~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
[deleted]
[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 43 points44 points45 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
According to the law, Dr. Phillips’ sperm wasn't stolen; it was given away, for Dr. Irons to use as she pleased.
Dude should argue that he nutted in her mouth so the sperm was given away with the conditions it was used for sustenance and nourishment and not for reproductive purposes. The use of his genetic material to create a baby is a breach of contract and he should not be held liable for her actions.
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Report the mother to the FDA for sperm piracy. Ha ha ha.
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/TissueSafety/ucm232876.htm
Going by the book I would think the FDA would be obligated to fine her. However good luck on actually getting someone to follow through.
[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Good call...
Also not 100% sure about the US legal system but isnt child support a civil affair and cant you have a trial by jury for civil matters as well?
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
The requirement for trials by jury have been removed in many cases by teh USSC in preference for easier administration. In addition since it is not a criminal proceeding there is no requirement in the constitution for one. So no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial#United_States
In the majority of US states, there is no right to a jury trial in family law actions not involving a termination of parental rights, such as divorce and custody modifications.[60][61] Only eleven states allow juries in any aspect of divorce litigation (Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin).[60] Most of these limit the right to a jury to try issues regarding grounds or entitlement for divorce only. Texas provides jury trial rights most broadly, including even the right to a jury trial on questions regarding child custody.[60][61] However, anyone who is charged with a criminal offense, breach of contract or federal offence has a Constitutional right to a trial by jury.
[–][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil 42 points43 points44 points 12 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link
The state would rather have a man pay for a child then have the state pay for the child.
[–]SPESHALBEAMCANNON 31 points32 points33 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
God forbid a woman takes care of her own fucking spawn
[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil 41 points42 points43 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
The state knows better than to assume women are capable of responsibility
[–][deleted] 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hirudin 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Let's remember a time before the tender years doctrine. In the case of a divorce, it was perfectly expected that the father would both accept custody of the child and pay for it's upbringing, so if we are going to hold women to equal standards, maybe it isn't out of the realm of possibility to expect the same, regardless of sex.
Now, if we don't think that it's possible to both pay for and take care of a child in this day and age, there are other options. There are 3 players in this game, not two. The man, the woman, and the state. For some reason, the man is the only one who can be reasonably expected to fulfill both roles for the child by either paying for it's upbringing, or physically raising it. Women are rarely expected to pay for a child's upbringing, and the State is rarely expected to raise the child.
Since a potential mother is the only one's who really has a say in whether or not a child is born, it makes no moral sense to place responsibility on the father... but there are only two roles that need to be filled, and two actors left on stage. So confiscate the child from the mother, put it in foster care, and then have the mother's wages forcibly garnished to compensate the state for the care. If she can't pay, then throw her in jail. If men can be expected to be forced to pay for a child they wanted but cannot see, I see no reason why women should be spared this burden.
The state doesn't have to worry as much about revenue, the man isn't held responsible for a decision that wasn't his to make.
[–][deleted] 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hirudin 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Legal
Paternal
Surrender
[–][deleted] 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hirudin 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
You keep saying "It's your kid" like it is a refutation of my point.
The woman doesn't have any responsibility to correct your shared fuck up in exactly the way you want her to. It sucks, but that's why you wear a condom.
Ok, make abortion and adoption entirely illegal then. Yay. Equality.
Accidents are not a shared responsibility if only one person has the rights.
[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
You are correct. The state is interested in the best interest of the child.
[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I hate to say it but I rarely if ever see the state deal with the best interests of the child. The child is often not even allowed in the courtroom to be heard even if they are sufficiently mature (IE. like 12-17). It's usually mom vs dad and the state is literally acting as the judge, jury and executioner.
[–]Endorsed ContributorrebuildingMyself 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Lol damn! Tell that to the hamsters on main reddit and watch the spittle fly!
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Feminism has co-opted the state to take resources from men to deliver to women. The state has no inherent resources; government produces nothing of value.
In a short-sided way, it makes sense, as women are drivers of consumption. Take money from men to give to women, women spend it, powering our conspicuous-consumption based economy. The bubble is going to burst eventually, when men no longer have incentives to work for the interests of women. This manifests itself in men quitting careers and downsizing, dropping out of the marriage game, or finding surrogate mothers for their future kids.
