PDA

View Full Version : Roe vs. Wade's Dirty Little Secret


Pages : [1] 2

Razorsharp
01-22-2004, 09:05 AM
Today, January 22, many accross the nation will celebrate another anniversary of an event that they revere as significant to the American ideals of freedom and liberty, as the Fourth of July -- the Supreme Court's landmark "Roe vs. Wade" decision and it's tenet of "freedom of choice".

While the concept of "freedom of choice" is almost penumbral with the ideals of individual freedom and liberty, the Supreme Court, in reaching its decision in "Roe", appeared to abandon the ideal of “Equal Justice Under the Law”, as inscribed on the portico of the Supreme Court building itself, and instead, handed down a decision that was more closely akin to the tyranny of "rule by decree".

Just five days prior to "Roe", the Supreme Court ruled in the case of "Gomez vs. Perez". But, rather than being consistent with the principle of "freedom of choice", the Court elected to rule contrary to the concept of "choice" by overturning existing state law that did not hold men responsible for children born by women to whom they were not married. In doing so, the Court may have engaged in something along the lines of the sinister, by delaying the "Roe" decision until after Gomez vs. Perez, so as to facilitate a politically correct definition of "freedom of choice".

A Supreme Court case consists of two phases, the "argument" and the "decision". A case is first argued before the Court and the decision is usually rendered four to six weeks later. The general rule for Supreme Court cases in 1972-73 found the arguments and decisions falling in chronological order. One of the few exceptions to the rule came in the cases of Roe vs. Wade and Gomez vs. Perez.

Roe vs. Wade was argued before the Court on Oct. 10, 1972 and, after an unusual length of fourteen weeks, was decided on Jan. 22, 1973. Gomez vs. Perez was argued before the Court on Dec. 6, 1972 and, in a timely manner, decided on Jan. 17, 1973.

Had the Supreme Court followed the chronological order of the cases heard, as was the rule, a problem would have presented itself for the Court to reach the desired decision in "Gomez". How could the Supreme Court set a precedent that would deem a woman's pregnancy to be autonomous and affirm the concept of "freedom of choice" through a "right of privacy", and a week later render a decision that would assign an unmarried man a financial responsibility for that so-called "autonomous" and “private” concern? Obviously the answer was to delay the decision of Roe vs. Wade until after Gomez vs. Perez.

However, one cannot morally argue against the Court’s ruling in Gomez, being that couples who maintain a sustained relationship, even outside the institution of marriage, should not be allowed to abandon their partners upon the event that a child should be born within that relationship. The problem with Gomez vs. Perez, the Supreme Court ruling that states use to enforce child support laws on unmarried men, is that the law has evolved into a vehicle that is sometimes used to reap a veritable cornucopia of social welfare entitlements or a guaranteed percentage of a man's personal wealth.

Nowhere in the arena of political discourse does there exist a more blatant example of hypocrisy than with the issue of “freedom of choice”.

A man cannot require his wife to bear his child to term, but a woman can require a man, with whom no relationship exists other than a consensual sexual encounter, to support a child that she "privately" chooses to have.

The argument most often used by those in support of the "agenda" is, “It takes two to make a baby”. Not only does that proclamation belie the premise of "privacy", it also contradicts the ideological assertion that the only thing a man makes is an “unviable tissue mass”.

Thanks to Roe vs. Wade, it is the woman's personal and private "choice" to cultivate that tissue mass into a living and breathing entity. If the woman has the right to excise that tissue mass from her reproductive system, without any regard for the wishes of the so-called biological father, then, to be consistent with the concept of "equal protection of the law", a man should have the same right to disavow that tissue mass.

The legal theory that a biological father is obligated to provide support for an illegitimate child is founded on the premise that both parents have an obligation to provide support for a child or that a child has a "right" to support from it's parents. These are false premises based on emotion rather than the rule of law.

First, a child does not have a "right" to support from its biological father because there is no such thing as an arbitrary right. Either a right exists or it doesn't. There is no law that requires a birth mother to disclose the identity of the biological father of a child that she bears. The birth mother, if she so wishes, has the right to be the sole guardian of "her" child. Today, women often make the "choice" to become single mothers so as not to be encumbered with the presence of the biological father. Whenever a pop star, film actress or any other woman of fame and fortune makes the "choice" to have a child without revealing who the father is, she is applauded as a heroine for raising a child without the assistance of a man. In fact, single-parenthood has become such a viable option for women that a national organization exists to support those who choose to become single parents. The organization "Single Mothers by Choice" now has local chapters in over twenty cities across the nation. No, the only time that a child's so-called "right" to support from it's biological father is recognized, is when the birth mother wants financial assistance with the "choice" that she unilaterally made.

Second, whether a child is supported by its biological parents, is another arbitrary “choice” that is decided by the birth mother*. Even after the birth of a child, the birth mother still has the option to decline her parental responsibilities through the adoption process. After a birth mother gives up her child to adopting parents, she is free of any further responsibilities to her child regardless of the future hardships that may befall that child. Furthermore, many statges now, through what are euphamistically referred to as "safe haven" laws, allow women the opportunity to relinquish their unwanted newborns at specified locations on a no-questions-asked basis. *(While technically the biological father must give consent to an adoption, in instances where no sustained relationship exists between the birth parents, it is the mother that makes the "choice".)

Finally, while both parents supposedly have an obligation to support a child, in many cases the State will provide the birth mother's part of the parental obligation with cash benefits, housing allowances, food stamps, Medicaid, etc. The State will then appropriate the biological father's income and sanctimoniously chastise him about a parental obligation.

This exposes the true intent of child support in the instance of illegitimacy. While being sold as a bill of goods described as "what is in the child's best interest", child support payments are also designed to allow birth mothers, who have little or no education or job skills, the means of keeping the children that they choose to bring into the world without the benefit of marriage. Aiding the status quo, social service agencies operate under the theoretical agenda that a child is naturally better off with a biological parent, despite the almost daily evidence of children who would obviously fare much better with loving adoptive parents. Compounding the problem, the welfare entitlements and court ordered child support payments that come with an illegitimate child are offering some young ladies the opportunity for a lifestyle they otherwise could not afford. Meanwhile, America's illegitimacy rate is among the highest, if not the highest, in the industrialized world and childless couples are relegated to searching overseas for adoptable children.

State legislatures and courts insist that child support payments are not to enrich a birth mother, but in practice, child support is considered to be a payment due to the birth mother. Sometimes birth mothers, especially in the instance of illegitimacy, wish to rid themselves of the presence of the biological father of a child. Usually the birth mother has entered into a romantic relationship with another man, and now finds the biological father to be an inconvenience. To get the biological father out of the picture, the birth mother will tell him that she no longer wants or needs his contribution to help raise "her" child. The birth mother may even sign an affidavit stating that she voluntarily assumes all responsibilities of support for her child, and releases the biological father from any further monetary obligation. Years may pass before the birth mother decides that she no longer wishes to abide by the agreement that she persuaded the biological father into and files charges of non-support against him. When these cases come to trial, Domestic Court Judges are prone to find these so-called "deadbeat dads" liable for all child support payments in arrearage, without any consideration of the signed affidavit initiated at the behest of the birth mother.

In an outright abandonment of logic, Domestic Court Judges, as a stipulation of child support, frequently assign all medical and dental expenses a child may incur to the non-custodial biological father, despite the fact that the health and welfare of a child is in direct correlation with the lifestyle and supervisory skills of the custodial parent.

Probably the most unjust and punitive aspect of child support law is the tax code. When using the "earned income tax credit", which is nothing more than an additional government stipend offered to the "working poor" in the guise of a tax refund, a custodial parent can work part time, pay no federal income tax throughout the year, but yet receive a "tax refund" of a thousand dollars or more. On the other hand, an unmarried, noncustodial father, who is required to forfeit up to 25% of his take-home income for child support purposes, receives NO dependant tax deduction. This is a blatant violation of the "equal protection" clause of the Constitution.

It has been estimated that approximately 1.75 million conceptions occur annually due to contraceptive failure. Abortion rights activists insist that abortion remain a safe and legal procedure because a young woman should not have to suffer the consequences of having her life interrupted with an unplanned pregnancy. Should a failure of birth control or a "mistake" occur, the young woman should have the option to terminate her pregnancy for any reason. She may wish to continue her education, enter the job market or concentrate on her career. She may wish to travel, purchase a home or automobile, or just avoid the responsibilities of parenthood if she should so desire. However, the true agenda of the "pro-choice" movement is exposed when those who gallantly rush to the defense of a young lady facing an unplanned pregnancy, idly stand by while the same legislative and judicial systems, that recognize a constitutional tenet of "freedom of choice", violate the concept of equal protection of the law by forcing an unmarried man into an eighteen to twenty-one year parental obligation.

While rape, incest and the health of the mother are the most publicly touted justifications for legalized abortion, the fact of the matter is that abortion is primarily used as a remedy for a "mistake" or a failure of birth control. The Supreme Court's "Roe" ruling was a judicial exercise that enacted a provision to provide women with an opportunity to relieve themselves from the consequences of sexual intercourse. But, revealing the particularly odious hypocrisy that is inherent to the politics of feminism, unmarried men are vilified and forced, under the threat of incarceration, to be fully accountable for the consequences of sexual intercourse.

Irrespective of one's personal opinions concerning the issue of abortion, it has to be acknowledged that a Supreme Court ruling has certain legal ramifications. As a result of the Roe vs. Wade decision, a woman's pregnancy was determined to be autonomous and protected by a constitutional "right to privacy". The Supreme Court ruled that it is solely a woman's personal "choice" to either bring a child into the world, or to terminate a pregnancy without any regard for the wishes of the "biological father".

Therefore, for child support laws to be consistent with the application of law that our system of jurisprudence demands, a certain relationship must exist between a birth mother and a biological father. If the birth mother has the legal means of a "contract" of marriage or an "implied contract" of a sustained relationship with the biological father of her child, only then should the law be applied to require that man to provide support for a child that is the result of that relationship. If a birth mother does not have the obligatory contract with the biological father, then that man should not be required to support a child that the birth mother unilaterally chooses to bring into the world. The only other scenario that would justify the application of child support law is if an adult male impregnates a girl under the age of consent.

For the State to require an individual, not bound by contract, to be financially responsible for a "private" concern of a second party, not only violates the rule of law, it violates the very essence of freedom, liberty and justice that America stands for.

Razorsharp

John Mace
01-22-2004, 09:53 AM
Didn't you post this exact same OP once before? Was it last year on this date...?

ShibbOleth
01-22-2004, 10:22 AM
Didn't you post this exact same OP once before? Was it last year on this date...?

Razorsharp has only been on the Boards since April 2003. Maybe it's not original?

Razorsharp
01-22-2004, 10:27 AM
Razorsharp has only been on the Boards since April 2003. Maybe it's not original?And then, maybe it is.

Munch
01-22-2004, 10:33 AM
From some Googling:

Razorsharp's first posting of this thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=176793

Razorsharp's homepage:
http://www.geocities.com/lord_visionary/roevswades.htm

Another site that mention "Roe v. Wade's Dirty Little Secret" (mostly Freemason/Secret Society gobbledy gook, no apparent connections to Razorsharp):

http://www.trosch.org/msn/mason-graphics.html

Another site that mentions "Roe v. Wade's Dirty Little Secret", some connection to Razorsharp, possibly written by him (same "Wake Up America" banner):

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/US_Presidents/US_Presidents04.htm

John Mace
01-22-2004, 10:34 AM
And then, maybe it is.

And then, maybe it wasn't on this date last year...

Fear Itself
01-22-2004, 11:43 AM
A substantially similar screed was posted on talk.abortion on Jan 1, 2001 (http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22disavow+that+tissue+mass%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=92prju%24qe0%241%40nnrp1.deja.com&rnum=2). Razorsharp's is only marginally reworked from the original, and would be considerd plagiarism by any high school english teacher.

Munch
01-22-2004, 12:02 PM
A substantially similar screed was posted on talk.abortion on Jan 1, 2001 (http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22disavow+that+tissue+mass%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=92prju%24qe0%241%40nnrp1.deja.com&rnum=2). Razorsharp's is only marginally reworked from the original, and would be considerd plagiarism by any high school english teacher.

I would have to agree, if it wasn't for Razorsharp's name at the bottom of that link.

ShibbOleth
01-22-2004, 12:06 PM
A substantially similar screed was posted on talk.abortion on Jan 1, 2001 (http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22disavow+that+tissue+mass%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=92prju%24qe0%241%40nnrp1.deja.com&rnum=2). Razorsharp's is only marginally reworked from the original, and would be considerd plagiarism by any high school english teacher.

The cite that you've linked to is from a couple of years ago and has Razorsharp's name on the bottom. So it appears that post was a complete quote of the note here. I also didn't find anything in a limited attempt to search Great Debates here, so at this point I would have to assume that the authorship is Razorhsharp's.

To the OP, I was intrigued by this. It does make a fair case that males and females are not treated equally under the law. If a man were to father a child in a consensual sexual encounter, then it would seem to me to be fair to have to allow a choice of the father to demand an abortion or to be excused from an ongoing financial obligation. If the father wants to keep the child, then the options would need to be that he is allowed joint custodial rights. If the mother doesn't want to carry the fetus to term then it becomes more sticky.

Razorsharp
01-22-2004, 01:48 PM
And then, maybe it wasn't on this date last year...And then, maybe it's not "the exact same OP".

Y'all can stop wasting time and energy searching for evidence of plagarism. Ain't none.

Now, how 'bout addressing the OP?

Kalhoun
01-22-2004, 01:49 PM
I agree that it isn't fair, but to be able to "demand" an invasive medical procedure or be released from the financial responsibility (at the child's expense) is MORE unfair. Men generally have higher earning potential than women, so the 25% figure is not out of line. I never received a dime in child support from my ex. Many, many women are in that same situation. I don't call that fair, either. There will never be a perfect solution to the problem, but if you want to play, you have to pay. Just make sure you don't get anyone pregnant! Problem solved.

Rashak Mani
01-22-2004, 02:12 PM
I agree that it isn't fair, but to be able to "demand" an invasive medical procedure or be released from the financial responsibility (at the child's expense) is MORE unfair. Men generally have higher earning potential than women, so the 25% figure is not out of line. I never received a dime in child support from my ex. Many, many women are in that same situation. I don't call that fair, either. There will never be a perfect solution to the problem, but if you want to play, you have to pay. Just make sure you don't get anyone pregnant! Problem solved.

I mostly agree with you... the problems start when a woman stops taking her pills or other birth control method without telling her partner for example. You say "..want to play, you have to pay"... but what if he thinks she is protecting herself against pregnancy and isn't ? Pretty unfair to the man. You said "Just make sure you don't get anyone pregnant"... that isn't that easy is it ?

I agree that a man having no say in relation to abortion/birth can be a wierd situation... but then when you have only 2 votes how do you solve a tie ? The woman should predominate of course.

robertliguori
01-22-2004, 02:38 PM
I agree that it isn't fair, but to be able to "demand" an invasive medical procedure or be released from the financial responsibility (at the child's expense) is MORE unfair. Men generally have higher earning potential than women, so the 25% figure is not out of line. I never received a dime in child support from my ex. Many, many women are in that same situation. I don't call that fair, either. There will never be a perfect solution to the problem, but if you want to play, you have to pay. Just make sure you don't get anyone pregnant! Problem solved.
Conversely, we could put the obligation on women, and simply have it that if you choose not to get an abortion, you pay for the kid. After all, if we're going to financially stiff someone, why not make it the one who made the decision to keep it?
Also, any stupid statistics about relative pay can be reported to one of my friends, who is paying child support to his ex-wife who has a salary about six times his.

Mtgman
01-22-2004, 03:13 PM
Had the Supreme Court followed the chronological order of the cases heard, as was the rule, a problem would have presented itself for the Court to reach the desired decision in "Gomez". How could the Supreme Court set a precedent that would deem a woman's pregnancy to be autonomous and affirm the concept of "freedom of choice" through a "right of privacy", and a week later render a decision that would assign an unmarried man a financial responsibility for that so-called "autonomous" and “private” concern? Obviously the answer was to delay the decision of Roe vs. Wade until after Gomez vs. Perez.I note now, as was noted in the previous thread Razorsharp started on this topic, with the exact same title, (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=176793) that the conflict Razorsharp asserts exists between the findings in Gomez v Perez and Roe v Wade does not hold up to legal analysis. Therefore the motivation for his alleged conspiracy in the timing of the release of the decision is absent.

Enjoy,
Steven

Sofa King
01-22-2004, 03:15 PM
A document comparison of the two posts shows that while this one obviously relied upon the original, it has now grown to nearly three full pages of single-spaced ten-font text--some 2,281 words, according to MS Word.

Many of the new sections appear to incorporate responses to the drubbing Razorsharp's original version received, most notably a comprehensive dissection of the original argument by Northern Piper within about four hours of the time of the original post.

I think that we are witnessing one man's indefatigable attempt to finely hone a wooden baseball bat of an argument into a glimmering steel blade of truth. Obviously, we need to give the man some time.

Razorsharp
01-22-2004, 03:49 PM
I note now, as was noted in the previous thread Razorsharp started on this topic, with the exact same title, (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=176793) that the conflict Razorsharp asserts exists between the findings in Gomez v Perez and Roe v Wade does not hold up to legal analysis. Therefore the motivation for his alleged conspiracy in the timing of the release of the decision is absent.Well, perhaps you would like to give us a little of your "legal analysis" and we'll see if it holds up or not.

Talk's cheap.

Razorsharp
01-22-2004, 03:58 PM
A document comparison of the two posts shows that while this one obviously relied upon the original, it has now grown to nearly three full pages of single-spaced ten-font text--some 2,281 words, according to MS Word.

Many of the new sections appear to incorporate responses to the drubbing Razorsharp's original version received, most notably a comprehensive dissection of the original argument by Northern Piper within about four hours of the time of the original post.

I think that we are witnessing one man's indefatigable attempt to finely hone a wooden baseball bat of an argument into a glimmering steel blade of truth. Obviously, we need to give the man some time.Or, perhaps the OP you are referring to is not the "original", just the first post to SDMB.

Northern Piper did put forth a good rebuttal, but "drubbing"?? I don't think so. Why don't you give it a try?

Again, talk's cheap.

Ludovic
01-22-2004, 03:59 PM
Kalhoun wrote:Men generally have higher earning potential than women, so the 25% figure is not out of line. I never received a dime in child support from my ex. Many, many women are in that same situation. I don't call that fair, either.Yeah, cause we all know that the men who actually pay the confiscatory rates awarded them are the SAME ONES who get away with not paying at all...way to stick it to the Male Collective :rolleyes:

pervert
01-22-2004, 04:04 PM
Conversely, we could put the obligation on women, and simply have it that if you choose not to get an abortion, you pay for the kid. Or we could put the medical risks for abandoning a fetus on the male. Or at least stretch it to include him. Perhaps if a man wants to disavow a pregnancy, he should submit himself to an invasive surgical procedure with comensurate risks to abortion. Specifically, I'd recomend sterilization. At least reversable sterilization.

Kalhoun
01-22-2004, 04:06 PM
I mostly agree with you... the problems start when a woman stops taking her pills or other birth control method without telling her partner for example. You say "..want to play, you have to pay"... but what if he thinks she is protecting herself against pregnancy and isn't ? Pretty unfair to the man. You said "Just make sure you don't get anyone pregnant"... that isn't that easy is it ?

If you really don't want children, you need to take responsibility for birth control. If the thought of creating a child with this person doesn't sit right with you, you need to use condoms or find another gal pal.

I agree that a man having no say in relation to abortion/birth can be a wierd situation... but then when you have only 2 votes how do you solve a tie ? The woman should predominate of course.

As I said, it's not fair, but it's more fair than giving the "non-custodial" control over what happens.

Kalhoun
01-22-2004, 04:06 PM
I mostly agree with you... the problems start when a woman stops taking her pills or other birth control method without telling her partner for example. You say "..want to play, you have to pay"... but what if he thinks she is protecting herself against pregnancy and isn't ? Pretty unfair to the man. You said "Just make sure you don't get anyone pregnant"... that isn't that easy is it ?

If you really don't want children, you need to take responsibility for birth control. If the thought of creating a child with this person doesn't sit right with you, you need to use condoms or find another gal pal.

I agree that a man having no say in relation to abortion/birth can be a wierd situation... but then when you have only 2 votes how do you solve a tie ? The woman should predominate of course.

As I said, it's not fair, but it's more fair than giving the "non-custodial" parent control over what happens.

Kalhoun
01-22-2004, 04:13 PM
Conversely, we could put the obligation on women, and simply have it that if you choose not to get an abortion, you pay for the kid. After all, if we're going to financially stiff someone, why not make it the one who made the decision to keep it?
Also, any stupid statistics about relative pay can be reported to one of my friends, who is paying child support to his ex-wife who has a salary about six times his.

Yup, you could do that. But that would put the entire burden on one person, and that wouldn't be fair. I mean, she didn't get pregnant by herself, did she?

Kalhoun
01-22-2004, 04:16 PM
Conversely, we could put the obligation on women, and simply have it that if you choose not to get an abortion, you pay for the kid. After all, if we're going to financially stiff someone, why not make it the one who made the decision to keep it?
Also, any stupid statistics about relative pay can be reported to one of my friends, who is paying child support to his ex-wife who has a salary about six times his.

Yup, you could do that. But that would put the entire burden on one person, and that wouldn't be fair. I mean, she didn't get pregnant by herself, did she?

And why SHOULDN'T your friend pay child support. It IS his child, isn't it?

Oregon sunshine
01-22-2004, 04:19 PM
how about the way it's always been... if a guy wants to avoid conceiving a child outside of marriage, he should reserve sex for marriage, or get a vasectomy.

that should be obvious...isn't it?

