Would you rather have the state pay support for unwanted children (i.e. your tax money) or biological fathers?

drok007 · 2015-12-09T13:45:02+00:00

Why are the only options men and government? Are you so biased you left women out of the picture completely?

taiboworks · 2015-12-09T13:55:08+00:00

Neither, there is no reason to enable poor mate choice or give it the illusion of viability. Especially when the children produced from it do so poorly.

Child support should be reserved for formerly married people pending a paternity test and assistance for single mothers should be done by charities, not the state.

Atlas_B_Shruggin · 2015-12-09T14:31:18+00:00

Neither. Let the strong, independent woman get an abortion or work and pay. Welfare should be reserved for widows and abandoned wives, not women who deliberately choose to create their own poverty by having a baby they can't afford, without a father

Welfare and the capacity to dun never married father's for support are causing the out of wedlock births. You get more of what you subsidize

3dbattleship · 2015-12-09T14:03:06+00:00

If a woman has a child she should be prepared to take care of it. Women have birth control options ranging from prevention, to the morning after, to even a few months after the "oppsie"
There are many men willing to take care of their own children, if a woman can't raise it without a man or the government then maybe custody should go to the more responsible party (father)

GaiusScaevolus · 2015-12-09T14:49:00+00:00

Woman have the right to choose to abort. If they choose not to abort, then I fail to see why it must fall to a man or the government to subsidize her life choices.

wub1234 · 2015-12-09T14:23:34+00:00

The state already invests trillions of dollars in things that don't benefit 99.9% of the population, so the question should really be whether the state is accountable in any way, and whether it has any responsibility towards the general population.

Sepean · 2015-12-09T13:43:00+00:00

Neither. It's a choice to have a child, deal with the consequences yourself.

taiboworks · 2015-12-09T14:10:20+00:00

Nuance, taibo. Nuance. It's a complex issue.

taiboworks · 2015-12-09T14:18:02+00:00

False dichotomy.

--women will be providing support. Mothers are legally obligated to support their children in equal measure as fathers are. I've known a couple of women who abandoned their kids. Those women were "deadbeat moms".

--charities support unwanted children. Charities do a lot of work in this regard.

It isn't just "fathers" or "the state".

It's fascinating to me how Blues somehow put away the "nuance" and "complexity" when not discussing men's sexual wants and needs. If men are hurting, it's "too fucking bad". If anyone else is hurting, all of society must grind to a halt while a way is found to make men solve that hurt and then make men pay the bill for it.

Amethhyst · 2015-12-09T16:24:40+00:00

I think a condition of continuing state support should be mandatory birth control, preferably in the form of the implant. It certainly shouldn't be automatic.

If the mother wants the baby and for some reason can't support it herself, given that unwilling fathers don't get a say (beyond taking responsibility for their own contraception on the first place - slap a condom on it if you're unsure) in whether they bring a kid into the world, it seems unfair to force them to pay for it. On the other hand, it's not fair to pass the burden onto unwilling strangers in the form of the state either.

Honestly, I don't think there's a right answer. I think the best we've got is to teach people that there's always a risk when you have sex, and encourage them to mitigate it as best they can. It's not ideal, but in the absence of a better solution, yes - fathers should have to take responsibility for their actions ALONG with mothers. For both parties, it's the ultimate price to pay for having sex.

Barring deliberate deception by the woman, which really isn't as common as TRP would have us believe, I think the best rule of thumb is that EVERYONE should be taking personal responsibility for their own contraception until you're at the point where you either trust the person or wouldn't mind raising a baby. That means women should be taking birth control and men should be insisting on condom usage. If you're having sex, you should be prepared for the ultimate worst case scenario that a bay might occur. It's an unfortunate reality.

mrcs84usn · 2015-12-09T15:28:09+00:00

I say revoke all child support and leftist programs like WIC, TANF, etc. Also, I would make condoms free to the public (doesn't planned parenthood already do this?) and make sexual education a requirement to graduate from middle school and from high school.

Instead of trying to kill individual bees, you need to try to destroy the hive. Incentivizing women (I would say men too, but "my body my choice" comes to mind) to stop shitting out kids they can't support seems like the way to go.

ETA: To directly answer the question -- I'd rather the father pay for it. I didn't help create the kid, I shouldn't be burdened with it. Additionally, if I pay for that child's wellbeing, then I should have say in how it is raised. However the idea that "it takes a village" fizzled out a long time ago.

lbspredh · 2015-12-09T16:07:16+00:00

How about the mother gets a job like the rest of us?

disposable_pants · 2015-12-09T16:15:55+00:00

I'd rather have the state offer every woman unlimited free birth control (including abortions) and then give them zero public support if they unilaterally decide to have a child the father does not want. This is by far the best policy:

Paying for birth control/abortions up front is significantly cheaper than paying to raise an unwanted child, regardless of where the money comes from
Women never have to have a child they don't want
Both women and men can choose when they want to have a child ("have" meaning to assume parental and financial responsibility) -- an improvement over the current system of women only having this choice
There's no possible incentive for a woman to have a man's child against his will -- he would not be obligated to it or her in any way

Problem solved.