All these childless, husbandless 30-something women are going to end up being 60 year old working seniors with no retirement wondering WTF happened to their lives. In the past, marrying and staying faithful to a man was a woman's ticket to retirement, but feminism has rendered the staying faithful part optional. When enough men wake up and realize the game has changed, they will stop playing it. It might take decades, but eventually the music is going to stop. It won't be pretty, but I know I'll have a chair to sit in and watch the whole thing come crashing down.
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The problem being that once men stop supporting women in large quantities, the government will mandate new taxes on men so that women can be subsidized.
[–]Immensesatisfaction 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Let me get this straight. I fall asleep at home. I'm a very heavy sleeper. Some girl breaks in. Jacks me off. Keeps the sperm and impregnates herself. I'm still liable for child support? She would be breaking laws but it's still my sperm and my child. Not that this is a probable circumstance or anything.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Chances are, yes. If a woman is raped and she gives birth to a child and she can't support it, the government isn't going to kill the kid. In this cause, the man is raped and a child is created, someone has to pay for the kid. And the government doesn't want to pay for it if the parents can, and that makes sense because why should everybody else pay? It's like those cases where an "anonymous" sperm donor is found and forced to pay child support.
[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
There is a child and the state is going to put the interests of the child above you.The state has no problem fucking over a grown ass man. There was something called the draft once.
[–]TRP VanguardCyralea 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I work with lawyers, but I'm not one myself, so take this with a grain of salt:
The answer is possibly. There would be a lot of circumstantial factors that would be looked at. If you spent any amount of time caring for the child, that would be seen as tantamount to declaring yourself a willing father, and you would be on the hook. You'd also have to demonstrate that it wasn't a consensual encounter, which is incredibly hard to do in the cases of male rape.
It doesn't happen all that often, but it'd be a sticky situation to be in, for sure. That it's not black and white speaks volumes about how fucked up the culture here is.
Naw it's only black and white if the guy nutted in her mouth and she gave herself a turkey baster procedure to knock herself up /s
[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
How will she explain this to the kid. Nasty azz
"I sucked you out of your fathers dickhole and injected you into my uterus with a turkey baster. Happy birthmas."
[–]Evers89 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I always found this strange. When you can give sperm away as a "gift" knowing that you were safe from pregnancy, how is it that she can decide to impregnate herself and not be liable for this manipulation? Seems that if it gets used for a purpose of this magnitude, changing the males life forever, there should be some consequence to that.
I don't like that a girl can alter your course in life without punishment even when you were taking steps to avoid that. Especially if it's done on purpose and with this malice.
[–]TRP VanguardCyralea 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It's cheaper for the government to pass the costs to the male, and it's a safe political move for any politician in this overly feminized society.
[–]Sturmgeist781 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
On a positive note,
Everytime I get a BJ from my girlfriend I'll shout "THIS IS MY GIFT TO YOU!" while I'm orgasming.
[–]TRP VanguardWhisper 14 points15 points16 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Okay, fine. Then it's hers. Hers and hers alone.
And so is the financial responsibility for what she does with it.
[–]hashtagpound2point2 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Even when applying their retarded 'it was a gift' logic, it makes no sense for him to have to pay for her child. Just knowing that this could happen to any guy is terrifying, more answers to the question why so many guys are dropping out of the dating world.
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It makes even less sense for all of us to pay for it so he doesn't have to. The only real solution is to allow babies to die if parents cannot afford to raise them. In some countries, that is the case. But if you disagree with letting babies die, then there simply isn't going to be a fair outcome because someone has to pay for the kid if the woman cannot afford to raise it on her own, because in the vast majority of these cases the girl is under 20 years old and not very educated. I actually hold the very politically incorrect opinion that babies should be allowed to die if the parents don't want them and nobody wants to adopt it.
[–]Clauderoughly 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
That's why you always make them swallow..
[–]rpking 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
No one is safe
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2010/02/01/ncbi-rofl-thats-one-miraculous-conception/#.UvMQUGTSOdA
[–]fuckingkike 20 points21 points22 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The guy has no excuse. There's been effective hormonal birth control for more than half a century now. If he didn't want to get someone pregnant he should have been...
What do you mean that's only for women?
[–][deleted] 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Freshtowels 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The assumption most people make is that between a man and a woman the woman is the better option cause of motherly instinct. Thougb if u were to show how damaging a mother bring up a son with no father im sure that would be ignored heh.
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
That's it. We have officially entered the Twilight Zone.
[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 14 points15 points16 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
That's it. We have officially entered the Twilight Feminist Zone.