Kalhoun
01-22-2004, 04:28 PM
Kalhoun wrote:Yeah, cause we all know that the men who actually pay the confiscatory rates awarded them are the SAME ONES who get away with not paying at all...way to stick it to the Male Collective :rolleyes:

I don't quite understand what you're saying here. I didn't stick it to anyone. I was merely pointing out that the system isn't fair. Don't cry to me because you have to pay 25% when I received 0% and actually survived. Just because a guy pays the money doesn't mean it gives him a free pass to bitch about it. I absolutely think 25% of a parent's income is fair, regardless of which parent makes more money. The custodial parent, if they're working, is spending more than that on the child in most cases.

pravnik
01-22-2004, 04:30 PM
I guess if you're going to bring this up again, I'll repost my old refutations of it.

Gomez didn't hold that illegitimate children had a right to child support. There's no such thing as a constitutional right to child support; Gomez didn't hold that there was. It held that illegitimate children couldn't be treated differently from legitimate children unless the government could demonstrate an important state interest, and show that the law was substantially related to achieving that interest. In other words, they have a right to equal protection of the laws. The fact that it had to do with child support is tangiental; the same law applies if Texas wants to make illegitimate children attend segregated schools, use different water fountains, etc.

Neither the state nor the dissenting justices argued that the Texas law was valid because the duty of child support arose from the marriage contract in Gomez; rather, the state argued that it should be excused from having to provide for illegitimate children in its laws becasue of the complex factual questions that inevitiably arise surrounding parentage. The dissenting justices argued that the case should have been dismissed on jurisdictional grounds and didn't reach the merits.

Gomez wasn't an anomaly of a sneaky Court; quite the opposite. It was firmly in line with precedent. The Court had previously ruled that Equal Protection prevents the invidious discrimination against illegitimate children in bringing wrongful death cases, Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68 (1968), and state worker's compensation claims, Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U.S. 164 (1972). It would go on to similar decisions concerning government benefits, Social Security Claims, etc. However, even if none of the above were true, it still wouldn't explain how the decision in Gomez undermines Roe, or why none of the post-Roe cases of the last 30 years addresses this conflict.

So basically, the OP posits:

1. The Supreme Court conspired to delay the Gomez decision because

2. It would have undermined their decision in Roe.

They didn't, and it doesn't. First, both decisions were 7-2, but it wasn't the same 7 and the same 2. White and Rehnquist dissented in Roe; Stewart and Rehnquist dissented in Gomez. This means White would have been inexplicably participating in a conspiracy to protect a decision with which he dissented, and Stewart refused to do so. Only Rehnquist remained firm, although he inexplicably failed to ever mention the conspiracy in dissent in Gomez. This makes the moon hoax look plausible by comparison.

Secondly, just because one perceives an apparent conflict in the law doesn't mean there is one. Me, for example, I think that the fact that you can vote or die in a war at 18 but you can't drink a beer until you're 21 is stupid and the laws are conflicting. That's not a legal argument, however, and if I tried to take it to court couched in those terms it would get dismissed so fast I'd get the dizzies. They seem to be in conflict and offend my sense of equity but actually deal with different areas of the law, different state and federal issues, etc.

It's the same with Roe and Gomez. They may offend your sense of fairness, but legally, they aren't in conflict. They deal with different areas of the law. Any constitutional scholar and any constitutional law hornbook will tell you the same thing. At least six lawyers posting to this thread [note: refers to original thread] are telling you the same thing, and they aren't in the habit of agreeing with each other. Rather, they are paid to do the opposite, and having to all be in agreement irritates them like an hour they can't bill. It has nothing to do with ideology. Those two decisions just plain deal with different areas of the law.

John Mace
01-22-2004, 04:48 PM
And then, maybe it's not "the exact same OP".

Y'all can stop wasting time and energy searching for evidence of plagarism. Ain't none.

Now, how 'bout addressing the OP?

I said nothing about plagiarism. Just repetition.

Can you explain what debate you are starting with the OP of this thread that wasn't started in the other thread of the same title? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=176793)

Cheesesteak
01-22-2004, 04:49 PM
If you really don't want children, you need to take responsibility for birth control.how about the way it's always been... if a guy wants to avoid conceiving a child outside of marriage, he should reserve sex for marriage, or get a vasectomy. In the past, these statements applied to the ladies as well, back before women had choice. It was bullshit then, and it's bullshit now. Today, women have choice, men still do not. I agree with Kalhoun on this it's not fair, but it's more fair than giving the "non-custodial" parent control over what happens.

pervert, if abortions were as safe and easy as a haircut, would it make robertligouri's idea ok?

pervert
01-22-2004, 05:06 PM
pervert, if abortions were as safe and easy as a haircut, would it make robertligouri's idea ok?No, its not really about fairness. The position which holds that men should be afforded an "out" during early pregnancy because women are is entirely flawed. Women have more control over the early stages of a baby because of the biological necessities involved. Claiming a right to back out is similar to claiming a right to impose a diet, medicine, or other growth benifits on the mother to support the fetus. Males do not have the right to impose either choice on the female because we do not have the biological investment to back them up.

What I am saying is that a plea for a back door for men is quite silly on its face. I was proposing an equally silly means to equal the scales so to speak.

Razorsharp
01-22-2004, 05:08 PM
I said nothing about plagiarism. Just repetition.

Can you explain what debate you are starting with the OP of this thread that wasn't started in the other thread of the same title? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=176793)No, you did accuse me of plagarism in the first posting of RWDLS. Now, here, almost a year later there are others digging for evidence of plagarism. What's the deal with that? (Actually, I take it as a compliment.)

Ain't startin' nuthin' different, just making it an annual event. You got a problem with that? Evidently so, otherwise you wouldn't be bringin' it up.

So, what is the problem?

pravnik
01-22-2004, 05:49 PM
You asked for a legal analysis, Razorsharp. I gave you one. Any comment?

Mtgman
01-22-2004, 05:53 PM
Well, perhaps you would like to give us a little of your "legal analysis" and we'll see if it holds up or not.

Talk's cheap.You didn't seem to learn from the analysis the first time around, so why waste breath again? Bottom line, same as lin the ast thread, they are different issues. They don't conflict. No conspiracy was necessary to hide the nonexistant conflict.Ain't startin' nuthin' different, just making it an annual event. You got a problem with that? Evidently so, otherwise you wouldn't be bringin' it up.

So, what is the problem?Well, it's a waste of time and is highly annoying. Akin to the same person asking the same GQ over and over after they've been given an answer they simply refuse to accept but is perfectly correct.Secondly, just because one perceives an apparent conflict in the law doesn't mean there is one. Me, for example, I think that the fact that you can vote or die in a war at 18 but you can't drink a beer until you're 21 is stupid and the laws are conflicting. That's not a legal argument, however, and if I tried to take it to court couched in those terms it would get dismissed so fast I'd get the dizzies. They seem to be in conflict and offend my sense of equity but actually deal with different areas of the law, different state and federal issues, etc.Showing a military ID at a beer store allows an 18 year-old to buy beer in my area. Not sure if this varies state to state or not. Basically they waive the 21+ rule if you've got a drill sargeant who will kick your ass if you get drunk and fuck up.(By the way, I love the way you re-posted your exact post from the previous thread debunking the conflict between Gomez and Roe. I guess if Razorsharp is going to recycle bunk then it is fair enough for us to recycle debunking. Odds are the mods won't stand for it for very long though.)

Enjoy,
Steven

pravnik
01-22-2004, 06:02 PM
Well, he claims to have revamped it for 2004, so maybe it'll fly. They used to do the same with kids from the Air Force Base with military ID's here, but here it was basically just looking the other way. The TABC (Texas Alcoholoic Beverage Comission) eventually clamped down on it.

John Mace
01-22-2004, 06:43 PM
Ain't startin' nuthin' different, just making it an annual event. You got a problem with that? Evidently so, otherwise you wouldn't be bringin' it up.

So, what is the problem?

I'll let the mods decide. Enjoy.

Cheesesteak
01-22-2004, 07:20 PM
What I am saying is that a plea for a back door for men is quite silly on its face.I don't think it's a silly idea at all. Impossible to implement, perhaps, but not silly. Imagine a situation where the man doesn't want the child, and neither the woman nor child would be harmed in the slightest if he was completely out of the picture. In such a case, wouldn't it be just fine if he was allowed to decide for himself if he wanted that responsibility?

It's the fact that the vast majority of women and children are hurt by absentee fathers that allows us to force men to be financially responsible for their progeny.

Mtgman
01-22-2004, 07:42 PM
Well, he claims to have revamped it for 2004, so maybe it'll fly. They used to do the same with kids from the Air Force Base with military ID's here, but here it was basically just looking the other way. The TABC (Texas Alcoholoic Beverage Comission) eventually clamped down on it.Well, it is certainly longer than last time. Doesn't seem any more coherent or valid though. Remarkable how an issue so focused on the judiciary still fails to cite a single case.

I'm in Texas, and I remember an older senior in high school who signed up for the military right out of school being able to buy beer with his military ID. I thought it was legit. Guess it could have been a case of a shopkeep looking the other way. I never investigated the actual laws. We were just impressed that there was someone we could send on a beer run without him bringing cops back with him.

Enjoy,
Steven

minty green
01-22-2004, 08:36 PM
I refer the gentle reader to my comments the last time the OP posted his little screed: "As you 'will not be bothered' to provide any authority for your legal claims, I hope you will understand that I will no longer be bothered to feed you."

I regard that as excellent advice for anyone who thinks that a rational discussion might occur here.

vanilla
01-22-2004, 08:37 PM
I agree with ggurl.
Guys, you don't want a baby, don't have sex.
You know the risks ahead of time.
Irresponsible I say!

I have been with not very many men, but only one was intelligent enough to use a condom.
A woman should discuss this with a man before they have sex, that what she would do (keep or abort) if she got pregnant, then he will be more informed and make choices accordingly.

pervert
01-22-2004, 09:52 PM
Imagine a situation where the man doesn't want the child, and neither the woman nor child would be harmed in the slightest if he was completely out of the picture.And if I could shoot monkeys out of .......

Certainly there will be cases on the fringe where a father's (or mother's for that matter) involvement in a particular child's life will not produce any detrimental effects. There are even cases where such involvement constitutes a danger to the child. But these cases are so far out of the ordinary case that it should require extraordinary evidence to demonstrate that it is true in a particular case. Absent such evidence, the father's (and mother's) responsibility to the child is pretty clear.

The point of this discussion, apart from Razorsharp's reposting of an old OP, is whether or not the females ability to choose to abort the pregnancy during the first few months requires that the male be allowed a similar back door. This is the argument that I find silly. That a females overly individual control over the fetus is somehow unfair to the male. Its like saying that gravity is unfair to fat people.

furt
01-22-2004, 09:55 PM
Guys, you don't want a baby, don't have sex.
You know the risks ahead of time.How is this any more reasonable from just saying "Girls, you don't want a baby, don't have sex"

A woman should discuss this with a man before they have sex, that what she would do (keep or abort) if she got pregnant, then he will be more informed and make choices accordingly.What if she lies or changes her mind?

Diogenes the Cynic
01-22-2004, 11:59 PM
What if she lies or changes her mind?
Too fucking bad. It's still her body, her choice. Men are responsible for their own semen. Wear a damn rubber.

As to the OP, there are a couple of major problems with giving the man any say over a woman's prgnancy.

1.) How do you prove that any given man is really the father? What if the woman says, "he ain't the daddy?" How do you prove her wrong?

2.) If there is a tie, how do you break it? Obviously, the woman has an immediate, physical stake in the matter that the man does not.

Ludovic
01-23-2004, 12:26 AM
I would say that , if the non-custodial parent wanted the child/ren in question, that 25% of their take-home pay is unduly harsh, considering the relative lack of contact with their children. I would imagine that there are about as many people involuntarily kept from their children as there are people who receive nothing in child support.

That said, in many instances 25% of take-home pay is approximately accurate for the cost to raise a child, depending on circumstances. However, this appears to be in the high region of acceptability, especially since the custodial parent is more involved in the child-rearing.

With regards to abortions, I have often thought that if the male biological parent did not wish to have the child, that he would not have to pay support if the female did not get an abortion. I still believe that something like that should go into effect. Perhaps, a lesser amount of support in return for not having any visitation rights at all.

That said, I would think that , relatively speaking, a large number of males are the exception to these thoughts. I.e. they don't particularly care about the children they sire, and will do anything to avoid both contact and payments. However, why punish those who do (often with the double whammy of payments much more than 25% along with malicious denial of visitation,) and use as an excuse those who don't care enough to even spend a cent. They are not the same persons.

duffer
01-23-2004, 01:00 AM
Wow, I never get tired of how abortion debates inevitably (sp?) devolve into a dick-waving vagina-monologue, he-said she-said. Thank God nobody ever thinks that at one point we, too, were all fetuses. It really is quite heartwarming.

Caveat: There are a few on these boards I can't vouch for as being actual fetuses in the past. Like the matter just before the Big Bang, they were just magically here. ;)

IWLN
01-23-2004, 01:03 AM
Whining about a law that you knew about "going in", is a particularly stupid thing to do. Sex is optional, child support is not. Your choice. Having to pay 25% is about the child, who had no choice in the matter. S/he deserves to be supported in a similar manner as s/he would have if it's parents were more responsible. It is not a punishment. It is the child's right. Visitation is also controlled by law and your failure to use the system to secure your rights is not a valid excuse for not supporting your own child. If a father decides he's not interested in visitation, how does this lessen the financial needs of a child? Hey kid, dad's not interested in you, so you'll have to skip school clothes this year.:rolleyes: The custodial parent, besides providing for half of the support for the child does a hell of a lot of work, raising your child. Perhaps she should be compensated for doing the major share of the care, say another 10%. The whiners need to understand that once you have a child, which btw is entirely in your control, your needs come second, like it or not. There is no solution that is equally fair to both parents, but this is one that attempts to be as fair as possible to the child.

Zoe
01-23-2004, 02:05 AM
Fear itself: ...and would be considerd plagiarism by any high school english teacher.

The first thing this English teacher noticed was the change in writing style. Razor Sharp's posts are not particularly literate, stylistically persuasive or legalistic. The OP is (with some exceptions) -- even though I disagree strongly with the premise(s).

Razor Sharp: Talk's cheap.

Especially when the ideas and basic wording are not one's own:

http://www.collegiatetimes.com/newsadmin/printable.php?ID=328

The above post was written by David Roberts. The following snipet serves as a comparison:

Rather than the Court protecting the American ideals of “equal justice under the law,” as inscribed on the portico of the Court building itself, the Court may have engaged in something more along the lines of the sinister.

Razor Sharp's post:

...the Supreme Court, in reaching its decision in "Roe", appeared to abandon the ideal of “Equal Justice Under the Law”, as inscribed on the portico of the Supreme Court building itself, and instead, handed down a decision that was more closely akin to the tyranny of "rule by decree".

That's just one tiny section that has been reworded. Although I find David Roberts's version to be the better version and more in keeping with American traditions of acceptable usage, who knows what the original was like?

But because Razor Sharp's ensuing posts have not at all matched the style of the OP, I will never be convinced that he was the originator.

elfkin477
01-23-2004, 02:08 AM
How is this any more reasonable from just saying "Girls, you don't want a baby, don't have sex"


While it's not more reasonable, it's as reasonable; if you want 100% certainties, there it is as unappealing as it might be- it works equally well for the boys and the girls. It's rather unfortunate that the slogan "Don't want kids? Then don't fuck" just isn't very catchy.

Zoe
01-23-2004, 02:18 AM
Perhaps I should add that the David Roberts posted his verstion prior to Razor Sharp's logging on at Straight Dope.

BlackKnight
01-23-2004, 03:46 AM
It's still her body, her choice.
Why not, "Her body, her responsibility"?

There is a thread in GQ currently where it has been shown that there have been at least one case where a man was raped and then forced to pay child support. I'm curious what others think of this.

I think that it's an obvious injustice. Yet, if we assume that the child has an absolute right to being supported by both biological parents, it would seem to be perfectly just.

Cheesesteak
01-23-2004, 06:57 AM
How is this any more reasonable from just saying "Girls, you don't want a baby, don't have sex"While it's not more reasonable, it's as reasonable; Which really means not reasonable at all, since people fought long and hard to ensure that this is no longer the case with women. All this parrotting of that nonsense makes me want to bring everyone back pre-Roe v Wade so they can see just how good an argument it really is. You're all horrified if women are forced to deal with the consequences of unprotected/underprotected sex, but act like it's no big thing if men are forced the same way.

pervert, I was really just thinking about a hypothetical situation, to illustrate that the concept of an out for men isn't silly, it's just not realistic.

Razorsharp
01-23-2004, 08:57 AM
Perhaps I should add that the David Roberts posted his verstion prior to Razor Sharp's logging on at Straight Dope.So, what's your point? There is life outside of "Straight Dope".

pervert
01-23-2004, 09:02 AM
Which really means not reasonable at all, since people fought long and hard to ensure that this is no longer the case with women.But this is not the case. Roe V Wade extended the time during which the women have to make the final decision. It did NOT eliminate the decision. Women have this extension while men do not, because they have biological possesion of the fetus during the period when it is not viable. Or, as the Supreme Court said, during the period before the state had a reasonable interest in the child. Men and women have equal control over the genetic material needed to create a child before it becomes a child. However, once this material becomes fused with the female's it is completely in the female's control. This is not some sinister legal conflict. It is simply the facts of biology. It may seem unfair in some bizaarro world of fairness. But in the real world it is simply the facts of reality. Neither fair nor unfair.

Blacknight"Why not, "Her body, her responsibility"?" is exactly the situation right now. The only thing we are arguing about is whether shared responsibility is appropriate. That is, "Their sex, their responsibility." I'm sure that everyone here would agree that anyone who gets pregnant, male or female, by having sex with themselves would not have any financial claim on anyone else.

Diogenes the Cynic
01-23-2004, 09:02 AM
Why not, "Her body, her responsibility"?

There is a thread in GQ currently where it has been shown that there have been at least one case where a man was raped and then forced to pay child support. I'm curious what others think of this.

I think that it's an obvious injustice. Yet, if we assume that the child has an absolute right to being supported by both biological parents, it would seem to be perfectly just.
How is choice in conflict with responsibility? I don't buy the "raped" man story, btw. How is that possible?
You're all horrified if women are forced to deal with the consequences of unprotected/underprotected sex, but act like it's no big thing if men are forced the same way
No, we object to the government making choices over women's reproductive rights. Choosing an abortion is dealing with the consequences. If she chooses to have the kid, though. The kid is entitled to support by both parents. It's not about "punishing" the man, it's about the rights of the innocent child. Men have control over what they stick their dicks in and I have no sympathy at all for deadbeat dads. I actually think we need much harsher laws for collecting from those swine.

Kimstu
01-23-2004, 09:08 AM
BK: Why not, "Her body, her responsibility"?

Because according to the law, an early-term fetus is not a child, and so a woman does not have a legal responsibility to carry it to term if she doesn't want to.

There is a thread in GQ currently where it has been shown that there have been at least one case where a man was raped and then forced to pay child support. I'm curious what others think of this.

I, for one, think it's horribly unfair; yet as others have pointed out, the man's entitled to press criminal charges against the rapist and also sue her. This is exactly the same approach that a woman is entitled to use against a rapist who impregnates her, by the way (which happens far more often).

I think that it's an obvious injustice. Yet, if we assume that the child has an absolute right to being supported by both biological parents, it would seem to be perfectly just.

The law usually does hold both biological parents responsible for the child's support, unless they jointly give the child up for adoption. And there are plenty of cases where the courts have forced absentee or "deadbeat" mothers to pay child support.

But as I said, the law holds that a fetus is not a child. Once the child is born, both mother and father are held responsible for its support. That's fair. During pregnancy, the decision to terminate or continue the pregnancy, as well as the costs and risks associated with that decision, rests solely with the woman. That's fair too, because it's her body.

So to sum up the division of rights and responsibilities from sex to parenthood:

1) Deciding whether have sex and thereby incur risk of conceiving fetus: shared right/responsibility for man and woman.

2) Deciding whether to abort conceived embryo/fetus or bear it to term: right/responsibility rests solely with the woman, since it's her body. Her pregnancy has no biological or medical impact on the man, so he has no say in whether to terminate it. Likewise, he bears no legal responsibility for its costs or risks.

3) Deciding whether to keep born child or give it up for adoption: shared right/responsibility for man and woman.

4) Supporting child if both parents do not agree to relinquish it for adoption: shared right/responsibility for man and woman.

So there is nothing unequal about the division of rights and responsibilities in sex or parenting. There is a legal imbalance when it comes to pregnancy, but that's because there's a biological imbalance: men don't get pregnant.

So the "it's not fair that men have to support an unwanted child, because women don't have to carry to term an unwanted fetus" argument is fallacious. Supporting an unwanted child (which plenty of women have to do, if they can't obtain an abortion or change their minds about it too late) is not analogous to continuing an unwanted pregnancy. Sex and parenthood are shared responsibilities; pregnancy is not. Yup, pregnancy is where a woman gets to decide (if she's lucky) whether the end result of the sex will be parenthood, but that's because she's the pregnant one. Blame biology for that unfairness, not women or the courts.

That reasoning is not invalidated by the fact that some women trick men into impregnating them, or conceal pregnancies from them, or any other kind of illegal or dishonest behavior. Neither is a woman's responsibility to support her child invalidated if the father deceived or lied to her.

That said, personally, I do feel that a woman has a moral obligation not to require financial support from the biological father if he has consistently made it clear that he doesn't want a child. I personally would never consider it acceptable to con or coerce a guy into child support against his will, and I hope all men will avoid sex with women who would do such a thing. However, the law's objective here is to ensure adequate support for children, who certainly are not to blame for the circumstances of their conception and birth. So I think it's quite reasonable, from a legal standpoint, to say that once the child is born, if both parents don't agree to let someone else adopt it, both parents are on the hook to support it financially, no matter whether or not they want to.

