If youre talking to me, I think they should have to provide evidence in the form of receipts or something showing that the money is being spent to actually support the child its for.. I know it's anecdotal but I know a good amount of people whose exs use the money for bs like most anyone with free money would do.

If you cared about fair you wouldn't design a contract to screw over the kid. You just want to give women the finger and get attention on the internet.

that would be some form of child neglect since she's going to leave it without an adult to supervise it. Which isn't the same.

Plus.. " I can't be bothered with adoption" is a very lazy and petty complaint. Compared I don't want to pay for a kid for 18 years after we specifically agreed not to have one.

I was just throwing it out there, the main point is that I feel its currently not monitored closely enough. I dont have the answers.

the contract isn't designed to screw the kid, but to give men a bit more reproductive control than they have.

It literally is designed to screw the kid by denying them support. Are you really that dumb?

Fa...

Nah.

That's like saying that abortion is designed to kill the kid, or adoption is designed to strip them of their birth parents

These are options given to people so that they can better exercise control of their own lives, which necessarily have some negative impact on the kid.

You keep harping on as if the man in this contract is the one harming the child. I would say it's arguably the woman who has the kid after explicitly agreeing not to.

Yes that is the case.

Which is why we weigh both sides of the equation. We abort fetuses up to a certain point but not after. We allow men the opportunity to wear condoms or get snipped but not to abandon their children.

Two things can be true at the same time. Stop being a whiny bitch.

it's not abandoning if they specifically agree not to have them. It's similar to a woman suing her sperm donor for child support.



stop letting your daddy issues blind you