FTFY
[–]Sturmgeist781 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Same thing.
[–]hashtagpound2point2 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
$800 a month? This man will eventually robbed of over $100'000. If this shit wasn't swept under the rug so much, maybe North America wouldn't be the giant vagina that it's become.
[–]devanpy 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
$172,800 to be precise. That is one expensive blowjob.
[–]hashtagpound2point2 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Nope, because the kid is 5 now. It sounds like he wasn't paying up until then. The article is cancer-worthy, I don't know exactly when he started paying because it never specifies, but the fact that he didn't know about the child for 2 years proves that the math isn't just 800 x 12 x 18.
It also doesn't say anything about the kid other than its age (which may have been done on purpose, but at least let us know the gender of bj baby).
[–]alcaholicost 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The question at the end is a bit chilling. Who is going to think he should be financially responsible.
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Remember that man who was prosecuted for rape and then put in jail for poking holes in condoms to get his girlfriend pregnant? . What he did wasn't ok, as much as the woman in this story. But in two, both men have to pay.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Welcome to the Feminist Utopia Dictatorship of Equal Destiny!
Where equality is just a euphamism for: the man is always to be punished for all things gone wrong!
[–]bama79rolltide 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
She might end up dead if she isn't careful.
[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
It's like Leykis always said: I don't condone it, but it happens.
[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
I like chris rock's version better...
"I ain't sayin its right...but I understand..."
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Sam Kinison had a VERY similar remark about wifebeating.
wait wait wait, you're telling me a comedian told a similar joke to another comedian who came before him?
http://i.imgur.com/WaynObd.gif
YT link for the lazy:
Chris Rock - I Understand.
[–]tropicalpolevaulting 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
That's what women don't seem to understand - drive a guy to his breaking point and he might fucking break you...
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I read an article about a man being fucked over in a similar fashion and he ended up killing the girl. It's amazing that people were shocked to find that if you ruin a man's life just for kicks, he might do something crazy since he has nothing left to lose.
[–]tropicalpolevaulting 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
When I was younger I used to have quite a temper and even though I didn't fight as much as I could have, when I snapped I saw only targets to be crushed.
Nowadays I'm quite calm and I haven't been in a fight in maybe 10 or 12 years (though that's not good either, but from a different point of view), but it takes so much self control sometimes that it really does wear me out.
I've been slapped by 3 different women as an adult, and every time I had to remind myself not to fuck them up. But what's amazing is that after they slap they just stand there like they think they can take you on. BITCH ARE YOU FUCKING CRAZY? You're this close to getting strangled and thrown into a ditch, and the only thing stopping me is the thought of jail time...
[–]Exactly_what_I_think 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
I look forward to the day (possibly now) when a woman does this to another woman.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-511391/Death-father-British-scientists-discover-turn-womens-bone-marrow-sperm.html
[–]SgtBrutalisk 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
A very interesting article.
There are also fears that children born from artificial eggs and sperm will suffer severe health problems, like the mice in the Newcastle experiments. (...) The Newcastle research also paves the way for a woman to grow her own sperm and use it to fertilise her natural eggs, creating a child to which she is both mother and father. Similarly, a man could be both father and mother to a child created with his own sperm and a lab-grown egg. Such children would be at high risk of genetic abnormality.
[–]Toctsx1 points 12 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
At that point, wouldn't they just be clones?
[–]SgtBrutalisk 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I don't consider myself educated enough in that field to even speculate on what might happen. But, I do agree with William Engdahl, the author of "Seeds of Destruction. The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation" when he said (I paraphrase): "Plan of GMO companies to control the genetic structure of plants is ultimately doomed to fail because genes are inherently unpredictable." Though he was referring to GMO, I think the same can be safely said for any other kind of genetic manipulation.
[–]fuckfeelings 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Or does it to herself
[–]Endorsed ContributorrebuildingMyself 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Then makes the doctor pay child support for "impregnating" her.
[–]IllicitG 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Or does it and then sues herself for child support because FUCK that bitch.
I think this would be similar to a man artificially inseminating a woman while she sleeps and then forcing her to marry him.
Hmm, now to find Elizabeth Hurley...
Deceitfully use sperm from non-intercourse to impregnate self -AOK
Interfere with birth control to manipulate a woman into pregnancy - Criminal offense.
Explain?