Razorsharp
01-23-2004, 09:13 AM
I guess if you're going to bring this up again, I'll repost my old refutations of it.First of all, when one "refutes" something, they PROVE it to be erroneous. You, like myself, have provided no proof, only conjecture.Gomez didn't hold that illegitimate children had a right to child support. There's no such thing as a constitutional right to child support; Gomez didn't hold that there was. It held that illegitimate children couldn't be treated differently from legitimate children unless the government could demonstrate an important state interest, and show that the law was substantially related to achieving that interest.Oh really? People cannot be treated differently unless it is in the state's interest? That may be acceptable in the socialist climate of certain Europeon nations, but in America, the concept of individual freedom and liberty is supposed to be paramount.In other words, they have a right to equal protection of the laws. The fact that it had to do with child support is tangiental; the same law applies if Texas wants to make illegitimate children attend segregated schools, use different water fountains, etc.You're way off base with your "segregated schools" and "water fountains" analogy. Those woud have been actions directly taken be the state. Requiring a married couple to continue supporting their children is not. Here's why.

The institution of marriage existed long before the state of Texas or any Texas state law.

A child born within the institution of marriage was automatically a party to that marriage contract and had two parents.

A child born outside the institution of marriage only had one parent and was not a member of a marital contract.

Then came the state of Texas.

Texas law recognized the institution of marriage and had to deal with the issue of divorce.

Children born within a marriage were privileged to certain benefits that children born outside of marriage did not have. This had nothing to do with the Texas state legislature. Texas law dealing with the issue of divorce did NOT create a special provision for children classified as "legitimate", the Texas legislature only extended provisions that already existed for those children.

Texas law did not create two seperate classes of people, the two classes already existed independent of and prior to Texas law.

The issue of "equal protection" in Gomez, like the issue of "privacy" in Roe, was just the tool used to facilitate the "agenda".
Both "Roe" and "Gomez" are classic examples of courts perverting law to legislate from the bench.

The politics of feminism was in high-gear during the Supreme Court sessions of 1972 - 73, and being sympathetic to the feminist agenda, the Court agreed to hear Roe vs. Wade under the pretext of a violation of an individual's "right of privacy".

Now certainly, "privacy" is penumbral to the Constitution, but "privacy" was not really being addressed in Roe, it was just the pretext used to petition the Court to hear the case. The Court accepted the pretext to satisfy the politics of feminism.

The real issue was that the State of Texas had a law that forbade a particular medical proceedure. This law was not a violation of anyone's "right to privacy" anymore than a state's law against gambling is not an infringement of one's right to privately spend their own money as they see fit.

Furthermore, the fact that a second party must be enlisted to perform the proceedure negates the concept of "privacy".

The Court prostituted itself to an agenda in agreeing to hear "Roe" under the pretext of a "privacy" issue, and prostituted itself again in agreeing to hear "Gomez" under the pretext of a "equal protection" issue.

The dissenting justices argued that the case should have been dismissed on jurisdictional grounds and didn't reach the merits.And that's just what I am doing.So basically, the OP posits:

1. The Supreme Court conspired to delay the Gomez decision because

2. It would have undermined their decision in Roe.

They didn't, and it doesn't.I admit, my conjecture that the Court monkeyed with the docket to facilitate conflicting decisions is just that, conjecture. Conjecture based on evidence. Circumstancial evidence, but evidence nonetheless. But let's put that aside for a moment, as it is only secondary to the issue at hand.

You say there is no conflict, I say there is. In "Roe", the Court essientially ruled that a woman's pregnancy was her "private" concern. How then, can it be reconciled, that an individual can be held financially responsible for a "private" concern of a second party?

E-Sabbath
01-23-2004, 09:19 AM
Compelling State Interest:

This Person is a convicted murderer. The State has a compelling interest to keep him in jail.

(Sadly) These people are all Japanese. The State thinks it has a compelling interest to put them in internment camps.

This Person is schizophrenic. The State has a compelling interest to order him to take his medication.

Ludovic
01-23-2004, 09:28 AM
S/he deserves to be supported in a similar manner as s/he would have if it's parents were more responsible. It is not a punishment. It is the child's right.Why? I certainly was not unhappier as a child, lacking in material things. (I was unhappy, but for other reasons.) I don't think that today's go-go materialistic suburban lifestyle makes kids any happier.
Visitation is also controlled by law and your failure to use the system to secure your rights is not a valid excuse for not supporting your own child.Support is also controlled by law and your failure to use the system to secure your rights is not a valid excuse for not giving the father visitation rights.

If a father decides he's not interested in visitation, how does this lessen the financial needs of a child? Hey kid, dad's not interested in you, so you'll have to skip school clothes this year.:rolleyes:There is a limited amount of resources in this country. Why should the NCP be required to compete with his/her dollars for these limited resources for a child that is no more than a stranger? If a solid middle class NCP provides less than 25% of take home pay to their child, by the law of supply and demand the price of these limited resources will tend to go down, thus providing an opportunity for clothes, education, etc. to the truly needy.
Don't get me wrong, I want an ideal solution, too, I just cannot see how having better than necessary clothes, food, shelter, and education is a right, when many children not blessed to be born in a family with a decent income cannot have these.

And I have been trying for awhile (even before this thread) to tie it to the abortion issue, but that it even a trickier subject, since it involves the appearance of control over another's biology. While I can propose solutions to the problem of support after the fact of birth, I haven't been able to find one that is even acceptable to me when the abortion issue is thrown in.

The custodial parent, besides providing for half of the support for the child does a hell of a lot of work, raising your child. Perhaps she should be compensated for doing the major share of the care, say another 10%.Yeah, there is no perfect solution, since some parents actively want more custody, whereas others want less (at least to the extent that it is a lot of work). Morally, certainly parents who take more of the "burden" of child-rearing while the other parent does not care about their child deserve more compensation, but how can you tell who is taking on the burden portion involuntarily and who is dominating the custody of the child out of jealousy?There is no solution that is equally fair to both parents, but this is one that attempts to be as fair as possible to the child.
I would agree with this statement, with the caveat that it can do better in its attempt, in making sure that in being as fair as possible to the child, that it is not being unfair to the NCP.

JRDelirious
01-23-2004, 09:34 AM
Er, then there's the possibility Razorsharp may actually be David Roberts. The stylistic differences between board posts and articles may be the result of the articles benefitting from more time for editing/rewrite/looking up sources (I know the stuff I write for my Real Job is much more polished than my SDMB material).

Of course, that in itself does nothing for or against the substance of his position, nor makes it in any way less of a bloody annoyance his apparent intention to bring up the exact same (or virtually exact same) issue yearly, apparently just for the sake of doing so. But this not being the English Comp course, recycling a paper does not in and of itself mandate immediate dismissal. From the earlier thread and this one I have seen adequate enough refutations and counter-arguments so I'll just remit to the record as to whether, OTOH, simply reiterating his position over and over and over constitutes any real way of advancing it.

Kalhoun
01-23-2004, 12:51 PM
Does Razorsharp have a stake in this issue? I tend to think he must or he wouldn't bring it up every year. (But I could be wrong...)

Kalhoun
01-23-2004, 12:54 PM
Do parents with joint custody (where the kid lives at both homes) pay child support? I've never known anyone with that set-up, but it seems to be the logical way to avoid cutting that check every week.

Hamlet
01-23-2004, 01:07 PM
[QUOTE=Kimstu]So to sum up the division of rights and responsibilities from sex to parenthood:

1) Deciding whether have sex and thereby incur risk of conceiving fetus: shared right/responsibility for man and woman.

2) Deciding whether to abort conceived embryo/fetus or bear it to term: right/responsibility rests solely with the woman, since it's her body. Her pregnancy has no biological or medical impact on the man, so he has no say in whether to terminate it. Likewise, he bears no legal responsibility for its costs or risks.

3) Deciding whether to keep born child or give it up for adoption: shared right/responsibility for man and woman.

4) Supporting child if both parents do not agree to relinquish it for adoption: shared right/responsibility for man and woman.

So there is nothing unequal about the division of rights and responsibilities in sex or parenting. There is a legal imbalance when it comes to pregnancy, but that's because there's a biological imbalance: men don't get pregnant.

So the "it's not fair that men have to support an unwanted child, because women don't have to carry to term an unwanted fetus" argument is fallacious. Supporting an unwanted child (which plenty of women have to do, if they can't obtain an abortion or change their minds about it too late) is not analogous to continuing an unwanted pregnancy. Sex and parenthood are shared responsibilities; pregnancy is not. Yup, pregnancy is where a woman gets to decide (if she's lucky) whether the end result of the sex will be parenthood, but that's because she's the pregnant one. Blame biology for that unfairness, not women or the courts.

That reasoning is not invalidated by the fact that some women trick men into impregnating them, or conceal pregnancies from them, or any other kind of illegal or dishonest behavior. Neither is a woman's responsibility to support her child invalidated if the father deceived or lied to her.
QUOTE]Well said.

Hamlet
01-23-2004, 01:10 PM
I'll give a shiny, new quarter to the first moderator to fix my coding error. :)

Mtgman
01-23-2004, 01:29 PM
You say there is no conflict, I say there is. In "Roe", the Court essientially ruled that a woman's pregnancy was her "private" concern. How then, can it be reconciled, that an individual can be held financially responsible for a "private" concern of a second party?For anyone who may be reading this thread who didn't read the first one. The Duty of Child Support flows from the CHILD, not from the PREGNANCY. Once the child is born, that child has a right to receive support from his/her biological parents or others who have explicitly taken on that responsibility(as in the case of adoption). Once the child is born it is no longer a private concern of another party. This is a new, and helpless, citizen of our society.

Until such time, and after abortion cut-off timeframes(first trimester in my area at least), how to deal with the pregnancy is indeed the perogative of the woman as a consequence of her having a right to seek personal medical services in private with only the doctor-patient relationship involved. If the woman does not choose to terminate the pregnancy then it proceeds as is natural and both parties share in the responsibility for pre-natal care, birth and delivery, and post-natal care.

I think it bears repeating, so I'm re-posting a section of one of my previous comments on this topic. It is very similar to [b]Kimstu's[/i] prior post, but I originally made mine almost a year ago :)Do we, as a society under the rule of law, wish to seperate the act of sex from its potential biological consequences? Right now the laws have been written in a way that does NOT make this seperation. There is no official "opt out". For BOTH parties the decision to have sex is the same as the decision to accept the consequences of pregnancy, should it occur. This is the position of the law.

Now, Razorsharp, and some others have argued that legal, safe, elective abortions have put an unofficial(although they insist it was official[and have developed complex conspiracy theories to support this view], I contend they just misunderstand the intent behind the law) "opt out" into the process for the woman. The point they're missing is that abortions were NOT made legal so women could "opt out" of the consequenses of sex. Abortions were made legal so a woman could retain her autonomy. Her right to be sovreign in her own body. This sovreignty can ONLY be challenged if exercise thereof would cause harm to another being. The courts have decided that protection of law does not extend to the unborn(the piece I disagree with), so a woman has a choice, thanks to her biology giving her control over the biological process of pregnancy in the post-sex, pre-birth timeframe. This choice does NOT exist to give the woman an "opt out" of parenthood. This is a side effect of the greater goal of giving the woman sovreignty over her body.

So now people are claiming that there is an imbalance. Women have an "opt out", an implicit one, under the law and men have no such thing. A decision needs to be made. Are we, as a society under the rule of law, going to divorce sex from its biological consequenses of parenthood? If so, then both parties need an explicit "opt out". If not, then something needs to be done to educate the population to understand that a woman's ability to get a legal elective abortion is not an "opt out". It is a side effect of a right she has always posessed combined with the nature of human reproduction having the woman as the carrier of the child.Enjoy,
Steven

Mtgman
01-23-2004, 02:16 PM
2) Deciding whether to abort conceived embryo/fetus or bear it to term: right/responsibility rests solely with the woman, since it's her body. Her pregnancy has no biological or medical impact on the man, so he has no say in whether to terminate it. Likewise, he bears no legal responsibility for its costs or risks.It should be noted that some jurisdictions, such as the state of Mississippi (http://www.mscode.com/archives/1999/93/011/0103.htm), allow collection of support monies for expenses related to prenatal, delivery, and postnatal care and other pregnancy-related expenses. * * * All * * * orders for withholding may permit the Department of Human Services to withhold through said withholding order additional amounts to recover costs incurred through its efforts to secure the support order, including, but not limited to, all filing fees, court costs, service of process fees, mailing costs, birth certificate certification fee, genetic testing fees, the department's attorney's fees; and, in cases where the state or any of its entities or divisions have provided medical services to the child or the child's mother, all medical costs of prenatal care, birthing, postnatal care and any other medical expenses incurred by the child or by the mother as a consequence of her pregnancy or delivery. Enjoy,
Steven

pravnik
01-23-2004, 03:26 PM
First of all, when one "refutes" something, they PROVE it to be erroneous. You, like myself, have provided no proof, only conjecture.

Well, I guess if citing the law doesn't count as "proof", I haven't.

Oh really? People cannot be treated differently unless it is in the state's interest? That may be acceptable in the socialist climate of certain Europeon nations, but in America, the concept of individual freedom and liberty is supposed to be paramount.

This belies a misunderstanding of the purpose and history of the Equal Protection clause. All laws treat different classes of people differently. All of them. Tax laws treat different professions differently. Laws against homicide treat murderers differently than non-murderers. The Equal Protection clause guarantees that the govenrment can't treat different classes of people differently in an arbitrary manner and for no legitiamate reason, and a long series of cases sets out guidelines for what can and what can't be done.

You're way off base with your "segregated schools" and "water fountains" analogy. Those woud have been actions directly taken be the state. Requiring a married couple to continue supporting their children is not.

It's not an analogy; those are Equal Protection issues. I and every federal judge who ever sat on the bench fail to see how a law passed by the state is not a state action. That's the very essensce of a state action. Arguing that it isn't is like arguing that night is day.

Here's why.

The institution of marriage existed long before the state of Texas or any Texas state law.

A child born within the institution of marriage was automatically a party to that marriage contract and had two parents.

A child born outside the institution of marriage only had one parent and was not a member of a marital contract.

Then came the state of Texas.

Texas law recognized the institution of marriage and had to deal with the issue of divorce.

Children born within a marriage were privileged to certain benefits that children born outside of marriage did not have. This had nothing to do with the Texas state legislature. Texas law dealing with the issue of divorce did NOT create a special provision for children classified as "legitimate", the Texas legislature only extended provisions that already existed for those children.

You provide no legal authority for your assertions, which is crucial to making a legal argument. Your failure to include any is fatal to your argument. Accepting that you're assertions are true for the sake of argument still doesn't account for the fact that state statute trumps the common law concerning contracts, and constitutional amendments trump them both. If the common law violates the Constitution it gets struck down. Why didn't the State of Texas make your argument in Gomez? Why didn't the dissenting justices? It's because there's no legal authority whatsoever to back it up.

Texas law did not create two seperate classes of people, the two classes already existed independent of and prior to Texas law.

Cite me some legal authority that states that this is a meaningful distinction. By that logic miscegenation laws don't violate the Equal Protection clause because whites and blacks existed prior to and independant of state laws.

The issue of "equal protection" in Gomez, like the issue of "privacy" in Roe, was just the tool used to facilitate the "agenda".
Both "Roe" and "Gomez" are classic examples of courts perverting law to legislate from the bench.

That's fine as far as opinions go, but it still doesn't address the fact that Roe and Gomez are unrelated cases dealing with different ares of the law, and no conspiracy whatsoever existed concerning the the timing of the decisions.

When I stated that the dissenting justices didn't reach the merits of the case but instead said that they would have dismissed on jurisdictional greounds, you said:

And that's just what I am doing.

:smack: No, it's not. You're arguing on the merits. The two dissenting justices wrote three short paragraphs explaining that since the Texas statute was not the subject of actual litigation they would have dismissed the case as unripe and not yet within their jurisdiction. They didn't reach the merits and they didn't make your argument.

I admit, my conjecture that the Court monkeyed with the docket to facilitate conflicting decisions is just that, conjecture. Conjecture based on evidence. Circumstancial evidence, but evidence nonetheless. But let's put that aside for a moment, as it is only secondary to the issue at hand.

You say there is no conflict, I say there is.

There's not even so much as a magic bullet to suggest that the court changed the docket. If there is a conspiracy among the majority justices, why aren't the majority justices the same in both cases ? Why did none of the dissenters mention the supposed conspiracy? It's not just me saying that there's no conflict, it's every legal authority in America. If there's a conflict, why has no lawyer made that argument to any court in the last thirty years?

In "Roe", the Court essientially ruled that a woman's pregnancy was her "private" concern. How then, can it be reconciled, that an individual can be held financially responsible for a "private" concern of a second party?

Once a child is born, the law doesn't care how it got there. Both parents have a statutory duty of support to the child, not just the mother, not just the father, both parents. There is no privacy issue.

BlackKnight
01-23-2004, 03:31 PM
I don't buy the "raped" man story, btw. How is that possible?
How is it not? :confused:

(Considering some of the responses here, I should say that I am not arguing what the law is. I'll leave that for the lawyers. I'm merely arguing what I believe is the proper moral stance.)

Kimstu, your first two items make perfect sense to me. What does not make sense is how a fetus, which is the sole "property" (forgive me that term, but I don't know a better one offhand) of the mother, suddenly becomes the responsibility of another person. It just seems odd that something is entirely under Person A's jurisdiction / responsibility, and then, regardless of any action taken or not taken by Person B, and depending only upon actions taken or not taken by Person A, that thing becomes Person B's responsibility as well.

Ike Witt
01-23-2004, 04:49 PM
How is it not? :confused:


So you, or somebody, is saying that one court found a woman guilty of rape\sexual assault and another court awarded her child support from her victim? That doesn't make sense. Is there any cite for this?

pravnik
01-23-2004, 04:51 PM
It just seems odd that something is entirely under Person A's jurisdiction / responsibility, and then, regardless of any action taken or not taken by Person B, and depending only upon actions taken or not taken by Person A, that thing becomes Person B's responsibility as well.

The responsibility arises from an action jointly taken by Persons A and B involving the insertion of Tab C into Slot D.

pervert
01-23-2004, 05:02 PM
What does not make sense is how a fetus, which is the sole "property" (forgive me that term, but I don't know a better one offhand) of the mother, suddenly becomes the responsibility of another person.Because you are focusing on the temporary power the female has over the child during pregnancy. The fact is that the act of sex (which results in fertalized egg[s]) confirs responsibilities on the male. The fact that the female has more power over that child during pregnancy does not change those responsibilities. Several things can happen which will make the male's responsibilities moot. Accidents, miscarriages, or abortions, for instance. But none of these things go back in time to remove the male's responsibilities. For example, I think that morally the male has a responsibility to comfort the female when any of these things occurs.

Temporary custody of the fetus grants power to the female. It does not remove any of the responsibilities inherent in fatherhood.

To address directly your property idea, you have to remember, that the property is not created from whole cloth during pregnancy. Imagine, for instance a business where 2 partners start it. If one is called away for some reason and grants complete power of attorney to the other while he is away, he cannot complain (much) when he returns and finds that he is on the hook to share some new debts.

Razorsharp
01-23-2004, 06:17 PM
Well, I guess if citing the law doesn't count as "proof", I haven't.Citing the law, when it is the law that is in question, is nothing less than a self-serving statement.

When citing the law in Roe v Wade, one cites pious legalese of a "right of privacy", when the case is absent a genuine privacy issue.All laws treat different classes of people differently. All of them. Tax laws treat different professions differently. Laws against homicide treat murderers differently than non-murderers. The Equal Protection clause guarantees that the govenrment can't treat different classes of people differently in an arbitrary manner and for no legitiamate reason, and a long series of cases sets out guidelines for what can and what can't be done.Yes, laws against homicide treat murderers differently than non-murderers, and married couples are treated different by the rules of divorce, than those who are not married. And this is where the origins of child-support are found, in divorce.

So, as one who does not commit murder should not be subject to the laws of murder, an unmarried person should not be subject to the laws of divorce.You provide no legal authority for your assertions, which is crucial to making a legal argument. Your failure to include any is fatal to your argument.Sure I do. To require an individual, not bound by contract, to be financially responsible for a private concern of a second party, violates the essence of the "rule of law". Once a child is born, the law doesn't care how it got there. Both parents have a statutory duty of support to the child, not just the mother, not just the father, both parents. There is no privacy issue.That is not true. If the mother wishes, she can refuse to name the biological father and raise "her" child alone. Or she can relinquish her child through a state sanctioned "Safe Haven" program.

It's like I have said over and over. The only time that a child's so-called "right" to support from it's biological father is recognized, is when the birth mother wants financial assistance with the "choice" that she unilaterally make.

To require a person to be responsible for the "choice" of a second party, is another violation of the "rule of law". It is a choice, isn't it?

pravnik
01-23-2004, 06:51 PM
Citing the law, when it is the law that is in question, is nothing less than a self-serving statement.

Conveniently ignoring that I cited numerous cases that back up the decision in Gomez as being in line with precedent, as well as explained the standard for Equal Protection analysis and why an Equal Protection decision cannot conflict a Due Process decision.

When citing the law in Roe v Wade, one cites pious legalese of a "right of privacy", when the case is absent a genuine privacy issue.Yes, laws against homicide treat murderers differently than non-murderers, and married couples are treated different by the rules of divorce, than those who are not married. And this is where the origins of child-support are found, in divorce. So, as one who does not commit murder should not be subject to the laws of murder, an unmarried person should not be subject to the laws of divorce.