Archwinger · 2015-12-09T15:19:28+00:00

Child support from biological fathers is absolutely, positively a good thing and needs to exist. The problems various MRAs raise isn't with the very existence of child support, but with how it's implemented. Currently, it's a punitive measure against men for getting divorced by their wives and/or knocking up a woman, and is really just a form of woman-support, not child support.

First, child support needs to be tied to the actual expenses involved in raising the child. Not a percentage of daddy's salary. It's not supposed to be a windfall for mom by getting pregnant via a rich dude.

Second, child support needs to be regulated to ensure that it is spent on the child to meet the child's needs. It's not just an income stream for the mother. She should be accountable for where the money is spent. Because in a two-person family, one person doesn't just hand the other a check and let them go to town, and this is with families that willingly share money. Why would single mothers be granted more freedom and less accountability with money that is taken from fathers via court order?

Third, custody needs to be redone. If daddy is paying 50% of the child's expenses, the child should live with daddy 50% of the time, not every other weekend, Wednesday nights, and swapping holidays each year.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find anybody who thinks that supporting a child should be 100% the woman's deal and that all child support should be abolished. But the current state of child support is that it's really just woman-support with a side of punishing the evil man for getting her pregnant and/or getting divorced by her.

ginasaurus-rex · 2015-12-09T14:25:14+00:00

I'd rather the father get some custodial rights so that the child can go with whoever's most fit to pay for it. If I got a chick pregnant, I could EASILY afford to give that kid one hell of a home, the best nutrition it could ask for, access to the best possible doctors on the planet, and opportunities that fewer than one in a thousand Americans are lucky enough to get. It'd grow up happy, healthy, and secure. But that'd probably never happen, because mothers win in family court and I have no rights.

The kid would get a small child support payment because I'm not gonna invest in a single-mother baby, and then society would eventually have to pay for the kids. Give the baby to whoever can pay for it, there won't be an issue, few will complain about raising their own child (an empty check is just so demoralizing) and everyone wins. And then society can pay for the small remainder, but we should save so much money by giving custody to fathers that it really shouldn't even matter.

cxj · 2015-12-09T14:03:50+00:00

My husband and I are DINK in a blue state. I get a lot of my earnings as bonuses...I pay a metric fuck ton of taxes. I am fine with that. The state is a safety net for people that cannot support themselves. Of course, I'd rather see parents supporting their children but we don't live in a perfect world. I would also rather see my tax money go to kids instead of bombs. I also like my tax money going towards initiatives that curb the likelihood of unwanted pregnancies (free & accessible birth control, sex education, public education in general).

ThirdEyeSqueegeed · 2015-12-09T15:29:56+00:00

I suggested an alternative a while back on another thread. Basically, if the mother can't pay for the kid herself then the child should be taken from her and put into foster care and the mother should be sent out to work like a beta male to pay for the child's care. I believe this would discourage the majority of unwanted pregnancies since the mother would not be benefitting from it.

If you want to be equal, you could make the biological father and mother pay an equal amount towards the childcare.

taiboworks · 2015-12-09T14:16:37+00:00

Neither. Welfare is dysgenics and it's making humanity dumber.

[deleted] · 2015-12-09T13:29:29+00:00

In my country this already happens via benefits and tax credits but there's still child support. Doesn't seem anywhere near as bad as the situation in the US though. It's likely if the US did the same thing we do in the UK they'd at the very least be able to ease the burden of child support. So yeah I'm for that.

The LPS thing would be ideal but seems unlikely to get enough mainstream support to become law in our current society.

prodigy2throw · 2015-12-09T15:59:20+00:00

How about the mother step her shit up for once in her life and pay for it?

[deleted] · 2015-12-09T19:10:43+00:00

Men should have the option of forfeiting their parental rights and financial obligation.

Except men should be responsible for the costs of a medical abortion.

wombatinaburrow · 2015-12-10T08:36:53+00:00

If a mother can't support her children (if Mr Wombat died, my income would not be enough), and a father won't, then the state should have to. It is absurdly easy for men to shirk their responsibilities to their children.

bromance946 · 2015-12-09T15:34:52+00:00

I thought the theoretical justification for the idea of child support is that the child deserves a certain basic level of resources dedicated to his or her upbringing, even if the mother cannot provide this level of support based on her income. This makes sense, given the fact that in order to earn income, the woman would have to be employed full time, combined with the high cost of day care.

If this concept is justified, it makes no sense for the biological father to always pay, because the biological father might not be able to afford whatever this basic level of income is. What if the biological father is unemployed? Or in prison? Or cannot be found? Should the child be punished for this? And why should fathers who can afford it be punished for the extra income they earn? And what if the father never wanted the child to begin with? The state should pay; for the simple reason that it is the only entity that is reliable and can consistently afford to pay.

Title	Would you rather have the state pay support for unwanted children (i.e. your tax money) or biological fathers?
Author	taiboworks
Upvotes	3
Comments	287
Date	December 9, 2015 1:18 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/3w2js0/would_you_rather_have_the_state_pay_support_for/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/would-you-rather-have-the-state-pay-support-for.278011 https://theredarchive.com/post/278011