Well I'd say donate to a bank, have it frozen and get a vasectomy if it weren't pointless
[–]Toctsx 7 points7 points7 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Honestly, it seems like it is getting to the point where it just makes pragmatic sense to murder. Any rational person, man or woman, knows that it is morally wrong to steal sperm and try to impregnate oneself, especially with the intention to force a person to start giving out free money. The courts don't give a shit about this guy's rights, however, and are more than content with letting her use the child as a hostage and suckle at this guy's bank account like a parasite. At this point, he is already a prisoner, and if something unexpected happens (crippling injury, layoffs, etc), then he won't even be able to afford making the payments. If he murders her, then at least he gets some satisfaction in addition to imprisonment. I would like someone to tell me some reasons why he shouldn't just murder her. I acknowledge how extreme and ridiculous my beliefs are, but it is getting tougher and tougher to see why they should even be considered "ridiculous".
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Because murder is wrong, even in self defense, which this clearly seems that it is.
Well this is wrong too, doesnt seem to stop her from doing it.
[–]Toctsx 1 points1 points1 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I don't think you understand what I wanted. I wanted someone to give me a reason why he shouldn't murder her. Like an actually practical, logical reason. Not just "killing is bad, bro". Yes, we all know killing is bad. I am asking if he has any reason to not kill her besides the obvious moral reasons.
I wasn't joking though. She is literally stealing his life.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErmcWIMf0e4
good to know people are getting such an excellent education in that country.
[–]Sturmgeist781 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
And this is how murder/suicides are started.
If that ever happened to me I'd leave the fucking country just so that bitch would have to pay for the child all by herself.
[–]TRP VanguardJP_Whoregan 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Guess the doctor should have made sure she swallowed. Stomach acids > sperm.
[+]kasp-throwaway -7 points-6 points-5 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
What a bitch is all I can say.
However people must understand in most countries family law overrides pretty much everything because they look at what is best for the child. That 800 dollars per month is best for the child but you can be damn sure they weren't that happy about giving it knowing the circumstances.
[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
However people must understand in most countries family law overrides pretty much everything because they look at what is best for the child mother.
[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
Are you kidding me? The bitch is a doctor. She can more than afford the kid.
best for the child
GTFO
She is a manipulative shit and if anyone gave a shit about the child they would be asking if the kid deserved such a bitch mom.
[+]kasp-throwaway -11 points-10 points-9 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
Of course she is but I am just saying that how the law works not that I agree with it especially in this case.
Getting child support is in the best interest of the child.
[–]JoshtheAspie 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link
There are many other things that are in the best interests of the child, that the anti-family court system refuses to make standard, because it's against current societal expectations.
It's in the best interests of the child to live with both their mother and father in a non-abusive relationship. Failing that, in the case of rare divorce only due to adultery or abuse, it's best for the child to at least stay in the house of the non-abusive parent, rather than the abusive one.
But see... that's not the situation we have.
I'm fairly sure not getting physically or sexually abused, or entirely neglected, takes priority as far as the actual needs of the child are concerned... but that's not the way the prioritization of the anti-family court works.
It generally presumes that it's best to keep the children in the primary custody of the mother, no matter who the better parent is (see: the case under consideration). It's only when the father possesses huge amounts of resources to fight for custody, or the difference is extreme in the obvious qualities of the parents that there is even a reasonable chance that the father will get primary custody.
It's also in the best interests of the child that the court separations not take long, but that's against the best interests of the lawyers and bureaucrats involved in the court, so that's not the situation we have.
It's also in the best interests of the child that a non-custodial parent that can't pay based on imputed income levels not be put into debtor's prison. But men still get put in debtor's prison, thus decreasing their ability to pay. Even before that step, you have men stripped of professional licenses, and driver's licenses. Now tell me how a man's supposed to pay child support computed on a doctor's salary if he can't even get work as a blooming truck driver any more. It's just not logical!
It's in the best interest of children not to be torn away from their parents for asinine reasons, as psychological issues preventing formation of relationships can screw a child up for life, particularly if caused at a young age. But for some reason, the system doesn't care so much about that, as it does collecting money from fathers.
"Best interests of the child" my large aunt Fanny!
Bravo!
[–]kasp-throwaway 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
No shit the system is bad and works within it's guidelines.
It's guidelines are wrong but if a child's parent/carer receives more money the overwhelming majority of cases that child's life will be improved even slightly.
I don't agree with the system itself since it's stacked and currently unfair but I can see it's merits.