If a statute imposes an obligation of child support on all biological parents regardless of marital status, child support can't be said to come from the "laws of divorce". Again, you have no legal authority for the assertion that the obligation of child support comes from the "marriage contract", or why that law is not subject to change by statute or constitutional amendment.

Sure I do. To require an individual, not bound by contract, to be financially responsible for a private concern of a second party, violates the essence of the "rule of law".

Are you citing to yourself? Unless you're the author of a legal treatise on the subject, that doesn't fly. Cite to relevant legal authority that backs up your assertion, please. Otherwise it's just a baseless assertion.

That is not true. If the mother wishes, she can refuse to name the biological father and raise "her" child alone. Or she can relinquish her child through a state sanctioned "Safe Haven" program.

For the millionth time, that is not the law, and a woman cannot unilaterally legally terminate a father's parental rights. She cannot give the child up for adoption without his permission if he asserts his rights over the child. She cannot terminate his rights by abandoning the child. She cannot prevent the father from seeing the child or trying to get custody of the child. If she does not want the child and wants to give it up for adoption, the father may take custody and get child support from her. She cannot raise the child alone with the father completely out of the child's life if the father wants to assert his parental rights over the child.

catsix
01-23-2004, 07:54 PM
pravnik said:
For the millionth time, that is not the law, and a woman cannot unilaterally legally terminate a father's parental rights. She cannot give the child up for adoption without his permission if he asserts his rights over the child. She cannot terminate his rights by abandoning the child. She cannot prevent the father from seeing the child or trying to get custody of the child. If she does not want the child and wants to give it up for adoption, the father may take custody and get child support from her.

Incorrect.

Forty two states have "safe haven" laws allowing a person to drop off a newborn infant at a specified location, some of them completely anonymously, such as Washington, Pennsylvania, California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Kansas, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, West Virginia, Maryland, Ohio, New York, and Rhode Island.

All of these states list, via the web, that they are 'Safe Haven' states and specifically state either "No questions asked." or "You do not have to give your name."

Very possible for a woman or girl to give away a baby without even the knowledge of the father.

Map and links to laws available at http://www.safeplacefornewborns.org

pervert
01-23-2004, 09:14 PM
pravnik said:"For the millionth time, that is not the law"
Incorrect.

Forty two states have "safe haven" laws ...Which does not change the fact that both parents have responsibilities towards the child. Especially when you take into account that either parent (or a third party for that matter) could take advantage of such laws.

The only time that a child's so-called "right" to support from it's biological father is recognized, is when the birth mother wants financial assistance with the "choice" that she unilaterally make. This is not true either. The only time that the right to support from either parent is recognized is when they volunteer to do so or are compelled to do so by the other parent. Males have responsibilities and rights associated with parenthood. So do females. Mostly those are the same rights and responsibilities. They differ slightly in the very early stages of development. The differences are due almost exclusively to the biological facts of said development. There is NO legal quandry at all.

vanilla
01-23-2004, 09:54 PM
How is this any more reasonable from just saying "Girls, you don't want a baby, don't have sex"


Its equal. I agree with that too, women, don't have se unless you want a baby you may have to raise alone.

catsix
01-24-2004, 01:08 PM
pervert said:
Which does not change the fact that both parents have responsibilities towards the child. Especially when you take into account that either parent (or a third party for that matter) could take advantage of such laws.

Oh but it does make into bullshit the claim that the mother cannot unilaterally give the kid up without the father's consent or even without his knowledge. The claim that the only time she has the ability to take unilateral control is during pregnancy and not after the baby is born is a blatant falsehood. In any one of the thirty states on that list she can walk up to a hospital, fire station or police station anywhere from 3 to 30 days after the birth of the baby and hand it over without any legal requirement to give any information at all - including her name. She never has to tell the father where she dropped the kid off, and the hospital, fire station or police station certainly can't notify him unless they know his name (which she can't legally be compelled to give).

So, she most certainly does have the ability to usurp the father's right to custody by using the 'Save Haven' laws.

pervert
01-24-2004, 02:13 PM
So, she most certainly does have the ability to usurp the father's right to custody by using the 'Save Haven' laws.Possibly, but since the father has the same right, so to speak, there is no inherent unfairness.

I find it difficult to believe that if a father suspected his child had been delievered to a safe haven that he could not ask the state about it. I find it hard to believe that if such a father submitted to a few genetic tests his child could not be located. If I recall correctly, an extremely few children are abandoned in such a way.

Regardless, even if we were to posit a new law which allowed abortions into the 3rd year of life, we would not have a situation where it was arguable that father should be allowed to simply walk away from children they helped create. The fact of the matter is that regardless of when you cut off the option of abortion, the father most certainly did of his own free will (rape cases not withstanding) contribute to the creation of that child. He has, by that contribution, some responsibility.

Certainly we can argue whether it should be 25% of his income, or 35% or 75%. But the proposal that his responsibilities should be 0 is simply silly.

catsix
01-24-2004, 02:21 PM
You and I most definitely disagree with that.

The person who unilaterally decides to keep the child should be the one solely responsible for the financial burden of it.

minty green
01-24-2004, 02:32 PM
catsix, would you be so kind as to provide some legal authority for the extraordinary proposition that a father's legal rights to a child are terminated when a woman drops the kid off at one of those "safe havens"? Thanks ever so much.

catsix
01-24-2004, 02:37 PM
Did you visit the link?

In thirty of the states there is no way to legally compel the person dropping off the infant to give a name, meaning it would be impossible to track down the father of the child at all. Most of them also stated in their FAQs that there's a maximum of thirty days for anyone to contest the turning over of the infant, regardless of the fact that the person dropping the infant off is guaranteed privacy and told explicitly by the FAQ that they do not have to give their name or any identifying information.

Not all of the states list the actual statutes, but a couple of them do, and I found nothing in the statutes that required the person dropping off the infant to give their name, or the name of the biological parents.

pervert
01-24-2004, 02:39 PM
The person who unilaterally decides to keep the child should be the one solely responsible for the financial burden of it.Clearly we disagree. But note that you have to use the word "keep". The mother does not go off into the woods and produce the child without any voluntary input from the father. She only has temporary unilateral control over the child. You feel that this temporary situation somehow negates the father's responsibilities. I have yet to see any argument which makes this sound reasonable.

No offense. It is just that the argument seems silly to me.

Consider again, my business analogy. If two partners start a business and one of them is called away, the second partner has sole control of the business while the first is away. They may have talked about and agreed on what should be done. But while the first partner is away, everyone will listen and do what the second partner wants. If she decides to sell off the most valuable assets, the first partner may not have any legal recourse to get them back when he returns. If she decides to borrow more money than they can pay back, he may be stuck with his share of the debt.

Of course, businesses can be set up on a contractual basis as "limited" partnerships (I know Limited Partnerships have a distinct legal meaning, I'm simply talking about contractual limitations not normal to the common understanding of a partnership). That is, they could agree in writing beforehand that neither partner can borrow more than a certain amount. In which case, the first partner might have good legal recourse.

However, the principle still holds. Unless you can establish a partnership which limits the power of the second partner, you do not have the right to back out of the partnership later. Just like she does not have the right to force you out if here decisions result in a huge windfall. In the case of children, limiting the females power would mean finding a way to have children other than gestation inside the female's body. Do that, and I will agree that neither partner should be allowed a unilateral power over the fetus. Untill then, however,.....

catsix
01-24-2004, 03:25 PM
You can use whatever word you want in there. I think that if a person chooses to raise a child knowing that no one else wishes to share in that experience, then the financial responsibility for the child falls only on the person who chose to rasie it.

Anything else is a double standard.

pervert
01-24-2004, 04:13 PM
Anything else is a double standard.Except that the double standard is when someone chooses to create a child and then backs out of helping to raise it.

IWLN
01-24-2004, 04:14 PM
You can use whatever word you want in there. I think that if a person chooses to raise a child knowing that no one else wishes to share in that experience, then the financial responsibility for the child falls only on the person who chose to rasie it.

Anything else is a double standard.And why should the child be denied support, depending on the wishes of a parent? Child support is a right of the child and is not dependant on anything other than the fact that two people created a child and two people are responsible. Abortion is not a moral option for many people, so they actually have no choice about allowing the pregnancy to continue. I'm having a hard time figuring out why you think a child should suffer economic hardship, simply because he was allowed to be born? There is no double standard. The man and woman both conceived the child. A joint decision that both were aware, sometimes results in a child. He may not have any control over the pregnancy once it has begun, but it would not have happened, had he not allowed it to. If the father did not wish to share this experience, it was totally in his control to prevent it. Why do you think the father deserves more consideration than the child?

catsix
01-24-2004, 04:48 PM
pervert said:
Except that the double standard is when someone chooses to create a child and then backs out of helping to raise it.

Choosing to have sex is not choosing to create a child, or so that's what has been said in defense of the right to abort.

IWLN said:
And why should the child be denied support, depending on the wishes of a parent? Child support is a right of the child and is not dependant on anything other than the fact that two people created a child and two people are responsible. Abortion is not a moral option for many people, so they actually have no choice about allowing the pregnancy to continue. I'm having a hard time figuring out why you think a child should suffer economic hardship, simply because he was allowed to be born?

Because I don't believe that consent to sex is consent to the financial responsibility of parenthood, not for women and not for men. I don't believe that a child support has anything whatsoever to actually do with the child; I think it is more appropriately called 'woman support'. I don't think a child has a right to the money of its biological parents. Adoptive parents, whether married or single or whatever, do not have any entitlement to support from the biological parents, so why should the biological mother if she chooses to raise the child as a single mother?

Choose to be a single mother, choose to fund it.

There is no double standard. The man and woman both conceived the child. A joint decision that both were aware, sometimes results in a child. He may not have any control over the pregnancy once it has begun, but it would not have happened, had he not allowed it to.

Here's the double standard: The law says that when a woman chooses to have sex, that's all she's chosen to do, but when a man chooses to have sex, he's chosen to give up a substantial part of his income for a couple of decades. Consent to sex is not consent to parenthood.

If the father did not wish to share this experience, it was totally in his control to prevent it. Why do you think the father deserves more consideration than the child?

I think that a man has just as much right to decide he doesn't want to be a father as a woman has to decide she doesn't want to be a mother.

pervert
01-24-2004, 05:05 PM
Choosing to have sex is not choosing to create a childNo, but it certainly is choosing to risk the fertalization of the egg. And this can lead to the creation of a child. So, it is certainly risking the creation of a child.

Here's the double standard: The law says that when a woman chooses to have sex, that's all she's chosen to do,Except I don't think this is how the law is written. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that the abortion decision did not reference any sort of male opt out principle in order to grant a similar right to women. I understand that you believe that this is the position of some abortion rights advocates, but I do not think you can back up this assertion in a legal sense.

Consent to sex is not consent to parenthood.No, but it is certainly consent to the risk of parenthood. I'm not even sure how you can deny this. It is not consent to a certainty, that is there are no guarantees that every sexual encounter will result in children. But it seems the hight of denial to suggest that no such risk exists. Like the pregnancy is some sort of accident which has no relationship to the sex.



I think that a man has just as much right to decide he doesn't want to be a father as a woman has to decide she doesn't want to be a mother.Now, on this we can agree. They both have the same rights and responsibilities toward sex, parenthood, and children. I argue that the biological fact that the child must reside inside the woman for a period of time, and that during this time it is not afforded the same rights as when it is born, does nothing to change the rights or responsibilities of the father.

Its like saying that if the child is born with some deformity, then both parents can simply decide to abandon it because the cost of taking care of a deformed child is not what they bargained for.

catsix
01-24-2004, 05:25 PM
If one of them can decide after the fact that she does not want to be a parent, then both of them should have that right.

There is absolutely no possible way you're going to convince me that any other situation is equitable.

Its like saying that if the child is born with some deformity, then both parents can simply decide to abandon it because the cost of taking care of a deformed child is not what they bargained for.

They can. If it's immediately after birth, in 42 out of 50 states, they can 'abandon' the kid at hospitals, fire stations and police stations. In all 50 states they can decide to relinquish their child to the state to be placed for adoption.

Yet the unequitable solution in which a woman can force a man to pay for her decision to be a single mother still exists.

WaryEri
01-24-2004, 05:40 PM
If a woman wants to give the child up for adoption and the father does not, assuming custondy is awarded to him in this situation, can he get child support from the mother?

minty green
01-24-2004, 05:43 PM
Did you visit the link?Did you? Your "safe haven" site quite clearly states as follows "What about the baby's father, or other relatives?

Minnesota: As with the question above, they can contact Social Services. Minnesota has laws that preserve the rights of fathers. The Safe Place for Newborns law did not change any laws regarding father's rights.

Across the United States: Again, safe haven laws do not change any laws regarding father's rights. So please do try again to provide legal authority for the extraordinary proposition that "safe haven" laws terminate a father's legal rights.

minty green
01-24-2004, 05:45 PM
If a woman wants to give the child up for adoption and the father does not, assuming custondy is awarded to him in this situation, can he get child support from the mother?Yes.

[Go to hell, vBulletin! I don't want to put ten or more characters in my response!]

catsix
01-24-2004, 06:11 PM
Use a little logic, minty.

How the hell are a father's rights not usurped when a mother can show up and hand over a baby without ever giving her name or any other identifying information to someone at a fire station, police station, EMS station or hospital?

Maybe the law doesn't say his rights are terminated immediately, but in several of those links you'll find that there is a thirty day limit for him to contest what she did. How does he do that if he can't possibly even be notified of her relinquishing the kid? How does he do that if he can't find out where she took the kid? How?

Zoe
01-24-2004, 07:17 PM
Er, then there's the possibility Razorsharp may actually be David Roberts. The stylistic differences between board posts and articles may be the result of the articles benefitting from more time for editing/rewrite/looking up sources (I know the stuff I write for my Real Job is much more polished than my SDMB material).

No, we English teachers have ways of knowing these things. It's all part of our secret detection kits. The person who posted as David Roberts is not the person who posted the OP here. And the person who wrote the piece originally is not Razorsharp.

The only thing that I don't know for certain is whether or not David Roberts was the original author. I do have an opinion on it though.

IWLN
01-24-2004, 07:19 PM
Choosing to have sex is not choosing to create a child, or so that's what has been said in defense of the right to abort.If the man doesn't understand it is a possibility that he will create a child, then he's an idiot.

Because I don't believe that consent to sex is consent to the financial responsibility of parenthood, not for women and not for men.Believing it does not make it true. If you have sex that results in a baby, you are legally and morally responsible. Both of you.

I don't believe that a child support has anything whatsoever to actually do with the child; I think it is more appropriately called 'woman support'.Give me a break, the woman has to kick in her share of the support too. You obviously have no concept of how expensive a child is to raise.

I don't think a child has a right to the money of its biological parents. Adoptive parents, whether married or single or whatever, do not have any entitlement to support from the biological parents, so why should the biological mother if she chooses to raise the child as a single mother?You want the state to be responsible because the parent or parents aren't? So two people make a baby and only one is responsible for it's care? That's fair? If mom doesn't like it, it's her own fault. She should have killed it when she had the chance? Adoptive parents release the biological parents from financial responsibility because the actually want the child.

Choose to be a single mother, choose to fund it.She didn't necessarily choose it anymore than he did. Shit happens and we're responsible for our own messes.

Here's the double standard: The law says that when a woman chooses to have sex, that's all she's chosen to do, but when a man chooses to have sex, he's chosen to give up a substantial part of his income for a couple of decades. Consent to sex is not consent to parenthood.The woman has assumed the same risk as the man. She has to support the child, too. Consent to sex is consent to possible parenthood. You assume the risk, when you do it. Your choice.

I think that a man has just as much right to decide he doesn't want to be a father as a woman has to decide she doesn't want to be a mother.Yep. It's called being responsible. It works almost everytime. I know it's a novel thought, but maybe neither the man nor the woman should have sex without knowing each other well enough to at least understand how the other one feels about the possible outcome. If the man is that concerned, he should make sure she believes in abortion and that he does his part to prevent a pregnancy.

catsix
01-24-2004, 07:28 PM
IWLN said:
Believing it does not make it true. If you have sex that results in a baby, you are legally and morally responsible. Both of you.

I'd be out about $500 which is what a chemical abortion costs these days.

Give me a break, the woman has to kick in her share of the support too. You obviously have no concept of how expensive a child is to raise.

Because she chose to have and keep the kid. Why doesn't he get a choice?

You want the state to be responsible because the parent or parents aren't? So two people make a baby and only one is responsible for it's care? That's fair? If mom doesn't like it, it's her own fault. She should have killed it when she had the chance? Adoptive parents release the biological parents from financial responsibility because the actually want the child.

Nope. I want the person who chooses to raise the kid to be responsible for the financial end of it, not some guy she uses as a money tree because she wants a life she can't afford.

If she actually wants the child, and he doesn't, she should have to sign a legal document giving up any claim to child support because she wanted a kid that nobody else did.

She didn't necessarily choose it anymore than he did. Shit happens and we're responsible for our own messes.

Sure she did. She had the option to continue the pregnancy or not, to give the kid up for adoption or not, and she chose to keep it so she should pay for it.

The woman has assumed the same risk as the man. She has to support the child, too. Consent to sex is consent to possible parenthood. You assume the risk, when you do it. Your choice.

She chooses to have the kid. She chooses to keep the kid. She chooses to raise the kid. She chooses to financially support the kid.

Yep. It's called being responsible. It works almost everytime. I know it's a novel thought, but maybe neither the man nor the woman should have sex without knowing each other well enough to at least understand how the other one feels about the possible outcome. If the man is that concerned, he should make sure she believes in abortion and that he does his part to prevent a pregnancy.

And what happens when she lies and renegs on her oral contract? It happens quite often. What happens when he does what he can to prevent it and she gets pregnant and then doesn't keep up her end of the bargain?

Or is legal inequity to men not such a big deal?

IWLN
01-24-2004, 08:12 PM
Or is legal inequity to men not such a big deal?Honestly not to me. The child gets first consideration, since it didn't have the options the man did. The circumstances before birth have nothing to do with the welfare of the child. Since s/he will do better with the support of both parents, that's what he should have. Spend that $500 on rubbers and make sure the woman is on the pill. Throw in a little spermicide if you really want to be sure. Whatever it takes to avoid the horrors of responsibility and parenthood. :rolleyes:

catsix
01-24-2004, 08:31 PM
Well if a woman wants to have a kid absent a father, maybe she ought to figure out whether she can actually support the kid on her own or not attempt to live a life she can't afford without forcing someone else to finance it.

IWLN
01-24-2004, 10:10 PM
Well if a woman wants to have a kid absent a father, maybe she ought to figure out whether she can actually support the kid on her own or not attempt to live a life she can't afford without forcing someone else to finance it.Well sometimes she doesn't want to raise a kid without a father, but it's just a fact. He doesn't have to support her, just the child. A child he was responsible for creating. I don't know why you think it's a choice that only the mother is responsible for. As I said before, abortion is not an option for many people.

pervert
01-24-2004, 11:23 PM
Because she chose to have and keep the kid. Why doesn't he get a choice?This seems to be the central theme to your ranting. The problem with it, again, is that the extra choice for the woman is temporary and a necessary extension of the biological facts of human reproduction. If the male were to be the one to gestate the fetus, then he would have an extra choice.

Consider it this way. Imagine that humans fertalized eggs outside the body. The male and female got toghether for a bit of fun, and sometimes, the female excreted and egg, while the male excreted sperm. Sometimes, the two excrements got together and created a Zygote. Now this zygote is external to both mates. Notice that I have not changed the current situation much. You still have sex with all its attractions, you still have dual contributions to babies, and you still have a gestation period for the baby.

Now, imagine that for gestation to complete, the egg has to spend a couple months inside one or the other of the mates. Perhaps in a pouch sort of arrangement. Imagine further that both sexes has this pouch. In such a situation either partner could exercise a unilateral abortion depending on which mate kept the zygote inside him or her. In this situation, you seem to be saying that whichever parent does not host the zygote gets a free pass to abandon the child. But then you seem to be saying that aborions should be legal until the child can literally survive on its own. Perhaps you are thinking of 18? There is a good comedy skit by Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie about abortion where a farmer aborts his son because the son does not want to work on the farm anymore. He says "If the ain't votin, they ain't people." They meant it as comedy. You seem to hold this idea or something similar seriously.

catsix
01-25-2004, 12:01 AM
Uh, way to mischaracterize my point.

My point is that since the woman does have the option to absolve herself of the responsibility of financing the rearing of a child she doesn't want, she should not be able to force the same on someone else who does not want a child.

If the guy makes it known that he doesn't want the kid, and she goes and chooses to keep and raise it anyway, she has made the choice to be a single mother, then she can damn well pay for her choice.

robertliguori
01-25-2004, 12:03 AM
A child he was responsible for creating.


Arg. Nonononono. The man and the women were jointly responsible for creating a fertilized egg. The woman is soley responsible for converting said egg into a person. If I work with a friend to make a stick, and my friend goes off and hits people with the stick, I am not cupable, positing that my friend is a moral agent (and the stick is not).

pervert
01-25-2004, 12:28 AM
But you guys are still ignoring the situation before sex.

Look. I agree that if a woman were to come up to a stranger and suddenly be able to force him to financially support here child (which she was somehow able to produce without his input) then that would be wrong. You guys would be completely correct if this were the situation.

But it simply is not.

The choice would never arise if both partners did not undertake an activity which had some chance of producing it.

I've thought of another example. Imagine a man and a woman write a book together. However, the woman is the only one of the partners with any skill or contacts in the publishing industry. So, she goes out and hunts up a willing publisher essentially without his help. The book is published and has some success. Unfortunately, it turns out that a couple chapters amount to slanderously false statements about a well known celebrity. The celbrity sues and is awarded a substantial judgement. The man argues that the woman could have refused or failed to get the book published. If she had done so, then no harm would have come to the celebrity. Therefore he argues that he should not be required to pay his share of this debt.

