

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10556603&postcount=32
wow. missed that one. However, you didn't answer the question to my satisfaction.

wow. missed that one. However, you didn't answer the question to my satisfaction.

I was saying that that line of (il)logic doesn't apply. Sex is not a criminal act like murder is.

But that was her choice to make. She had more options than he did. He was never allowed into the descision making process, and the course of his life is now altered against his will. If she wanted to take on the responsibility of child rearing, fine. It was never forced upon her, because she had more than one option to avoid it.

If you are in foavor of a woman's right to make descisions regarding her own body, which I am, why can't a man descide not to be forced into a situation that he never wanted?
It take two to tango, therefore BOTH should be held responsible no matter what happens.
My stand on it is if the woman doesn't want the child but the man does give the child to the man and she has to pay child support on it. It shouldn't be gender biased.
Of course I'm ignoring the whole abortion thing which I think should be leagal but I don't like it. I would never do that exept if it is going to hurt me.
With the entire abortion thing, IF the woman says she wants one(abortion) and the dad says no then she should have to have it and the man HAS to take it and pay for the medical expenses if there is no insurence involved. Then the woman should have to pay child support. ect. ect. That way the one keeping it has to pay the like $6,000 to $10,000 it costs to give birth for a child. Medical expenses are a bitch.
Of course if the woman wants it the man has to pay and visa versa. The one paying child support should have visitation rights unless they are deamed by the court not to...
That would be the most equal thing to do and I'm ALL about TRUE equality.

I was saying that that line of (il)logic doesn't apply. Sex is not a criminal act like murder is.
but it has lasting affects just like murder. Lets say something less drastic since you think creating a child is such a non-issue in the realm of "things that matter".

If someone got drunk and robbed a gas station are they then not responsible for their actions?

but it has lasting affects just like murder. Lets say something less drastic since you think creating a child is such a non-issue in the realm of "things that matter".

If someone got drunk and robbed a gas station are they then not responsible for their actions?

You're still in the realm of things that are against the law. Not even the same ballpark. Not even the same sport.

You're still in the realm of things that are against the law. Not even the same ballpark. Not even the same sport.
okay, lets say that I had a house party and my friend got drunk and threw up in my fish aquarium killing my $200 fish, should he then be responsible for replacing the fish, or is it my fault since I have such loose morals as to have a house party?

okay, lets say that I had a house party and my friend got drunk and threw up in my fish aquarium killing my $200 fish, should he then be responsible for replacing the fish, or is it my fault since I have such loose morals as to have a house party?
He owes you $200. Just becuase he got drunk does NOT exempt him from responsibility.

okay, lets say that I had a house party and my friend got drunk and threw up in my fish aquarium killing my $200 fish, should he then be responsible for replacing the fish, or is it my fault since I have such loose morals as to have a house party?

LOL. Well, in small claims he would likely be ordered to give you some percentage of the fish's value, but you would also be partially culpable for not securing the aquarium properly, and/or having it in a place that's easily reached by a guest who's about to vomit.

Edit: But not to pay a percentage of his income over the lifetime of the new fish that you bought before you took him to court.

Aside: That is one of the most ridiculous scenarios I've ever read, *hand's Smunkee a cookie*

LOL. Well, in small claims he would likely be ordered to give you some percentage of the fish's value, but you would also be partially culpable for not securing the aquarium properly, and/or having it in a place that's easily reached by a guest who's about to vomit.
really? I don't think so, I think any judge would say that it was his fault for vomiting in the fish tank, just as it would be his fault if he pissed on my couch that I "left in a place where it could be pissed on"

Edit: But not to pay a percentage of his income over the lifetime of the new fish that you bought before you took him to court.
and yet now you aren't comparing things well, a fish isn't a person, you buy a fish, you don't buy a person. If he had somehow injured my child (with vomit I am not sure how, but yeah) he would have to pay for the medical upkeep, child support is like life upkeep for the decision he made to make a child.

Aside: That is one of the most ridiculous scenarios I've ever read, *hand's Smunkee a cookie*
hey, you are the one who left me no choice but to come up with a rediculous senario.......you can keep part of the cookie (a small part, I'm hungry)

Lucky you. What do you want, a medal? You are hardly a large pecentage of drinking age people.

Maybe "a large percentage of drinking age people," need to learn to be responsible people and take the consequences of their actions - whether alcohol-effected or not.

And so did the woman they went home with. Yet, the guy is the one who, in the end, comes out the worse for it.

How so? Both have to deal with the results of an unwanted, unplanned pregnancy. And the mother is the only one dealing with the physical effects. Even with child support laws, I hardly think you can say the guy comes out sorse than the mother. And you definitely can't even begin to suggest that he comes out worse than the child - who has a deadbeat father that wishes he'd never been born.

I don't think the length of their relationship is really relevant. If the guy wanted her to keep the baby, then he should be prepared to support if financially and act as the father figure. If, however, he would have chosen to abort it/have it adopted, I don't think he's liable - the baby is being born against his will.

poll
your poll is missing the "other" option.