[Saya]

Originally Posted by Versus

You're right. They aren't the same thing. I didn't mean to compare the two. Child support is representative of a parent's responsibility to their children in their absence. What I'm saying is that, regardless of how a woman feels about giving birth or being pregnant, she has (or should have) the right have an abortion and could have one because she simply doesn't want to be a parent, while men do not have an option to free themselves of that obligation.

The right to an abortion isn't really that she simply doesn't want to be a parent, its moreso about not wanting to be pregnant. If she chose to be pregnant, with the father's consent she could put the child up for adoption and decline to be a parent. Two parents have to decide that though, I remember a case where the mother wanted to put the kid up for adoption, the father was against it but also refused to raise the child on his own. So the kid ended up in foster care because there was not parental consensus.

Key word being received. That amount could be different then what they were owed. Which doesn't include things like health insurance or noncash support (which 60% of non-custodial parents provide).

Thats true, but apparently single fathers benefit more from noncash support, which the men's rights activists might not tell you.

The data also doesn't determine the average income of parents who owe child support. I think it's just as safe to assume that 30% of non-custodial parents also fall beneath the poverty line because I could easily owe my wife 20% of my pay check in most states, and I'm not exactly wealthy.

Also, it doesn't say anywhere that the 70% of custodial parents who did not make claims for "child support issues" didn't because they couldn't afford it. I think you're drawing conclusions, but to be fair, I can only speak from personal experience that a court order is a binding contract from the state. I don't think it costs anything to enforce that.

But child support doesn't have to be negotiated through the court, and its often costly to hire a lawyer and go through the court system to get a court order in the first place. I assume its worse if there was no divorce since there's really no legal link between the two parents.

Then why does child support vary the more money you have? I think it's reasonable to establish how much raising a kid costs, not base it off what the parents' income is. But all that isn't my point. To me, it doesn't matter how many parents don't pay their bills when I consider that it's not cool to be forced to be responsible for a child that people don't want.

I wouldn't set a solid amount of money, because that would hurt poor noncustodial parents. A sliding scale is more fair, and I think maintenance of lifestyle is entered into account. Like if a kid was spoiled rotten its a huge shock to suddenly be eating beans on toast every meal.