What do you think the courts would say about this? What do you think his friends would say if he limited his argument to a moral rather than legal one?

After you remember that the product in question could not have existed in the first place without input from both partners, it becomes more and more difficult to imagine any situation where temporary custody of that product removes the responsibilities from the other partner.

If I work with a friend to make a stick, and my friend goes off and hits people with the stick, I am not cupable, positing that my friend is a moral agent (and the stick is not). Yes. And if the woman goes off and hits people with a baby, she will be solely responsible for the attack on the third party and the baby. If on the other hand, it is considered bad to create a pointed stick but only the friend is caught with it, you will not be able to avoid prosecution by saying that they only caught you since your friend got caught. That is, if the product in question produces a debt by virtue of its existance rather than because of any use to which it is put you will retain any responsibility you have by helping to create that debt.

Consider it this way. You and a friend grow some illegal weed. You provide the seeds while she provides the hydroponics equipment. Lets say for arguments sake that you did it just for fun. You never intended to sell, smoke, or even harvest the stuff. Lets even say further that you and she agreed that if the weed sprouted, she would dispose of any such tiny plants. Now, you leave and never hear from her again. One day, however, the police come to your door and say they are taking you in for conspiricy to produce an illegal substance. At your door, you argue that:

1) You did not actually expect the plants to germinate since she told you the hydroponic equipment was disabled in some way.

2) You are not responsible for the weed produced since you had her word before hand that if any did grow she would dispose of it.

3) They should not be able to harrass you anyway, since the woman could have flushed the whole thing away if she had wanted to.

You proceed to slam the door in their face since you are sure in your moral rightousness.

Will they slink away in embarassed silence? OR mighten they batter your door down and do nasty things to you while apprehending you?

minty green
01-25-2004, 12:55 AM
Use a little logic, minty.Oh, must I? :rolleyes:
How the hell are a father's rights not usurped when a mother can show up and hand over a baby without ever giving her name or any other identifying information to someone at a fire station, police station, EMS station or hospital? The same way a mother's rights are not usurped when a mfather can show up and hand over a baby without ever giving his name or any other identifying information to someone at a fire station, police station, EMS station or hospital.

Maybe the law doesn't say his rights are terminated immediately, but in several of those links you'll find that there is a thirty day limit for him to contest what she did. How does he do that if he can't possibly even be notified of her relinquishing the kid? How does he do that if he can't find out where she took the kid? How?By fucking well paying attention to whether or not he's seen his blasted child in the last thirty days or so, then reporting it to the authorities when the kid ups and disappears on him?

Sheesh, it ain't that damn difficult to tell when your kid's been taken away from you for the last 30 days. What, you think the baby's hitchhiking through Europe, or hanging out in New Hampshire passing out pamphlets for Howard Dean?

[Or perhaps you speak of the situation in which the daddy hasn't even bothered to care whether he's a daddy. In which case, I have no problem terminating his parental rights on the basis of ignorance. I'm sure he'd agree.]

IWLN
01-25-2004, 01:15 AM
Arg. Nonononono. The man and the women were jointly responsible for creating a fertilized egg. The woman is soley responsible for converting said egg into a person. If I work with a friend to make a stick, and my friend goes off and hits people with the stick, I am not cupable, positing that my friend is a moral agent (and the stick is not).Okay, give me a break. I gave them joint responsibility for conception all the other times I said it. How handy that he's only responsible for the fun part. Sex is for two people, but personal responsibility is all hers. Gotta tell you, your stick story just doesn't inspire me.;)

Ludovic
01-25-2004, 01:16 AM
I've thought of another example. Imagine a man and a woman write a book together. However, the woman is the only one of the partners with any skill or contacts in the publishing industry. So, she goes out and hunts up a willing publisher essentially without his help. The book is published and has some success. Unfortunately, it turns out that a couple chapters amount to slanderously false statements about a well known celebrity. The celbrity sues and is awarded a substantial judgement. The man argues that the woman could have refused or failed to get the book published. If she had done so, then no harm would have come to the celebrity. Therefore he argues that he should not be required to pay his share of this debt.
Well, if the man did not know about, nor approve of, the publishing agreements, then I would hazard a guess that under the law, he might not be liable, since it was never intended to be published, of course, IANAL. But if they had planned on getting it published, that's another story. Which roughly corresponds to my stance as it relates to this thread.

pervert
01-25-2004, 01:28 AM
Well, if the man did not know about, nor approve of, the publishing agreements, then I would hazard a guess that under the law, he might not be liable, since it was never intended to be published, of course, IANAL. But if they had planned on getting it published, that's another story. Which roughly corresponds to my stance as it relates to this thread.And what if the man thought there was only a very small chance that the book would be published? That is, he knew it was a possibility and helped write it given that knowledge. But he assumed that the woman would not be able to get it published. So, he agreed to give her the legal right to publish it in order to enjoy the act of writing it.

Oregon sunshine
01-25-2004, 08:59 AM
in re: the safe haven laws and father identification, as far as i know, potential fathers have an option. in my state at least, we have a voluntary "putative father registry" where men can volunteer their identifying information if they think there is a chance they may have fathered a child. guys who want rights to their kids who may or may not be surrendered under a safe haven type arrangement, can put themselves out there, stating the potential mother(s) in the situation. i don't know the particulars of adoptions resulting from safe haven surrenders, but in my field (foster care), prior to an adoption taking place, a reasonable search is made for fathers, which includes consulting the putative father registry.

may i venture to say, that i imagine (especially considering some of the opinions i've seen on this thread! geezh!) men may avoid the putative father registry, not because they don't want rights, but because they don't want to deal with the responsibilities.

Razorsharp
01-25-2004, 11:21 AM
If a statute imposes an obligation of child support on all biological parents regardless of marital status, child support can't be said to come from the "laws of divorce"."If"...?? The subject at hand is not a statute imposing an obligation on all biological parents, is it? No, it's about Texas divorce law extending the duty of support beyond the dissolution of a marriage, and the mother of an illegitimate child cashing in on the benefits of the institution of marriage. In this case, "child support" can most certainly be said to originate from divorce law.Unless you're the author of a legal treatise on the subject, that doesn't fly. Cite to relevant legal authority that backs up your assertion, please. Otherwise it's just a baseless assertion.Hey, this forum is a venue of opinion and debate. The protocols of courtroom proceedure are not mandatory.

It is absolutely mind-boggling as to how some desperately cling to the notion that the legislature and judiciary is sacrosanct.

Look, you can cite legal precedent after legal precedent, but when "the law" violates the foundations of the American system of jurisprudence, then "the law" is wrong.

When the early founders came to this land, one of the things they were leaving was the tyranny of the monarch's "rule by decree". The Founding Fathers envisioned and created a justice system founded on the principle of fairness and equal justice through the unique concept of the "rule of law", which has its foundations in the "common law".

America's comtemporary justice system has been infected with an orthodoxy based on emotional feel-good-ism that can only be attained through arbitrary law.

For instance, twenty-six states have already enacted laws designed to protect a fetus from criminal acts. The House of Representatives has even gotten into the act with H.R. 1997, The the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. This "law" would make it a separate offense to kill or injure an unborn child in the comission of a federal crime.

In my local area, there is a young man charged with homicide for accidentally causing the demise of a fetus. Yes, the young man’s actions were careless, stupid and even idiotic. Yes, he was acting in complete disregard for the safety and welfare of others and a severe punishment is certainly warranted, but to charge this man with homicide is to abandon the primary tenet on which our system of jurisprudence was founded.

Any dictionary one refers to will define "homicide" as the killing of one human being by another. Contemporary legal precedents have determined that fetuses do not enjoy the legal status of human beings. Fetuses are destroyed, killed or terminated on a daily basis out of mere convenience. To sanction the willful destroying of a fetus in one instance and label it "freedom of choice" and punish the accidental destroying of a fetus in another instance and label it "homicide" is repugnant to the rule of law and is more closely akin to the tyranny of rule by decree.

But, to you, that's just fine because they passed a "law", right?Cite to relevant legal authority that backs up your assertion, please.Bullshit! I don't have to cite you some "legal authority" to declare a court decree as being arbitrary and a violation of "the rule of law". And the same arbitrariness is found in the notion of a child's so-called "right" to support from it's biological father. So, if you think you are making your case by citing "legal authority", think again. This ain't no courtroom.and no conspiracy whatsoever existed concerning the the timing of the decisions.Neither you, nor I know that for certain. The difference is that I only say that there is an appearance of conspiracy, whereas you make a proclaimation that there definitely was not.

I am reminded of Shakespeare. "Thou dost protest too much".

Zigarre
01-25-2004, 12:37 PM
Razorsharp.
You keep missing a point made time and again herein.
To receive support is the right of a child. It isn’t punishment for a parent. The mere fact that the a woman didn’t abort her child is no reason to hold her (or the child) hostage.

You are attempting to create a new class of victim with your cause. The seduced Male, the innocent victim of seduction, and a conspiracy so large it taints the very foundation of America jurisprudence, the Supreme Court. From the smallest corners of Anytown, America buxom bombshells hide unseen in the shadows, waiting their next victims arrival. They will then force the themselves upon these innocent victims, seduce them without their concent. As soon as the victim leaves, they take the shuttle (courtsey of the local office of child support enforcement) the local office of child support enfocenment. There they finger the victim, and he is forced to pay a small portion of what it cost to raise the child. Now, the plan complete, these new mothers are allowed to share in the proceeds of this conspiracy, become wealthy, and living happily everafter.

DtC said it best. Use protection.

The Flying Dutchman
01-25-2004, 01:20 PM
Razorsharp, thankyou for your excellent and thoughtful presentation of an issue that gets very little press attention yet cries out to me as the most discriminatory situation against a segment of the population perpetrated by a government.

It baffles me that the same arguments used against Roe vs Wade are used today to support the status quo, i.e. "He should have thought about that before he had sex".

Wheras at one time a parent would fear that their daughter's life could be irrevocably diminished in quality by the onset of pregnancy, with no legal recourse to make the problem disappear, they now have to worry about their sons every time they go out on a date.

I really believe that the reason the law sits as it does at the moment has to do with money. Activists for and against the status quo might not have consciously considered it, but the lawmakers sure as hell must have considered it. Think about it

Prior to Roe vs Wade, enormous sums must have been paid out of the taxpayers purse to support single moms. The welfare system had actually encouraged some women to bear children in order to seek independance from parents. Very little attention was paid to pursuing fathers for child support which often wasn't enough anyway. With a stroke of the pen, every aborted fetus would save the taxpayer a lot of money.

Now what do they do about those women who don't cooperate and foster the little liabilities. Well, go after the semen dispensers of course. Call it product liability. Aparrently they didn't come with warning labels. The point is the government reduced the tax burden for indigent children by assessing indiscriminantly a responsibility to all male parents for a decision taken by the female parent.

Just because we the taxpayer have arrived at the cheapest solution to the dilemna of unwanted or indigent children, and improved the prospects for the lives of both mother and child we should not ignore the sorry plight and unfairness that has occurred against particularly young immature men in our society.

To be fair, I would propose that the father of fetus have a one time opportunity to say yea or nay to taking responsibility for a fetus, thus allowing the woman to assess the impacts on her decision whether to abort or not. It should be assumed of course that the answer is yea for the legal husband of a mother to be.

catsix
01-25-2004, 03:31 PM
minty green said:
[Or perhaps you speak of the situation in which the daddy hasn't even bothered to care whether he's a daddy. In which case, I have no problem terminating his parental rights on the basis of ignorance. I'm sure he'd agree.]

Or the lovely mommy never bothered to tell him that it was his kid. Or she abandons it there directly after it's born without even telling him that she's given birth first.

Why do you try so damned hard to see everything as the evil man's fault?

Zigarre said:
To receive support is the right of a child.

I disagree with that opinion.

robertliguori
01-25-2004, 03:57 PM
Razorsharp.
You keep missing a point made time and again herein.
To receive support is the right of a child.


The right to not have to pay for something that's not your fault* is everyone's right.

*No one mention taxes. We live in a democracy, so it is our fault.

pervert
01-25-2004, 04:01 PM
The right to not have to pay for something that's not your fault* is everyone's right.

*No one mention taxes. We live in a democracy, so it is our fault.Thank you robert. I had not even thought of that example. Since I never voted for a single tax ever. And since all you would have had to do was not vote for them either, I hereby claim that I have no obligation to pay taxes. Sure, I participate in the country, and I participated in elections where taxes were on the ballot. But I never really thought there was a chance for them to pass. And I certainly never expected to pay for them. Therefore it is most unfair that I have to pay taxes when it is clearly everyone else's fault that we have them.

pravnik
01-25-2004, 09:40 PM
Incorrect.

Forty two states have "safe haven" laws allowing a person to drop off a newborn infant at a specified location, some of them completely anonymously, such as Washington, Pennsylvania, California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Kansas, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, West Virginia, Maryland, Ohio, New York, and Rhode Island.

All of these states list, via the web, that they are 'Safe Haven' states and specifically state either "No questions asked." or "You do not have to give your name."

Very possible for a woman or girl to give away a baby without even the knowledge of the father.

Map and links to laws available at http://www.safeplacefornewborns.org

No, it is not incorrect. You are confusing a father's failure to exercise his parental rights and subsequent relenquishment of them, which can happen, with a mother's unilateral termination of the father's rights, which can't happen. If a mother abandons a child at a hospital, child protective services will determine if there is a family member that can be located that the child can be placed with, i.e. if someone is looking for the child. If the father has reported the child as kidnapped, the state doesn't say "Sorry, when she abandoned the child, your rights got terminated, too. See ya." Neither the mother nor the state has any responsibility to place the father on notice that he is a father or to exercise his rights for him (he is understood to have been placed on notice that he could be a father at the time of conception), but he nevertheless has those rights until they are judicially terminated. Even an unknown father must be afforded due process in termination proceedings. Abandonment is the grounds for termination of the mother's rights, and if the faher doesn't turn up looking for the child pretty soon, his parental rights and duties will be terminated on the grounds of abandonment as well.

pravnik
01-25-2004, 09:47 PM
To receive support is the right of a child.


I disagree with that opinion.

It's not an opinion, it's a statement of law. Children by law have a right of support from both parents, and both parents have a certain rights and duties regarding the child. You can say that in your opinion the law is misguided and incorrect, but you can't characterize the law as an opinion any more than you can say "I disagree with the opinion that homicide is a felony." It's not an opinion, it's a statement of fact.

catsix
01-25-2004, 09:55 PM
Yeah well, I think that law is a bunch of bullshit because it allows women a way out but not men.

And whatever the law says, I believe that the idea of anyone having a 'right' to the money of someone else, no matter who that person is, is also bullshit. It's quite too bad that the government has adopted this 'from each according to his means to each according to his needs' policy. And what's worse is that there are women who have never considered that there's anything wrong with forcing someone else to finance their choices.

pravnik
01-25-2004, 10:37 PM
"If"...?? The subject at hand is not a statute imposing an obligation on all biological parents, is it? No, it's about Texas divorce law extending the duty of support beyond the dissolution of a marriage, and the mother of an illegitimate child cashing in on the benefits of the institution of marriage. In this case, "child support" can most certainly be said to originate from divorce law.

Cite me some legal authority that says that the centuries old common law rule extending child support only to children born within a marriage was due to the nature of the marriage contract, and not to, say, the impossibility of determining parentage prior to modern paternity testing.

Hey, this forum is a venue of opinion and debate. The protocols of courtroom proceedure are not mandatory.

That's fine if you're merely expressing your opinion or making a moral "that's wrong!" argument, but you're making a legal argument and statements of fact. Legal argument requires reference to authority. There's just no way around it.

It is absolutely mind-boggling as to how some desperately cling to the notion that the legislature and judiciary is sacrosanct.

Well, I try imploring God to reveal to me what the law is, but until I get a divine answer I have to content myself with law books. It's perfectly acceptable to say "I think this is a bullshit decision that should have gone the other way", but if you're making a legal argument that it was an incorrect decision, or that it was in conflict with another decision, you have to be prepared to demonstrate why.

Look, you can cite legal precedent after legal precedent, but when "the law" violates the foundations of the American system of jurisprudence, then "the law" is wrong.

Absolutely. Cite me some legal precedent that demonstrates why this violates the American system of jurisprudence (which relies on citing to legal authority in making an argument, by the way) and I'll be on my merry way.

When the early founders came to this land, one of the things they were leaving was the tyranny of the monarch's "rule by decree". The Founding Fathers envisioned and created a justice system founded on the principle of fairness and equal justice through the unique concept of the "rule of law", which has its foundations in the "common law".

America's comtemporary justice system has been infected with an orthodoxy based on emotional feel-good-ism that can only be attained through arbitrary law.

For instance, twenty-six states have already enacted laws designed to protect a fetus from criminal acts. The House of Representatives has even gotten into the act with H.R. 1997, The the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. This "law" would make it a separate offense to kill or injure an unborn child in the comission of a federal crime.

In my local area, there is a young man charged with homicide for accidentally causing the demise of a fetus. Yes, the young man’s actions were careless, stupid and even idiotic. Yes, he was acting in complete disregard for the safety and welfare of others and a severe punishment is certainly warranted, but to charge this man with homicide is to abandon the primary tenet on which our system of jurisprudence was founded.

Any dictionary one refers to will define "homicide" as the killing of one human being by another. Contemporary legal precedents have determined that fetuses do not enjoy the legal status of human beings. Fetuses are destroyed, killed or terminated on a daily basis out of mere convenience. To sanction the willful destroying of a fetus in one instance and label it "freedom of choice" and punish the accidental destroying of a fetus in another instance and label it "homicide" is repugnant to the rule of law and is more closely akin to the tyranny of rule by decree.

But, to you, that's just fine because they passed a "law", right?

No, and fetal homicide laws are being challenged for the exact reason you describe. How is that germane to this conversation?

Bullshit! I don't have to cite you some "legal authority" to declare a court decree as being arbitrary and a violation of "the rule of law".

Being arbitrary, no. That's your opinion and that's perfectly fine. Being a violation of the "rule of law", yeah, you pretty much do. If it's a violation of the law you have to cite the law that it violates.

And the same arbitrariness is found in the notion of a child's so-called "right" to support from it's biological father. So, if you think you are making your case by citing "legal authority", think again. This ain't no courtroom.

But again, you're claiming to make a legal argument. Re: the changing of the docket:

Neither you, nor I know that for certain. The difference is that I only say that there is an appearance of conspiracy, whereas you make a proclaimation that there definitely was not.

I don't know for certain that the current U.S. President is not a black woman, either, but I feel comfortable saying that it's far beyond extremely unlikely. If a conspiracy existed why weren't the majority and dissenting justices the same in both cases? Why didn't the dissent blow the whistle on such underhanded tactics? Why manipulate the docket when the cases are not in conflict, which pretty much every legal thinker looking at the issue except you seems in agreement on? If there is a conflict, how has it slipped past every judge, attorney, and law review article author for the last thirty years? You can say that you think both decisions went the wrong way or are indicative of the moral decay evident in modern America, but as far as being in actual legal conflict or that the justices manipulated the docket, man, let it go. It's just not there.

I am reminded of Shakespeare. "Thou dost protest too much".

I have little opinion about the merits of either case, but gross mistatements and misunderstandings of the law get me going, and you're giving me plenty of ammunition.

pervert
01-25-2004, 10:43 PM
Yeah well, I think that law is a bunch of bullshit because it allows women a way out but not men.For the last time, the inequality is one of biology, not law. Your argument is with mother nature. Please take it to the nearest surf pounded cliff and yell it there.*

I believe that the idea of anyone having a 'right' to the money of someone else, no matter who that person is, is also bullshit. It's quite too bad that the government has adopted this 'from each according to his means to each according to his needs' policy.This communist slogan is not the source of a parents obligations to his or her child. The source has to do with who created the need in the first place. If you steal someone's food will you stick to the ridiculous idea that "he is another person. I shouldn't have to feed him"? Of course not. I'd venture to suggest that you may in fact support the governments attempts to get the victims food back for him. A child's needs are similar (althoug, certainly not identical) in that they are not a result of it individual actions. The child does not need support because it doesn't try hard enough, it needs support because that is the natural state through which all humans must pass before they become full individual adults. IF I am not mistaken, most child support stops at some "age of majority". Again, it seems that your argument is with mother nature.

And what's worse is that there are women who have never considered that there's anything wrong with forcing someone else to finance their choices. And what's just as bad is that there are men who have never considered that there's anything wrong with forcing someone else to finance (monetarily and physically) their choices. Say hi to the mirror for me.

*For the record, I am not trying to be insulting here. I heard once that one of the great Greek orators used to practice by yelling into the raging surf. It seemed an apt image to suggest.

pravnik
01-25-2004, 10:48 PM
Yeah well, I think that law is a bunch of bullshit because it allows women a way out but not men.

And whatever the law says, I believe that the idea of anyone having a 'right' to the money of someone else, no matter who that person is, is also bullshit. It's quite too bad that the government has adopted this 'from each according to his means to each according to his needs' policy. And what's worse is that there are women who have never considered that there's anything wrong with forcing someone else to finance their choices.

That's perfectly, 100% fine. I have zero problem with someone thinking that this law or that law is bullshit. I may disagree and argue about it, but so long as it's an ideological disagreement I'm not going to get my panties in a wad about it. It's only when someone mistakenly and repeatedly says "this law violates that law" or advances a legal position while defiantly refusing to provide any authority to back it up that I want to bang my head against the keyboard.