[–]JoshtheAspie 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link
Then I ask... "so what?" If the system is wrong, and makes the life of the non-custodial parent worse by impinging on his basic rights, to what net good does the system improve the life of the child slightly?
[–]kasp-throwaway -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
By providing more means for them to have a better life, granted that isn't always true but generally speaking with a semi reasonable adult it would be.
I don't agree with the system at all to be honest. It's not fair and is abused an awful lot of the time. However I am just simply stating it's intent and what the actual law is.
People here seem to disapprove with the truth if it disagrees with them.
[–]JoshtheAspie 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
No, that's not the intent of the law. If the intent of the family court system of law was to benefit the children, it would look extremely differently.
It's intent is to benefit mothers, and court officers. The stated intent is merely an excuse to make the system more palatable, and play on a natural desire to think that one's society is just and fair, rather than abusive.
Now, if you would like to try to prove your statement about the intent of the anti-family court system this truth, you can go ahead and provide some combination of empirical evidence, and logical statements, but you'll need a lot of evidence to prove your assertion of intent.
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
No, that's the PR bullshit they say to get you to support making men financial slaves as punishment for something the man had no say in.
[–]cynwrig 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Getting child support is in the best interest of the child, but for some reason, verifying the money allocated is actually spent on the child isn't 'in the best interest of the child'.
Again, are you joking here my man? Or are you a feeemale?
Child support is in the best interest of the woman. The state could give two fucks about the kid. This is all about the woman; the shit you're spouting is feminism 101.
I'll say it again, if the state gave a fuck about the kid, the state would delve just a TINY BIT further into this situation and say... WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK? But the state doesn't care. As long as the fragile woman flower is protected from the evil man, all is right with the world. Give me a fucking break.
[–]kasp-throwaway 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It's the law fucking live with it.
The system is tilted to womens favor sure but you can't honestly say that a parent with more money is equal to a parent with less money.
Now I don't agree with the system and how slanted it is towards women its not equal and men get screwed. However if the system was equal it would be fair.
It's not about what's best for her kid, it's about punishing men purely for existing.
[–]TRP VanguardArchwinger 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
"Best interests of the child" is the official legal standard, but let's not kid ourselves. The real impetus behind nearly every law is the interests of the state and its representatives.
If fathers were not forced to pay alimony and child support to mothers and their children, the large majority of those mothers and children would need to be cared for by the state. The purpose of child support (and alimony) is not justice, fairness, or best interests of the child -- there's already a governmental support system in place if all we care about is the child not starving.
The sole purpose of child support (and alimony) is to transfer financial responsibility away from the state and to men to save the government money. Calling this thing something that's done "for the good of children" is extremely useful for getting people elected into office, getting laws passed, etc.
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 43 points44 points45 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil 42 points43 points44 points (20 children) | Copy Link
[–]SPESHALBEAMCANNON 31 points32 points33 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil 41 points42 points43 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hirudin 4 points5 points6 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hirudin 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hirudin 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Endorsed ContributorrebuildingMyself 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Immensesatisfaction 5 points6 points7 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TRP VanguardCyralea 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Evers89 11 points12 points13 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]TRP VanguardCyralea 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Sturmgeist781 -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TRP VanguardWhisper 14 points15 points16 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]hashtagpound2point2 7 points8 points9 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Clauderoughly 12 points13 points14 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]rpking 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]fuckingkike 20 points21 points22 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Freshtowels 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 14 points15 points16 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Sturmgeist781 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]hashtagpound2point2 7 points8 points9 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]devanpy 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]hashtagpound2point2 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]alcaholicost 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bama79rolltide 11 points12 points13 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]tropicalpolevaulting 6 points7 points8 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]tropicalpolevaulting 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Exactly_what_I_think 2 points3 points4 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]SgtBrutalisk 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Toctsx1 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]SgtBrutalisk 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]fuckfeelings 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Endorsed ContributorrebuildingMyself 9 points10 points11 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]IllicitG 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Toctsx 7 points7 points7 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Toctsx 1 points1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Sturmgeist781 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TRP VanguardJP_Whoregan 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]kasp-throwaway -7 points-6 points-5 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 10 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[+]kasp-throwaway -11 points-10 points-9 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]JoshtheAspie 11 points12 points13 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]kasp-throwaway 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]JoshtheAspie 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]kasp-throwaway -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]JoshtheAspie 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]cynwrig 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]kasp-throwaway 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TRP VanguardArchwinger 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link