Forced Child Support

[Slavik]

Something else that I realized after rereading your post, is that you still see child support as restitution to the woman. It isn't. It is money for the child. She, as the one that is watching the child and caring for it, is merely the one who decides how to use that money for the child.

 

They take responsibility by raising it, you take responsibility by providing for it monetarily. And before you say anything about it, the roles can also be reversed.

Well you have presented it as such, when you said that pregnancy is equal to causing harm.  

 

It is not the role of who takes care of the child that is in the question.  The problem that I have presented while addressing your principle of forced child support, is the man not being able to get away from any responsibility, even if he never wanted to have a child with a woman in the first place, and this is the problem you have not addressed.

 

You talked about implicit contracts when no such contracts should exist, marriage is the contract nothing else.

 

"She takes care of it, you pay for it,"  is not universal, as she can apparently not have such responsibility if she doesnt want it, while the man doesnt have such an option in your scenario.

 

You have too many special exceptions for the woman.

1) If she doesnt want a child she can use a myriad of means to not have a child -- man has no such options

2) If she decides to have a child, she can carry it to term, give birth -- man has no say in it, in your scenarios

3) If man and a woman have a one night stand, she may get pregnant give birth to a child and then hunt the man down for child support - man has no say in it

 

So what you end up with is, what a woman wants is what she gets, it is as far from universal as you can possibly get.

 

Sex is consensual, both parties agree to it.  Having a child is a completely different step that both need to agree on and have an explicit contract aka. marriage.

 

Having such exceptions for one party is where I do not see any logic at all, it is not universal, and non universal rules can not be present.     

[Nathan Metric]

Girlwriteswhat on "Equal Responsibility" Part 1 of 4

 

10 Reasons Why a Man Should Not Have to Pay Child Support

[AncapFTW]

Girlwriteswhat on "Equal Responsibility" Part 1 of 4

 

 

I got through about 4 minutes, but there isn't really a point in listening to the rest.  Everything she's mentioned has already been covered in this discussion.  She makes so many assumptions and just treats the other side like it's ridiculous so much that I can't take her seriously.

[Slavik]

So basically, because the current system gives the mother preferential treatment, you can't comprehend a system in which she wouldn't receive it. I've mentioned the difference, but you choose to ignore it so that you can continue to talk about how unfair the current system is.

 

And "different term" is meaningless as an argument.  "Taxation" and "armed robbery" are different terms, too, but they are the same thing.  You are literally arguing semantics.

 

Marriage isn't "the only contract", and doesn't necessitate children either.

 

Obviously, this conversation is going to go nowhere, as you refuse to read what I wrote and I can't force you to read it.

I have read what you have wrote, and what you dont seem to understand is that when It's different term, it means that morality of actions change in this instance.  self defense is not murder because you are protecting yourself.  Murder is the opposite.  If you disagree then by all means give me an instance where murder is acceptable.  All you have said is "murder is acceptable sometimes, and have never given an example."  

 

The current system has nothing to do with anything, so I have no clue what you are talking about.  And as far as preferential treatment goes, the system you are proposing gives preferential treatment to women.

 

Marriage is an  explicit contract, which means that if children come into play, then it can be enforced, as there is no such thing as an implied contract.

 

You have too many special exceptions for the woman.

1) If she doesnt want a child she can use a myriad of means to not have a child -- man has no such options

2) If she decides to have a child, she can carry it to term, give birth -- man has no say in it, in your scenarios

3) If man and a woman have a one night stand, she may get pregnant give birth to a child and then hunt the man down for child support - man has no say in it

 

The points above is how proposed forced child support outside of marriage can be taken advantage of, and not description of current system.

 

So what you end up with is, what a woman wants is what she gets, it is as far from universal as you can possibly get.

 

Sex is consensual, both parties agree to it.  Having a child is a completely different step that both need to agree on and have an explicit contract aka. marriage.

 

Having such exceptions for one party is where I do not see any logic at all, it is not universal, and non universal rules can not be present.     

 

 

Universalize the principle, then we will be able to argue for it.