And for the record, I do disagree with you. The law favors the best interest of the child over what may be "fair" to the parents, and I think that that's a better situation than trying do determine which parent is more culpable in giving birth to the child and assigning responsibility accordingly. But I nevertheless thank you for not saying the law is invalid because it violates the Declaration of Independence or something like that.

robertliguori
01-26-2004, 12:31 AM
For the last time, the inequality is one of biology, not law. Your argument is with mother nature. Please take it to the nearest surf pounded cliff and yell it there.*

The issue is purely legislative and not biological at all. It is law forcing people to pay for children that they were not given a decent choice in having. (People who claim that not having sex is a choice will be reminded that so is not having food for the children. Hey, it's not nice, but letting children whose parents won't support them does solve the problem.)

This communist slogan is not the source of a parents obligations to his or her child. The source has to do with who created the need in the first place.

And has been pointed out, that person is soley the woman. Conception does not create a child. Gestation does. The person responsible for the gestation therefore created the need, and gets the responsibility. Since the man has no power over the gestation, it's silly to claim that it's right to make him responsible for it, unless you posit a greater need for children than adults.

And what's just as bad is that there are men who have never considered that there's anything wrong with forcing someone else to finance (monetarily and physically) their choices. Say hi to the mirror for me.

Yes. We agree that there's something wrong with forcing someone to finance someone else's choices.

pervert
01-26-2004, 02:36 AM
And has been pointed out, that person is soley the woman. Conception does not create a child. Gestation does.I'm sorry, I have to laugh. I really though we had seen the hight of insanity in this thread. But this tops them all.

I commend you, robert. You have ressurected and given a different kind of reality to the myth of Hera creating a child without male input.

Hephaestus is known as the son of Hera and Zeus, although Zeus had nothing to do with the conception. Hephaestus was parthenogenetic, meaning he was conceived without male fertilisation. Hera was jealous of Zeus after he had an affair with Metis, from which the goddess of prudence was pregnant with Athena. However, Gaia had warned Zeus that Metis would bear a daughter, whose son would overthrow him. To prevent this, Zeus swallowed Metis, so he could carry the child through to the birth himself, although Zeus could not give birth naturally. For retribution Hera produced (parthenogeny) Hephaestus, and legend says, that Hephaestus split the head of Zeus with an axe, from which Athena appeared fully armed.

Personally, I thought such myths were not in vogue around here. I admire your bravery in so honestly admitting to it.

OK, in some seriousness. I can't be completely serious after that, but I can approach it. Gestation is required to create a child. But so is fertalization. If 2 persons must act to cause a particular outcome, they do so willingly, then those persons are, to some degree, jointly responsible for the outcome. If you want to argue that the woman has more responsibility (at least during pregnancy or something) that's one thing. But if you are going to suggest that the man has 0 responsibility, you will really need to suggest some way that the child could have arrived without him.

robertliguori
01-26-2004, 08:32 AM
I'm sorry, I have to laugh. I really though we had seen the hight of insanity in this thread. But this tops them all.

I commend you, robert. You have ressurected and given a different kind of reality to the myth of Hera creating a child without male input.



Personally, I thought such myths were not in vogue around here. I admire your bravery in so honestly admitting to it.

OK, in some seriousness. I can't be completely serious after that, but I can approach it. Gestation is required to create a child. But so is fertalization. If 2 persons must act to cause a particular outcome, they do so willingly, then those persons are, to some degree, jointly responsible for the outcome. If you want to argue that the woman has more responsibility (at least during pregnancy or something) that's one thing. But if you are going to suggest that the man has 0 responsibility, you will really need to suggest some way that the child could have arrived without him.

Partheogenesis.

Okay, that was a joke. But you can only carry the chain of whose-fault back so far. You could make the case that the grandparents are responsible for the child, since they acted to cause a particular outcome. The "cooperation" of 6 persons (4 grandparents, 2 parents) is technically necessary, but reasonable people generally assume that since the parents made the decision to have sex, they should get the responsibility. Similarly, although two people may consent to sex, the woman is the one who makes the decision to keep the child, and thus should get full responsibility.

Razorsharp
01-26-2004, 02:29 PM
Razorsharp.
You keep missing a point made time and again herein.
To receive support is the right of a child. It isn’t punishment for a parent. The mere fact that the a woman didn’t abort her child is no reason to hold her (or the child) hostage.Well, I would say that it is you that is missing the point.

How do you reconcile that supposed "right" with the fact that a birth mother, when no sustained relationship exists with the biological father, does have the option to raise "her" child by herself.

The state doesn't care. There is no mandatory requirement that the birth mother name the biological father upon giving birth to a child.

If the mother wishes to relieve herself of the parental obligations of parenthood, there are options, provided by the state, available to her.

It is only when the birth mother wants financial assistance with the private choice that she made out of concern for her own desires, that the state recognizes a "right" to support from a biological father.

And while we're reconciling things, how do reconcile that, by holding someone soley responsible for the private choice they make, is holding them hostage?

Razorsharp
01-26-2004, 03:10 PM
No, we English teachers have ways of knowing these things. It's all part of our secret detection kits. The person who posted as David Roberts is not the person who posted the OP here. And the person who wrote the piece originally is not Razorsharp.

The only thing that I don't know for certain is whether or not David Roberts was the original author. I do have an opinion on it though.Hey Teach, since you claim to "know", tell ya what. Back on page one of this discussion, Munch provided a link to an earlier version of the essay making note of the 25th anniversary of "Roe". That would have been in 1998.

At the bottom of the page, there is my name and e-mail address.

Send me an e-mail. In the subject line, type "Zoe". That way, I will recognize it as you.

I will respond. In the subject line, I will type, "Hey pinhead, you don't know as much as you think.

"We teachers have a way" Ha!

Yeah, a way to make an ass of yourself.

pervert
01-26-2004, 03:51 PM
Partheogenesis.Just to continue the joke a little bit, we (males) should al thank out lucky starts that this is not actually possible. IF women could procreate without us we would be no better than chattel servents kept around for their amusement. I'm sure we would all.....

On second thought, maybe that wouldn't be so bad. :D

But you can only carry the chain of whose-fault back so far.Agreed. It is typically accepted that once a person reaches a certain age they are wholly responsible for their actions. Before that age their parents (both of them BTW) are responsible to differing degrees. By differing degrees, I mean that the parents are not always held legally responsible for, say, a teenager's actions. But they are certainly held morally responsible to some degree. However, I agree that as the child matures he becomes more and more responsible (both legally and morally) for his own actions.

The "cooperation" of 6 persons (4 grandparents, 2 parents) is technically necessary,No, this is not true. The Grandparents could easily be dead by the time conceptions takes place. I'm willing to grant them some tiny amount of responsibility if the father and mother are very very young. I'm thinking under 14 here. But if we limit the discussion to the normal situation of grown adults, then mentioning their parents has no bearing.

but reasonable people generally assume that since the parents made the decision to have sex, they should get the responsibility.Agreed.

Similarly, although two people may consent to sex, the woman is the one who makes the decision to keep the child, and thus should get full responsibility.Well, not quite. As I have said, the male and female responsiblities during pregnancy are different. So in that sense there is some simililarity to the grandparent's responsibilities. That is, the female has more power during pregnancy, so she has choices the male does not. However, her power does not negate the responsibility taken on by the male when he engaged in sex in the first place. This is true for 2 reasons.

First, the females unilateral power is only temporary. Consider if the grandparents could only allow their children to be full grown for 9 months (or really 3 months). That is
they became fully adults, but then reverted to infants in 3 months. Now, certainly they would have some responsibility for any children they created during those three months, but I think you can see that society might change its mind about complete absolution for the grandparents as well.

Secondly, the extra power is a direct result of biology. The female has different rights and responsibilities because she is the female. Its not a conspiricy to steal rights from the father. Its a direct result of her carrying the child to gestation inside her body. It is, therefore, no more unfair than gravity. The fact that thin people can move about much more easily than fat people is also unequal. But it is hardly unfair.

It is only when the birth mother wants financial assistance with the private choice that she made out of concern for her own desires, that the state recognizes a "right" to support from a biological father. Dude. You keep saying stuff like this, when it is not true. There have been cases where a father sued and won custodial rights, visitation rights, and suportive rights to children that mother would have prefered they had nothing to do with. I can agree that there has never been a case where a father was able to sue for the right to gestate a fetus within his own body. So in that sense, and in that sense, only, women have more right to support offspring than men do. But seriously, this is no reason suggest that men have NO rights or responsibilities.


Look, you guys. There are a lot of inequities in the law concerning parental rights. In some respects our child welfare laws are a grotesque mess. Welfare workers take children without good reason. They leave children in bad situations without good reason. One parent is favored over another in custody disputes without good reason. There are definate prejudices against men when molestation charges are bandied about.

But let's try to fight some of these inequities which are legally, morally, or societally real. Harping about the extra power a woman has over the child while it is inside her womb is just silly.

robertliguori
01-26-2004, 04:19 PM
Just to continue the joke a little bit, we (males) should al thank out lucky starts that this is not actually possible. IF women could procreate without us we would be no better than chattel servents kept around for their amusement. I'm sure we would all.....

On second thought, maybe that wouldn't be so bad. :D

Given the typical human response to the other, it's a very good thing that men and women need each other.


That is, the female has more power during pregnancy, so she has choices the male does not. However, her power does not negate the responsibility taken on by the male when he engaged in sex in the first place. This is true for 2 reasons.

Secondly, the extra power is a direct result of biology. The female has different rights and responsibilities because she is the female. Its not a conspiricy to steal rights from the father. Its a direct result of her carrying the child to gestation inside her body. It is, therefore, no more unfair than gravity. The fact that thin people can move about much more easily than fat people is also unequal. But it is hardly unfair.


The rights a woman has over a fetus while pregnant, none here dispute. What we do dispute is the fact that although women have full rights/responsibilities for a fetus, she can share responsibility for the child once it is born, against the father's will. If she has full control over it (and the father has correspondingly no control over it) than the woman should have to take full responsibility.

Razorsharp
01-26-2004, 04:57 PM
Cite me some legal authority that says that the centuries old common law rule extending child support only to children born within a marriage was due to the nature of the marriage contract, and not to, say, the impossibility of determining parentage prior to modern paternity testing."Cite me some legal authority"?? You know, you really are revealing yourself to be quite the jerk.

But I will explain to you how all this came to be.

The evolution of child-support into a "right" is a fairly recent phenomenon. In years past, if a woman gave birth to a child outside of the institution of matrimony, that child was considered hers. (It was a "private" concern as echoed in Roe v Wade.) If she was independently wealthy, she may have made the "choice" to raise her child by herself. If she was indigent, she would likely resort to putting her child up for adoption so as to not to be burdened with raising a child alone. If she was a teenager, she would probably make the "choice" to put her child up for adoption so as to continue her life's goal unencumbered with the burden of raising her child. No, the child did not have a "right" to support from it's biological parents.

This was how society recognized illegitimacy for the first one-hundred seventy-five years of America's history. Prior to the mid-1960's, illegitimacy was relatively rare. Private charities, in conjunction with society's "safety-net" programs, lent support where it was needed. Then society was delt a liberal "one-two punch" with the "sexual revolution", which was to put women on equal footing with men with regards to sex, and President Johnson's "Great Society" programs that had the effect of rewarding illegitimacy.

This "one-two punch" caused an explosion of illegitimate births. As state treasuries were becoming drained as a result of the sky-rocketing welfare costs, state legislators began to scramble for solutions.

Being sympathetic to the politics of feminism, and not wanting alienate the "women's vote", state legislatures concocted the "Deadbead Dad" villian and, through a legislative sleight-of-hand, came up with the concept of a child's "right" to support.That's fine if you're merely expressing your opinion or making a moral "that's wrong!" argument, but you're making a legal argument and statements of fact. Legal argument requires reference to authority. There's just no way around it.One of two things. You are using "legal authority" as a smokescreen or you're not familiar with the concept of setting a legal precedent? Either way, it does not bode well in your masquerade as some sort of "legal authority".It's perfectly acceptable to say "I think this is a bullshit decision that should have gone the other way", but if you're making a legal argument that it was an incorrect decision, or that it was in conflict with another decision, you have to be prepared to demonstrate why.I have demonstrated "why". See, to require an individual to be financially responsible for the private concern of a second party, violates the concept of the rule of law. Furthermore, being that states sanction the abandoning of newborns through "safe haven" programs, I have also demonstrated that a child does not have a right to support from its biological parents.I have little opinion about the merits of either case, but gross mistatements and misunderstandings of the law get me going, and you're giving me plenty of ammunition.There hasn't been any mistatement nor misunderstanding. You're shootin' blanks.

pervert
01-26-2004, 05:30 PM
If she has full control over it (and the father has correspondingly no control over it) Possibly. But the fact is that she does not have "full" control over it.

She has temporary custady. Therefore, she has exclusive power to feed and in almost every way, care for the child.

She has a right of termination only for the first trimester and a little longer in some states.

She does not have the power of fertalization seperate from cooperation with the male.

Once the child is born, however, the exclusivity ends.

Both parents have rights and responsibilities throughout the process. Sometimes these rights and responsibilities are identical. Sometimes they are different. The differences amount to extra responsibilities on one or the other parent. They in no way amount to a negation of any of the rights or responsibilities of the other parent.

You see you have to ignore the shared responsibility of sex to get to the point you want. While the born child is both parent's responsibility, it is do because they both created the child. The necessary biological fact that the child is gestated inside the female does nothing to change the responsibilities or rights of the father toward the child.

than the woman should have to take full responsibility.This is exactly the case today. She takes full responsibility for her share of the child. If in fact she had created the child with no input from the male, then she would have no claim on the male. But you cannot cite a single example of such a birth. It is a biological impossibility.

Again, I don't understand the fervor over this percieved inequality. If you were trying to argue in favor of some sort of male input into the decision to abort a fetus, then I could understand. I'd have to disagree that such input could be enforced, but that would at least be a different argument. What you seem to be saying is basically "Ha Ha you have to carry the baby, so I don't have to help at all. Ha Ha ". It seems a uniquely irresponsible position.

pravnik
01-26-2004, 06:29 PM
"Cite me some legal authority"?? You know, you really are revealing yourself to be quite the jerk.

Ignoring the ad hominem for the time being (gentleman that I am), I had a professor in law school who used to infuriate a student from time to time by booming "citing as authority?" whenever said student made an alleged statement of the law. The infuriating thing was that if the student didn't have a citation, he or she was not expressing the law, just their opinion, which does not carry the force of law. Basically he was calling us out and embarassing us when we couldn't back it up. Better there than in a courtroom. If it's just your opinion that making fathers pay for their children regardless of marital status is unjust and unfair, fine. However, you've in addition to that innocuous observation made some very specific claims of the state of the law, including the rationale behind the common law exclusion of illegitimate children from child support and how a SCOTUS constitutional Due Process decision can possibly be in actual conflict with a constitutional Equal Protection decision (so egregious as to necessitate docket tampering), that require reference to authority if they are to be valid. This you've steadfastly refused to give in two threads on the matter, which explains why all the lawyers except me have thrown up their hands and gone home.

But I will explain to you how all this came to be.

The evolution of child-support into a "right" is a fairly recent phenomenon. In years past, if a woman gave birth to a child outside of the institution of matrimony, that child was considered hers. (It was a "private" concern as echoed in Roe v Wade.) If she was independently wealthy, she may have made the "choice" to raise her child by herself. If she was indigent, she would likely resort to putting her child up for adoption so as to not to be burdened with raising a child alone. If she was a teenager, she would probably make the "choice" to put her child up for adoption so as to continue her life's goal unencumbered with the burden of raising her child. No, the child did not have a "right" to support from it's biological parents.

This was how society recognized illegitimacy for the first one-hundred seventy-five years of America's history. Prior to the mid-1960's, illegitimacy was relatively rare. Private charities, in conjunction with society's "safety-net" programs, lent support where it was needed. Then society was delt a liberal "one-two punch" with the "sexual revolution", which was to put women on equal footing with men with regards to sex, and President Johnson's "Great Society" programs that had the effect of rewarding illegitimacy.

This "one-two punch" caused an explosion of illegitimate births. As state treasuries were becoming drained as a result of the sky-rocketing welfare costs, state legislators began to scramble for solutions.

Being sympathetic to the politics of feminism, and not wanting alienate the "women's vote", state legislatures concocted the "Deadbead Dad" villian and, through a legislative sleight-of-hand, came up with the concept of a child's "right" to support.

You mean that the people who created the child have to pay for its well being instead of me? I have very little problem with this. And regarding a legislative change of the common law by statute: so what? They do this all the time. At common law it wasn't burglary if someone broke into your home to commit a felony unless it happened at night, and it wasn't arson to burn down your own house (it was "houseburning", a misdemeanor).

One of two things. You are using "legal authority" as a smokescreen or you're not familiar with the concept of setting a legal precedent? Either way, it does not bode well in your masquerade as some sort of "legal authority".

I'm not masquerading as a legal authority, I'm desperately trying to get you to provide me with some. There may be a few things that I'm unfamiliar with in this world, but precedent isn't one of them. You have stated that there are some well settled rules of law that the Supreme Court disregarded, and which make Gomez and Roe in conflict. I would like to see the the source of those laws. Blackstone? Lord Coke? What?

I have demonstrated "why". See, to require an individual to be financially responsible for the private concern of a second party, violates the concept of the rule of law. Furthermore, being that states sanction the abandoning of newborns through "safe haven" programs, I have also demonstrated that a child does not have a right to support from its biological parents.

Aaaaaand we're back at the source of the problem. "violates the concept of the rule of law" isn't a legal argument any more than "offends my delicate sensibilities". If you were merely expressing your opinion there wouldn't be a problem with this, but you're saying that this statement carries the weight of law to such an extent that the Supreme Court had to manipulate its docket to save face. Re: safe haven laws, there has long been a rule that parental rights and obligations can be judicially terminated upon abandonment by the parents...both parents. Safe haven laws just provide a safer place for abandonment than the places previously used. If a child is left in a dumpster and no one comes to claim it, it can safely be assumed to have been abandoned by both parents and a judge will so rule. If a child is left at a hospital and no one turns up to claim it, same result.

Another thought on this:

See, to require an individual to be financially responsible for the private concern of a second party, violates the concept of the rule of law.

Did you at any point in your life attend a public school? Who do you think paid for it?

There hasn't been any mistatement nor misunderstanding. You're shootin' blanks.

Every time you have characterized your personal opinion as carrying the weight of law, or restated your mistaken readings of Roe and Gomez, there has been a misstatement and misunderstanding of the law.

Zigarre
01-27-2004, 03:35 AM
Razorsharp
Before you sink too deep into this quagmire of despair, you might look at what many of the higher courts, even the US Supreme Court, has said about child support. After reading just a portion of the material available here, it appears to me that your battle is an uphill one, very uphill.
CS Guidelines.com (www.supportguidelines.com/articles/art200204.html)

Razorsharp
01-27-2004, 07:58 AM
Dude. You keep saying stuff like this, when it is not true. There have been cases where a father sued and won custodial rights, visitation rights, and suportive rights to children that mother would have prefered they had nothing to do with. I can agree that there has never been a case where a father was able to sue for the right to gestate a fetus within his own body. So in that sense, and in that sense, only, women have more right to support offspring than men do.You are confusing an obligation with a right. Certainly someone can assume an obligation, but in your senerio, child support is not an issue. Custody is the issue.

I am not advocating the complete abolition of child support laws, only a modification to make the law compatible with the American system of jurisprudence. As I wrote:Irrespective of one's personal opinions concerning the issue of abortion, it has to be acknowledged that a Supreme Court ruling has certain legal ramifications. As a result of the Roe vs. Wade decision, a woman's pregnancy was determined to be autonomous and protected by a constitutional "right to privacy". The Supreme Court ruled that it is solely a woman's personal "choice" to either bring a child into the world, or to terminate a pregnancy without any regard for the wishes of the "biological father".

Therefore, for child support laws to be consistent with the application of law that our system of jurisprudence demands, a certain relationship must exist between a birth mother and a biological father. If the birth mother has the legal means of a "contract" of marriage or an "implied contract" of a sustained relationship with the biological father of her child, only then should the law be applied to require that man to provide support for a child that is the result of that relationship. If a birth mother does not have the obligatory contract with the biological father, then that man should not be required to support a child that the birth mother unilaterally chooses to bring into the world. The only other scenario that would justify the application of child support law is if an adult male impregnates a girl under the age of consent.

For the State to require an individual, not bound by contract, to be financially responsible for a "private" concern of a second party, not only violates the rule of law, it violates the very essence of freedom, liberty and justice that America stands for.Now, within the parameters I have outlined, the only time a child's right to support from its biological father is recognized, is when the birth mother wants financial assistance with the "choice" that she unilaterally made.

Razorsharp
01-27-2004, 08:04 AM
No, and fetal homicide laws are being challenged for the exact reason you describe. How is that germane to this conversation?I'm surprised, being the authority on the legal system that you paint yourself to be, I thought, surely, you could connect the dots. Here, I'll make it easy for you. I'll break it down to its lowest common denominator.

The concept of "the rule of law" is a tenet of the American system of jurispridence.

The legal standing of a fetus is arbitrary.

A child's "right" to support from it's biological parents is arbitrary.

Even the concept of "freedom of choice" is arbitrary. Case-in-point:

While under contract to a television studio to portray a role in a daytime television drama that involved scenes depicting partial nudity, the actress, Hunter Tylo, became pregnant. Rather than making the "choice" to terminate the pregnancy, Ms. Tylo chose to continue her pregnancy to term. As a result of the "choice" that she made, her obvious pregnancy prevented her from portraying the role in which she was under contract to fulfill and the studio properly terminated her contract.

Subsequently, Ms. Tylo sued the studio for wrongful termination and, in an act of judicial insanity, was awarded a multi-million dollar judgment.

The two definitions, one being a "choice" and the other being a "civil-right", for the same situation, are not compatible in a society that bases it's legal system on the "rule of law". This is an example of arbitrary law. Arbitrary law is the antithesis of "the rule of law".

Get it?

robertliguori
01-27-2004, 08:15 AM
Possibly. But the fact is that she does not have "full" control over it.

She has temporary custady. Therefore, she has exclusive power to feed and in almost every way, care for the child.

She has a right of termination only for the first trimester and a little longer in some states.

She does not have the power of fertalization seperate from cooperation with the male.

Once the child is born, however, the exclusivity ends.

Both parents have rights and responsibilities throughout the process. Sometimes these rights and responsibilities are identical. Sometimes they are different. The differences amount to extra responsibilities on one or the other parent. They in no way amount to a negation of any of the rights or responsibilities of the other parent.

You see you have to ignore the shared responsibility of sex to get to the point you want. While the born child is both parent's responsibility, it is do because they both created the child. The necessary biological fact that the child is gestated inside the female does nothing to change the responsibilities or rights of the father toward the child.

This is exactly the case today. She takes full responsibility for her share of the child. If in fact she had created the child with no input from the male, then she would have no claim on the male. But you cannot cite a single example of such a birth. It is a biological impossibility.

Again, I don't understand the fervor over this percieved inequality. If you were trying to argue in favor of some sort of male input into the decision to abort a fetus, then I could understand. I'd have to disagree that such input could be enforced, but that would at least be a different argument. What you seem to be saying is basically "Ha Ha you have to carry the baby, so I don't have to help at all. Ha Ha ". It seems a uniquely irresponsible position.
I'm not arguing that women are having children with no input from men; I'm arguing that since the input (having sex) is not a binding contract on the woman to have a child, it shouldn't be considered so for the men.
The abortion comment reveals our disconnect: I'm not arguing for a man's right to meddle. I'm arguing that since he has no right to meddle, he shouldn't have the responsibilities that go along with it. The woman is the gatekeeper with regards to the pregnancy: it is fully her choice if a fetus grows to term. Although it took two to tango, as the case may be, sexual activity is not considered a binding contract to support the fruit of the union; if it was: a woman's right to choose wouldn't be, and there would be no inequality. Well, women would be chained biologically and financially and men would only be chained financially, which isn't equal, but it would suck lots for both of them, and that's what I meant.

Razorsharp
01-27-2004, 08:41 AM
Did you at any point in your life attend a public school? Who do you think paid for it?The public school system is not a "private concern" is it?Every time you have characterized your personal opinion as carrying the weight of law, or restated your mistaken readings of Roe and Gomez, there has been a misstatement and misunderstanding of the law.I have never claimed that my personal opinion carries the weight of law. You are the one guilty of mischaracterization.

Hamlet
01-27-2004, 11:23 AM
This you've steadfastly refused to give in two threads on the matter, which explains why all the lawyers except me have thrown up their hands and gone home.I could not agree more. I had given up on Razorsharp last year, and, only morbid curiosity got me to open this newly resurrected version today. I appreciate your continued efforts to make the distinction between legal authority and opinion that seems to elude Razorsharp, and your remaining calm in the face of it is to be applauded.

Now, I must point out that there are more problems with the things Razorsharp is stating that others need to view skeptically. For example: The evolution of child-support into a "right" is a fairly recent phenomenon. and this gem No, the child did not have a "right" to support from it's biological parents.
This assertion ignores the history of child support in 17th century England as well as it's early treatment in America. As far as America goes, way back in 1816, the New York Supreme Court stated: "infant children; and if the parent neglect that duty, any other person who supplies such necessaries is deemed to have conferred a benefit on the delinquent parent, for which the law raises an implied promise to pay on the part of the parent." For a actual citation (gasp!), one can look at the Yale Law Review article by Drew Hanson, which can be found here (http://ancpr.org/american_invention_of_child_supp.htm). The article describes how early American courts ruled and viewed the concept of child support.

Another example: This "one-two punch" caused an explosion of illegitimate births. As state treasuries were becoming drained as a result of the sky-rocketing welfare costs, state legislators began to scramble for solutions.

Being sympathetic to the politics of feminism, and not wanting alienate the "women's vote", state legislatures concocted the "Deadbead [sic] Dad" villian [sic] and, through a legislative sleight-of-hand, came up with the concept of a child's "right" to support.As I explained earlier, the concept that the father of a child has a moral duty to provide for the children has been around for just about ever. That moral duty was extended to a legal duty in America when it was founded. And, hold onto your seats, here's another cite for my proposition: Go figure, an actual citation (http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/information_and_explanation/world/history_usa.htm#references). While I do not disagree with Razorsharp that the prime motivation for the enacting of child support laws has always been to put the burden on the parents rather than the state or the church, it is factually wrong to assert that it only started happening in the mid-60's and that it was the product of the "politics of feminism" or "the woman's vote", or that it was legislative "sleight of hand."

Now, giving Razorsharp the benefit of the doubt, which I'm not sure he's earned, perhaps he should limit his assertions regarding the legal authority etc. to only "illegitimate" children, for the statutory right to child support at issue in Gomez was only for legitimate children. However, taking that fact and stating that child support was grounded in the contract of marriage or that the right somehow only goes to the woman is a misstatement that should be rectified.

Now, in an effort to avoid this thread being submitted next year at this time, I would suggest that Razorsharp put aside making conspiracy accusations that have no basis in fact, put aside the misstatements of the law, and put aside the misstatements as to the history of child support. He may have an argument about the "unfairness" of child support obligations put on fathers when the mother has a choice to terminate the pregnancy, Og knows we've heard it all before on this board, but to support that argument with misstatements and fanciful readings of law needs to be corrected.

pravnik
01-27-2004, 11:42 AM
The public school system is not a "private concern" is it?

By your rationale, your birth was. I have no children, but my property taxes go directly to fund public education for children whose birth was the "private concern" of others. Why should I, a second party, be forced to be financially responsible for the private concerns of others? I have even less choice about the matter than the father did. Does the public school system violate "the American system of jurisprudence and the concept rule of law?" Why aren't you railing against it?

I have never claimed that my personal opinion carries the weight of law. You are the one guilty of mischaracterization.

Here:

My contention still stands, child-support's origin stems from the dissolution of the marriage contract.

This is an opinion presented as law. Every time you refuse to provide a cite for a assertion of law you are presenting your opinion as the law.

On preview: thank you, Hamlet, I appreciate that. Well written post, too.

pervert
01-27-2004, 04:47 PM
I'm arguing that since the input (having sex) is not a binding contract on the woman to have a child, it shouldn't be considered so for the men.But the extra rights and responsibilities are a biological necessity. That is, they are a known, required, and therefore agreed to necessary condition imposed on both parties to the sex in the first place. IOW, having sex is a binding contract on BOTH participants, it simply binds them to different rights and responsibilities.

I was going to compose another example, but then decided not to. I remember hearing last time this went around and around and around that you guys (sorry if it was not you robert, I don't remember exactly who said it) suggested that he could think of no other situation where one party can impose responsibilities on another. After considering this again and again and again in this thread, I have to turn this around. I can think of no situation where temporary custoday of a mutually created "thing" divorces responsibility for that creation from either party. That is just because the female has custody of the fetus, and even if she has unilateral power to terminate it, this does NOTHING to the rights or responsibilities the father took on when he helped create it in the first place.

The abortion comment reveals our disconnect: I'm not arguing for a man's right to meddle. I'm arguing that since he has no right to meddle, he shouldn't have the responsibilities that go along with it.But he doesn't have the responsibility to go along with meddling. There is no movement I am aware of to force fathers to pay half the costs of abortions. There is no movement I am aware of which wants to force fathers to provide support of any kind towards making this decision. The only responsibilities the father has legally are to the child once it is born. The fact that it might not have been born even after conception does NOTHING to reduce or change in any way this fact.

sexual activity is not considered a binding contract to support the fruit of the unionI'm not sure this is the case. It may not be considered a binding contract not to have an abortion, but it certainly is a binding contract on both parties to support a possible issue from the union. The femal is bound to gestate the fetus baring certain abnormal incidents (abortion is only one of them). The male is bound to support his offspring in different ways. But he is bound to the child none the less.

if it was: a woman's right to choose wouldn't be, and there would be no inequality.Again, you are using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. While I agree that the rights and responsibilities of parents are not identical especially during pregnancy, that does not mean that there is some sort of inequity. It certainly does not mean that the responsibilities of the father have been rendered moot or inapplicable.

Gaudere
01-27-2004, 06:32 PM
Razorsharp:
I will respond. In the subject line, I will type, "Hey pinhead, you don't know as much as you think.

"We teachers have a way" Ha!

Yeah, a way to make an ass of yourself. [...] You know, you really are revealing yourself to be quite the jerk.

[Moderator Hat ON]


Personal insults are NOT allowed in this forum, Razorsharp.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

Razorsharp
01-28-2004, 08:02 AM
It may not be considered a binding contract not to have an abortion, but it certainly is a binding contract on both parties to support a possible issue from the union.Last year, a Pennsylvania man, John Stachokus, petitioned the court to prevent his fiance, Tanya Meyers, from aborting the child that they both planned to raise. A name and god-parents had even been selected. Suddenly, John's fiance decided that she didn't want to be burdened with the responsibilities of parenthood and sought an abortion.

At first, a judge, sympathetic to Mr. Stachokus, assigned an injunction to Ms. Meyers, preventing her from having an abortion, but then reversed himself and lifted the injunction because of the privacy issue established in Roe v Wade.

A contract is an agreement between at least two parties working in conjunction. If one party can terminate the agreement at will, then there is no contract under any legal definition.

Razorsharp
01-28-2004, 08:05 AM
Razorsharp:


[Moderator Hat ON]


Personal insults are NOT allowed in this forum, Razorsharp.

[Moderator Hat OFF]You know what? I took it as a personal insult when I was being accused of plagarism?

Where were you then?

Razorsharp
01-28-2004, 08:17 AM
Here:My contention still stands, child-support's origin stems from the dissolution of the marriage contract.
This is an opinion presented as law. Every time you refuse to provide a cite for a assertion of law you are presenting your opinion as the law.Huh?? a "contention" is an opinion presented as law?

Razorsharp
01-28-2004, 08:33 AM
While I agree that the rights and responsibilities of parents are not identical especially during pregnancy, that does not mean that there is some sort of inequity.Oh, there most certainly is an inequity. The man is totally beholden to the "choice" of the woman, whereas, the woman has no obligation to the man. And you call that a "contract"?

Razorsharp
01-28-2004, 09:45 AM
Now, I must point out that there are more problems with the things Razorsharp is stating that others need to view skeptically. For example: and this gemHamlet is referring to my contention that child support is not a right.This assertion ignores the history of child support in 17th century England as well as it's early treatment in America. As far as America goes, way back in 1816, the New York Supreme Court stated: "infant children; and if the parent neglect that duty, any other person who supplies such necessaries is deemed to have conferred a benefit on the delinquent parent, for which the law raises an implied promise to pay on the part of the parent."Hmmm... no mention of a "right" to support there.For a actual citation (gasp!), one can look at the Yale Law Review article by Drew Hanson, which can be found here (http://ancpr.org/american_invention_of_child_supp.htm). The article describes how early American courts ruled and viewed the concept of child support.Okay, let's examine what Hanson writes"I. THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF EARLY AMERICAN CHILD SUPPORT LAW
Several social and legal transformations during the nineteenth century led to an increase in single motherhood. In this Part, I outline how changes in the legal regime surrounding divorce and child custody interacted with social changes in the meaning of childhood to cause a rise in the number of divorced mothers who were expected to nurture and care for their children. During the same period, family desertion emerged as a major social problem, as wage-earning men who could not access the courts to obtain divorces simply left their wives. Oh my, could it be that child support does have it's origins in divorce law afterall?A. Transformations in Divorce and Child Custody in Nineteenth-Century America
During the nineteenth century, American society witnessed a sharp rise in the number of single mothers with young children. The rise in the divorce rate, the emergence of maternal preference in child custody, and the new value placed on childrearing combined to make it difficult for single mothers to support their children without relying on local poor-relief.
1. Transformations in Divorce Law
Divorce was relatively rare in colonial America.(16) The divorce rate increased steadily during the nineteenth century,(17) however, in response to the liberalization of divorce laws in most states,(18) the transfer of jurisdiction over divorce from the legislatures to the courts,(19) and social changes such as industrialization and rising expectations of marriage that led more Americans to take advantage of those laws.(20) The pace of the rise in divorce varied by region, but by 1850 there was a clearly observable national trend toward marital breakdownYep, divorce.B. The Rise of Family Desertion in Nineteenth-Century America
The developments outlined in Section I.A primarily affected those members of nineteenth-century society who had the resources to take their marital problems to the courts. But for many wage-earning men, family desertion served as a cheap, nonlegal divorce.There's that word again.Another example: As I explained earlier, the concept that the father of a child has a moral duty to provide for the children has been around for just about ever. That moral duty was extended to a legal duty in America when it was founded.II. THE AMERICAN INVENTION OF A COMMON-LAW CHILD SUPPORT DUTY
American courts in the nineteenth century addressed the problem of dependency among single mothers and their children by creating a legally enforceable child support duty. A legal child support obligation was unknown to English law, a fact that was repeatedly noted by courts and commentators skeptical of the new duty. But for the courts that supported the new doctrine (which was the majority view by the end of the century),(55) the danger of dependency among single mothers--seen both as poverty and as dependency on the state(56)--was enough to justify their departure from precedent. Courts early in the nineteenth century referred to concerns about dependency in the first American child support decisions. From mid-century to 1900, American courts consolidated the child support obligation, reasoning in a discourse of fault and punishment as they addressed dependency among single mothers.
A. The Child Support Duty at English Law
The American courts that dealt with cases of marital breakdown in the early nineteenth century had inherited a common-law tradition that did not provide for a child support action. Mainstream English law in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries had held that a father had only a nonenforceable moral duty to support his children.(57) According to Blackstone, the duty of parents to provide for their children was a "principle of natural law."(58) "Natural" law meant no more than that: There was no common-law action for the recovery of support furnished to a minor child at English law.(59) There were some hints by the middle of the nineteenth century that English courts would imply a promise of reimbursement if a father refused to support a child,(60) but these cases were clearly in the minority. Even the most generous reading of English precedent left American courts confused as to whether a father who deserted his family could be compelled to pay child support in a legal action.(61) Most American courts read the English precedents as forbidding a third party from recovering child support costs unless a father had authorized such support by contract.(62)Okay, enough of that. It is obvious that the duty of child support stems from marriage. Texas state law was in line with historical precedent. The Court, in "Gomez" overturned that historical precedent.While I do not disagree with Razorsharp that the prime motivation for the enacting of child support laws has always been to put the burden on the parents rather than the state or the church, it is factually wrong to assert that it only started happening in the mid-60's and that it was the product of the "politics of feminism" or "the woman's vote", or that it was legislative "sleight of hand."Okay, for argument's sake, let's assume that I am wrong on that count.(Note that I am really only concerned with the American law.) How does that change the inequity of the law that exists within the status quo?Now, giving Razorsharp the benefit of the doubt, which I'm not sure he's earned, perhaps he should limit his assertions regarding the legal authority etc. to only "illegitimate" children,That's basically what I was doing. Did you not pick up on that in the original OP?for the statutory right to child support at issue in Gomez was only for legitimate children.I believe that is what I said. However, taking that fact and stating that child support was grounded in the contract of marriage or that the right somehow only goes to the woman is a misstatement that should be rectified.But the links you provided only confirm my contention that child support has it's roots in marriage, either state sanctioned marriage or common-law marriage. Oh, I never stated that "the right somehow only goes to the woman". That is your mistatement. Consider it rectified.

SkipMagic
01-28-2004, 10:38 AM
You know what? I took it as a personal insult when I was being accused of plagarism?

Where were you then?
In the sticky, NO DIRECT PERSONAL INSULTS OR "FLAMING" IN GREAT DEBATES (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=220232) it's mentioned that, should you find an post which you believe violates the rules...... the most productive thing to do is to report the post using the "Report this post to a moderator" link in the bottom right corner of the post.

It also instructs you to send an e-mail to the Moderator or open a Pit thread if you disagree with his/her personal insult ruling. Just an FYI.

Razorsharp
01-28-2004, 11:44 AM
It also instructs you to send an e-mail to the Moderator or open a Pit thread if you disagree with his/her personal insult ruling. Just an FYI.I did not disagree with the ruling, did I? All I did was point out another double-standard.

BTW: Pravnik, I do extend my apologies to you for my remark. It was uncalled for.

Zoe, on the otherhand...

SkipMagic
01-28-2004, 12:41 PM
I did not disagree with the ruling, did I? All I did was point out another double-standard.
It looks as if you are questioning the lack of a ruling on a Moderator's part for a particular post. As a regular poster who is implying no special understanding of the rules, it seems to me that this also belongs in the Pit. What I wrote was just a neutral "FYI" for a relatively newish poster.

But hey, sink or swim on your own. The quicksand is that way ---->.

Gaudere
01-28-2004, 01:50 PM
[Moderator Hat ON]

Discussion of a ruling or lack thereof belongs in the Pit or in email. It is acceptable to call someone a plagarist in GD, whether you think it insulting or no. If someone is suspected of plagarism posters are entitled are entitled to say so; many people have plagarized and been called on it. Whether or not your post was plagarized is a question of fact, and that you did not plagarize the post has been established in this thread. When your posts have been reported as examples of plagarism, I have checked them out and confimed that I did not believe they were plagarized, so I did not delete them or warn you for plagarism.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

pravnik
01-28-2004, 02:34 PM
Apology accepted.

But the links you provided only confirm my contention that child support has it's roots in marriage, either state sanctioned marriage or common-law marriage.

Common law marriage is state sanctioned marriage. Nobody questioned that the common law rule was that child support was only available to children born within a marriage. That's obvious. The questionable part is the assertion that the reasoning behind the rule is that the man has entered into a contract with the woman that is absent outside marriage, and that making child support available to children born outside marriage somehow violates the "rule of law". Although courts sometimes refer to it as quasi-contractrual or analogize it to an implied contract, child support is not contractual in nature. For example, a prenuptual contract that limits or cuts out child support in the event of divorce will be void as a matter of public policy. Child support is not a contract with the other parent; it is an obligation imposed by the state and a duty owed to the child.

Hmmm... no mention of a "right" to support there.

Yes there is. "infant children; and if the parent neglect that duty...". Duty to the child. If a duty imposed by law is owed by one to another, the obligee has a right and the obligor has a duty.

A much more likely reason for the common law exclusion of children born out of wedlock (other than a strong bias against so-called "bastard children" common to the era) is that accurate determination of paternity was simply impossible, and marriage offered a "bright line" rule. What do you do if a prostitute from the local brothel says the mayor is the father of her child? There was simply no way to determine who a father was with any accuracy outside marriage. Even with the advent of modern paternity testing the rationale was that judicial resources were too scarce to extend paternity hearing to children born outside the marriage. The state didn't make any argument involving "marriage contracts" in Gomez, and it certainly couldn't argue that children born out of wedlock weren't entitled to the equal protetction of the law. Instead it argued that enforcment difficulties should excuse them from doing so, and that conservation of judicial resources made limiting paternity adjudication necessary. The Court said it recognized the "lurking problems with respect to proof of paternity", but that it couldn't act as a barrier to equal protection.

Razorsharp
01-28-2004, 05:25 PM
Yes there is. "infant children; and if the parent neglect that duty...". Duty to the child. If a duty imposed by law is owed by one to another, the obligee has a right and the obligor has a duty.Now, we're into semantics. Is it an obligation or a right? While it may be acceptable parlance for a merchant to speak of his "right" to be paid, it is the customer that has the "duty" or the "obligation" to pay for services rendered. It is the duty or obligation that a court requires to be fulfilled.

In the true sense of the word, a "right" is something that is inherent and doesn't rely on the actions of a second party.This is why child support is not a "right" of the child, but an obligation of a parent, hence the demarcation of legitimate and illegitimate.

Legal adoption further belies the notion of a child's "right" to support. A right is not transferable. In cases of adoption, the adoptive parents are taking on a judicially enforced obligation to support a child.A much more likely reason for the common law exclusion of children born out of wedlock (other than a strong bias against so-called "bastard children" common to the era) is that accurate determination of paternity was simply impossible, and marriage offered a "bright line" rule. What do you do if a prostitute from the local brothel says the mayor is the father of her child? There was simply no way to determine who a father was with any accuracy outside marriage. Even with the advent of modern paternity testing the rationale was that judicial resources were too scarce to extend paternity hearing to children born outside the marriage. The state didn't make any argument involving "marriage contracts" in Gomez, and it certainly couldn't argue that children born out of wedlock weren't entitled to the equal protetction of the law. Instead it argued that enforcment difficulties should excuse them from doing so, and that conservation of judicial resources made limiting paternity adjudication necessary. The Court said it recognized the "lurking problems with respect to proof of paternity", but that it couldn't act as a barrier to equal protection.Since it was lacking an accurate means to determine paternity that was the reason to draw the lines of support between legitimate and illegitimate children, explain this to me.

Now that DNA testing has made the determining of paternity a certainty, why is it that courts require men to continue supporting children that have been proven to be the product of a wife's infidelity?

pervert
01-28-2004, 06:55 PM
A contract is an agreement between at least two parties working in conjunction. If one party can terminate the agreement at will, then there is no contract under any legal definition.That's right. And if the contract contains a clause that one of the parties has complete control over the physical object which is the primacy of the contract, then the contract is still valid. Further, if that power is simply a logical, natural and necessary extension of the characteristics of the physical object iteslf, then the contract is still valid.

Can you name a single contract where such power exists, is invested in one party only, and is agreed to in advance of the contract where the contract was held invalid because of it? I didn't think so.

Oh, there most certainly is an inequity. The man is totally beholden to the "choice" of the woman, whereas, the woman has no obligation to the man. And you call that a "contract"? Of course it is a contract. As you said yourself, a contract is an agreement between two people. If that agreement contains a clause that is later considered unfair by the man, he has no right to cancel it afterward. This is what you are arguing for.

robertliguori
01-28-2004, 07:18 PM
That's right. And if the contract contains a clause that one of the parties has complete control over the physical object which is the primacy of the contract, then the contract is still valid. Further, if that power is simply a logical, natural and necessary extension of the characteristics of the physical object iteslf, then the contract is still valid.

Can you name a single contract where such power exists, is invested in one party only, and is agreed to in advance of the contract where the contract was held invalid because of it? I didn't think so.

Of course it is a contract. As you said yourself, a contract is an agreement between two people. If that agreement contains a clause that is later considered unfair by the man, he has no right to cancel it afterward. This is what you are arguing for.
Pervert, the crux of this issue is that no one signed a friggin' contract. In fact, my entire position is based on the fact that there should be no implied consent to take care of the fruit of sexual union if it is not the expected result of said union.

Perhaps you would like to make a case that consentual intercourse does imply consent to financially care for any children that result from it?

coleridge78
01-28-2004, 07:38 PM
Oh, must I? :rolleyes:
The same way a mother's rights are not usurped when a mfather can show up and hand over a baby without ever giving his name or any other identifying information to someone at a fire station, police station, EMS station or hospital.

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. The mother has control of the child after birth, not the father. The mother can leave that hospital with the kid leaving the father in the dust. The father cannot do the same.

Sheesh, it ain't that damn difficult to tell when your kid's been taken away from you for the last 30 days. What, you think the baby's hitchhiking through Europe, or hanging out in New Hampshire passing out pamphlets for Howard Dean?


Boy, you're willfully obtuse. Of course he knows it's been taken away. But if the couple are not married, good luck forcing the woman into court and finding out where the kid is within 30 days. It isn't going to happen.

coleridge78
01-28-2004, 07:40 PM
Oh, must I? :rolleyes:
The same way a mother's rights are not usurped when a mfather can show up and hand over a baby without ever giving his name or any other identifying information to someone at a fire station, police station, EMS station or hospital.

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. The mother has physical, de facto control of the child after birth, not the father. The mother can leave that hospital with the kid when the father's in the can. The father cannot do the same. Security would forceably restrain him. Can it be done? Sure. But not nearly as easily as the mother can walk out. Hell, women can and do walk out of hospitals with other people's babies.

Sheesh, it ain't that damn difficult to tell when your kid's been taken away from you for the last 30 days. What, you think the baby's hitchhiking through Europe, or hanging out in New Hampshire passing out pamphlets for Howard Dean?


Boy, you're willfully obtuse. Of course he knows it's been taken away. But if the couple are not married, good luck forcing the woman into court and finding out where the kid is within 30 days. It isn't going to happen.

coleridge78
01-28-2004, 07:55 PM
You see you have to ignore the shared responsibility of sex to get to the point you want. While the born child is both parent's responsibility, it is do because they both created the child. The necessary biological fact that the child is gestated inside the female does nothing to change the responsibilities or rights of the father toward the child.

Pervert, I think you're missing the point a bit. There's a context here. The argument is that there is a double standard. This double standard is *not* the one you're arguing against, however. You've identified it this way and then argued against it:

It is a double standard that a woman can abrogate responsibility for a child, but a man cannot.

Your point seems to be that it's not really a "double standard" to force a man to pay child support on a child he didn't want, because the choice to have the child is a mutual one at conception, and the mother's temporary custody is just a biological fact. Am I right so far?

And I'd agree. The problem is, the statement that you're rebutting isn't really the one at issue. There's a legal nuance here: abortion-rights activists (and though not an activist, I'm certainly pro-choice) have to make one key statement, which is accepted by law, in order to make abortion legal, rather than a murder. That statement is:

A fetus in the first trimester is *not* a person.

It then follows, as has already been stated, that the choice of intercourse is a choice to create (or risk creating) a *fetus*, which is by law and our moral opinion as pro-choice people something distinct from a person.

The real issue is that, whether it's a biological fluke or whatever, the legal choice for a child to be born (rather than a fetus, which is not a person, be removed) is *solely* that of the mother. You may scoff, but legally (and for any of us pro-choicers to be intellectually honest and consistent) this is the inevitable conclusion. The choice of intercourse is a choice to fertilize. The choice for a child to be born is *only* the woman's choice. Hence, it should be her responsibility. If she is incapable financially of raising that child, that's too bad. It happens all the time. She can give it up for adoption with a contract for visitation, or give it to a foster family while she tries to work something out, call on friends or family for help if possible, any number of things. The fact is, raising a child isn't as expensive as most patrimony awards would have you think. It's expensive, yes, but a kid doesn't need a playstation and a stereo and a TV either.

If *anything at all*, the man should only be required by law to pay 50% of documented essentials. Nothing else makes sense.

Hamlet
01-28-2004, 09:14 PM
Hamlet is referring to my contention that child support is not a right.Correct. And you have shown no authority for your proposition. But here, since one of us seems interested in supporting our positions with citations and authority (guess which one of us?) I'll give you a couple of other quotes: "The duty of a parent to support a child is a basic duty owed by the parent to the child, and a parent cannot waive or contract away the child's right to support."Supcoe v. Shearer.

Or here's another one, this one from 1917, which speaks directly to your "misleading" statement that child support has some sort of basis in the marital contract: The right of the wife to alimony arises immediately out of the marriage contract, but the right of the child to support at the hands of its parents springs from the incidental relationship which had its origin in marriage, to wit, that of parent and child. Ruge v. Ruge, 97 Wash. 51, 55, 165 P. 1063 (1917). If you actually took the time to do a bit of research, or actually seek authority for your legal propositions, you could find in an overwhelming number of cases that refer to the "child's right to support." And you know how many cases I found that refer to that right arising out of the marital contract? I'll give you 2 guesses and the first one doesn't count.
Hmmm... no mention of a "right" to support there.You do so love the word game. Wait a minute, you're the one who accuses [b]pravik[/quote]of playing semantics, yet you won't accept an authoritative case because it doesn't use the precise word you want? Gotcha! Oh my, could it be that child support does have it's origins in divorce law afterall?Ummmm, nope it can't be. Yep, divorce.There's that word again.This is what passes for critical thinking in your book? The fact that the word divorce was used alot when describing social changes in the 19th century establishs that child support has it's basis in the marriage contract? Hey, they used the word wage-earner too, maybe that means child support has it's basis in the worker/employer relationship!

Did you just gloss over these statements? Despite the absence of a child support duty at English law, American courts early in the nineteenth century began to assert that a father had a legal duty to support his children. and "[I]f there was any doubt as to the legal obligation" (which of course there was, at the time), the court would still grant relief "on any such ground as that the moral obligation had been converted into a legal one." The court refused to allow the defendant to evade his obligation to reimburse the costs of caring for his impoverished child, and so it upheld a child support duty even though none had existed at common law. and During the latter half of the nineteenth century, American courts became more confident in asserting a legal child support duty when they were presented with poor single mothers and their children. and Once the child support duty had been legally established, many of the early child support claims were brought by individuals who had provided food, board, or clothing to impoverished single mothers and their children and wanted to recover their outlays from the present or former husband.
Okay, enough of that. It is obvious that the duty of child support stems from marriage.I am simply astounded by your ability to make this claim without one shred of evidence and in the face of the numerous citations to the opposite. OK, I lied. I'm not really astounded. It's par for the course with you.

Okay, for argument's sake, let's assume that I am wrong on that count.For argument's sake? For arguments sake? (Note that I am really only concerned with the American law.) How does that change the inequity of the law that exists within the status quo?As I said before, feel free to debate the issue of the fairness of child support laws when the mother can obtain an abortion. You won't be the first, nor the last. But please refrain from creating imaginary conspiracies, giving misinformation about the law, and misstating facts. That's what I'm concerned about.
I believe that is what I said.But the links you provided only confirm my contention that child support has it's roots in marriage, either state sanctioned marriage or common-law marriage.Which you proved so successfully by showing that in a multi-page law review article about the history of child support law, the author referred to divorce. Wow. Color me convinced. It sure rebutted my assertions, which I supported with citations and legal authority.

minty green
01-28-2004, 10:32 PM
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. The mother has control of the child after birth, not the father. The mother can leave that hospital with the kid leaving the father in the dust. The father cannot do the same. Ah yes, but the father "can" strangle the child and bury its body in the woods, thus leaving the mother in the dust. So it all works out in the end, yes? :rolleyes:

We're discussing the law here, little man, not what people can do in evasion of the law.
Boy, you're willfully obtuse. Boy, you're . . . um, I was going to say one thing, and then I was going to soften it to a forum-acceptable "annoying," and then I realized that you're not even that. Shoo! Shoo! Away with you now.

pervert
01-28-2004, 11:38 PM
Pervert, I think you're missing the point a bit.Actually, no I'm not. I understand the argument you are proposing quite well.

A fetus in the first trimester is *not* a person.Quite correct. But neither is it an acorn. The fact that a mother can withdraw her biological support from the zygote is not grounds for the father to withdraw his financial support from the child.

It then follows, as has already been stated, that the choice of intercourse is a choice to create (or risk creating) a *fetus*, which is by law and our moral opinion as pro-choice people something distinct from a person.Again, yes, but not the way you think. The fetus is not a person. Similarly, nine months later, the infant is not a voter. Because the zygote, fetus, or infant is not a voter does not mean that it is an inanimate object. If its very early stages the child is not granted the protection of the state to life BECAUSE IT IS BIOLOGICALLY INSEPERABLE FROM THE MOTHER. That is, the mother is allowed to stop feeding the child during the very early development period. I think I can say without much fear of contradiction, that most people would heartily support a new law allowing a father to withdraw any biological sustenance he is feeding to his child during this period as well. And for the record, I have not heard a single one of you guys suggest that the father should be responsible for paying for an abortion. Not even for half of one.

The real issue is that, whether it's a biological fluke or whatever, the legal choice for a child to be born (rather than a fetus, which is not a person, be removed) is *solely* that of the mother.No, not true. IF you can tell me of a single birth where the entire decision is that of the mother then I will bow out of this debate. But there never has been one, there never will be one, there cannot be one. It is like complaining that a circle does not have any sides. It makes not sense at all.

You may scoff, but legally (and for any of us pro-choicers to be intellectually honest and consistent) this is the inevitable conclusion.No, it is not. This conclusion is only possible if you forget the last several hundred million years of evolutionary history. It is only possible if you ignore the biological and societal facts of procreation which have been producing humans for all of recorded history. In short, it is so far from inevitability and intellectual honesty as to be fraudulently devoid of both.


The choice of intercourse is a choice to fertilize. Fertilize what? So that it might turn into what? You see, you come so close to recognizing your mistake here that I am almost tempted to help you again.

And then...

The choice for a child to be born is *only* the woman's choice. Hence, it should be her responsibility.

[needless blather snipped]

Nothing else makes sense.
I'm going to try one last time, and then you guys can rail against the inequities of mother nature as much as you want.

The female of many species have more power over the life and death of the young from a particular coupling. This is not a conspiricy to deprive you of enjoyable sex. It is simply the fact of life. Think of it this way. There is a period of development through which we must all pass during which we are not people. During which, in fact, we are not people to the extent that we are not worthy of the protections of the state, and during which we have not right to life liberty or happiness. If it so happens that during this period no one wishes to succor us, then we will die. It just so happens, that during this period, we are also exclusively inside the body of our mothers. Any inequity is merely an accident of biology. There is and cannot be any legal remedy for it.

When engaging in sex, you engage in an activity which might eventually result in a child. The fact that something might happen to prevent the child being born does not change in any way this fact.


One last thought and I'm done with this foolishness. Remember gentlemen. If you really don't want to have children you can always learn to swallow swords.;)

coleridge78
01-29-2004, 02:19 AM
The fetus is not a person. Similarly, nine months later, the infant is not a voter. Because the zygote, fetus, or infant is not a voter does not mean that it is an inanimate object.

Strawman. Nobody said it was an inanimate object. Moving on...

In its very early stages the child is not granted the protection of the state to life BECAUSE IT IS BIOLOGICALLY INSEPERABLE FROM THE MOTHER. That is, the mother is allowed to stop feeding the child during the very early development period.

Here is the disconnect in your argument. The "that is" which starts the final sentence is trying to link two unrelated elements. Yes, the fetus is biologically inseparable from the mother. That is a fact of life. But that has nothing to do with her having the right to "stop feeding" the child, which is a matter of law. Again: that is not a matter of nature. If the mother does nothing but carry on as always, nature, left to its own devices, will "keep feeding" the child. There is nothing biologically inevitable about

No, not true. IF you can tell me of a single birth where the entire decision is that of the mother then I will bow out of this debate. But there never has been one, there never will be one, there cannot be one. It is like complaining that a circle does not have any sides. It makes not sense at all.

You're simply not making any sense. This is very simple:

By legal definition insemination creates a fetus, which is not a person. The mother makes a choice to end this fetus, or not. Hence, any child born is born at the sole pleasure of its mother.

It is not conceived at her pleasure (shush :)), but it is born[i] at her pleasure. Intercourse may or may not result in a child being born; this is immaterial to the legal fact that the mother has sole discretion over whether a fetus becomes a child.

You surround this with all sorts of assertions about my alleged gross ignorance of biology to try to cloud this very simple logic. If you can address the three sentences above, I'd be more than happy to get shot down--I'm trying to understand how your argument might be sensical. I just want to know what your response to that logic (or non, as you may think) is, without any dressing-up.

The female of many species have more power over the life and death of the young from a particular coupling. This is not a conspiricy to deprive you of enjoyable sex. It is simply the fact of life. ... It just so happens, that during this period, we are also exclusively inside the body of our mothers. Any inequity is merely an accident of biology. There is and cannot be any legal remedy for it.

I'm still struggling to see how this is relevant. Yes, it is a result of evolution and biology that the woman, not the man, has that choice over the fate of the fetus... But she [i]does have that choice, so what is your point? The origin of the choice is immaterial.

Nobody is asking for a legal remedy for the biological fact that the mother has the choice. They're asking that she not be allowed to hold another person responsible for the choice she alone makes, the choice to allow the fetus to become a child.

When engaging in sex, you engage in an activity which might eventually result in a child. The fact that something might happen to prevent the child being born does not change in any way this fact.

Again, addressing things that are not at issue. Obviously, the fact that the fetus may not survive doesn't change the fact that intercourse may eventually result in a child. That's completely immaterial to the fact that at a particular legally defined time the mother makes a legal choice whether there will be a child or not.

I'm honestly trying to understand here. I appreciated your reply.

coleridge78
01-29-2004, 03:04 AM
Ah yes, but the father "can" strangle the child and bury its body in the woods, thus leaving the mother in the dust. So it all works out in the end, yes? :rolleyes:

We're discussing the law here, little man, not what people can do in evasion of the law.

Boy, an absurd and irrelevant rebuttal and an ad hominem in three little sentences! Brilliant display.

If you choose, in a general discussion rather than a legal proceeding, not to acknowledge the interplay between the law and reality, you're obviously more worried about compensating for your *ahem* equipment than engaging in meaningful debate.

But then, that's obvious from the above quote as well.

pravnik
01-29-2004, 10:02 AM
Now, we're into semantics. Is it an obligation or a right? While it may be acceptable parlance for a merchant to speak of his "right" to be paid, it is the customer that has the "duty" or the "obligation" to pay for services rendered. It is the duty or obligation that a court requires to be fulfilled.

Rights and duties are concomitant. The creation of a right generally creates a duty in anoher, and vice versa. The vesting of one party's right in a contract creates a corresponding duty in the other party. The passage of the Freedom of Information Act in 1966 created a right to certain information for citizens, and a duty to disclose that information in the government

In the true sense of the word, a "right" is something that is inherent and doesn't rely on the actions of a second party.This is why child support is not a "right" of the child, but an obligation of a parent, hence the demarcation of legitimate and illegitimate.

A right always depends on at least two parties! I have a duty of care not to negligently injure other people and a right to expect the same from them. If I'm the only person on Earth it doesn't make sense to speak of duties to others and rights expected. If there isn't a second party there's nobody to infringe on my rights in the first place.

Legal adoption further belies the notion of a child's "right" to support. A right is not transferable. In cases of adoption, the adoptive parents are taking on a judicially enforced obligation to support a child.

Lots of rights are transferrable. A person with rights in a contract can transfer those rights to a third party through assignation. I wouldn't say that's what's happening inadoption; the adoptive parent is assuming the rights and duties of parentage on his own, not having them transferred from the biological parent, more like the creation of a new contract than the assignation of an existing one to analogize, but there's no general rule stating that no right is transferrable.

[i]Now that DNA testing has made the determining of paternity a certainty, why is it that courts require men to continue supporting children that have been proven to be the product of a wife's infidelity?

Like pretty much everything else in the law, there are time limits one has to challenge things. If you want to allege that a child born into someone else's marriage is biologically yours, you must do so within a ceratin time or you lose that right. If you want to contest that a child born within you own marriage is not your biological child, you must do so within a ceratin time or you lose that right as well.

pravnik
01-29-2004, 10:53 AM
By legal definition insemination creates a fetus, which is not a person. The mother makes a choice to end this fetus, or not. Hence, any child born is born at the sole pleasure of its mother.

It is not conceived at her pleasure (shush :)), but it is [i]born[i] at her pleasure. Intercourse may or may not result in a child being born; this is immaterial to the legal fact that the mother has sole discretion over whether a fetus becomes a child.

You surround this with all sorts of assertions about my alleged gross ignorance of biology to try to cloud this very simple logic. If you can address the three sentences above, I'd be more than happy to get shot down--I'm trying to understand how your argument might be sensical. I just want to know what your response to that logic (or non, as you may think) is, without any dressing-up.

I'll give it a shot. The basic assumption behind it is that the law cares more about assigning culpability for the pregnancy than it does the best interest of the child. There just aren't two people whose interests have to be considered, there are three, and in fact many more than three.

Lets say the mother completely lies to the father and says not only has she had her tubes tied and gone through menopause, but she has no uterus and used to be a man. She gives the father a condom which she has secretly perforated. The pregnancy is a much her "fault" as it can be.

The judge he tells this sad story to will sympathize, but will assign the same rights and duties to him he would to a father who wanted a child. He may not have had as much of a say in whether the child was born than the mother did, but the child had no say at all. Since the child is the most vulnerable and helpless of the three, the law favors what is in the best interest of the child over equity to the parents. It will try to do what is fair for the parents, but the best interest of the child is paramount.

Moreover, there are more than these three to consider, there is everyone else, meaning you and me. What is not paid for by the parents is paid for by the state or by charity, meaning the rest of us would have to pay for a child we didn't have a hand in conceiving. We have to put food in the mouths of a lot of children whose mothers and fathers can't or won't.

You may say "Well, why should should we feed anyone at all? Other people shouldn't have to be concerned with it", but that's not a viable option. One, it's just not going to happen. Society doesn't like having starving people in its midst, and will always provide some measure of relief if possible. Secondly, even if it didn't provide the relief, extreme poverty and starvation is more of a societal and economic drain than helping would be. Imposing a duty of support on the biological parents is the most equitable solution to all parties concerned.

pervert
01-29-2004, 11:01 AM
It is not conceived at her pleasure (shush :)), but it is [i]born[i] at her pleasure. Intercourse may or may not result in a child being born; this is immaterial to the legal fact that the mother has sole discretion over whether a fetus becomes a child.

If you can address the three sentences above, I'd be more than happy to get shot down--I'm trying to understand how your argument might be sensical. I just want to know what your response to that logic (or non, as you may think) is, without any dressing-up.Ok.

The legal fact of a mother's sole power to abort is not related to the fact that both parents are required for fertilization. Your problem, is that you refuse to see that this power does not affect the father's responsibilities. Specifically, the last sentence (of the 2 you asked me to respond to) does not follow from your evidence. You see, the mother has sole descrition over whether or not to abort. She does not have sole descrition over whether or not to birth. Does that make it clear?

You see, you set up a false dichotomy by trying to make the decision to abort or not look like the decision to procreate or not. They are not the same decision, because the context is different. The decision to procreate can be made prior to conception. The decision to abort is only made during pregnancy. That is, the decision not to abort is not the same as the decision to procreate without the father. Thus, the decision not to abort is not the same as imposing procreation on the father.

Razorsharp
01-29-2004, 11:24 AM
Which you proved so successfully by showing that in a multi-page law review article about the history of child support law, the author referred to divorce. Wow. Color me convinced. It sure rebutted my assertions, which I supported with citations and legal authority.Yes the author did refer to divorce. In fact, divorce was mentioned so many times, it is obvious that the obligation being referred to was a man's legal (not moral) obligation to provide support for his "legitimate" children. That is the historical basis of child-support.Or here's another one, this one from 1917, which speaks directly to your "misleading" statement that child support has some sort of basis in the marital contract:The right of the wife to alimony arises immediately out of the marriage contract, but the right of the child to support at the hands of its parents springs from the incidental relationship which has its origin in marriage, to wit, that of parent and child.The defense rests. Thank you for making my case.

Razorsharp
01-29-2004, 11:34 AM
The legal fact of a mother's sole power to abort is not related to the fact that both parents are required for fertilization. Your problem, is that you refuse to see that this power does not affect the father's responsibilities.WHAT??!! "Does not affect the father's responsibilities."??? It totally determines the father's responsibilities, and there's your inequity of law.

coleridge78
01-29-2004, 11:49 AM
The legal fact of a mother's sole power to abort is not related to the fact that both parents are required for fertilization. Your problem, is that you refuse to see that this power does not affect the father's responsibilities.

I'm sorry if I'm being obtuse, but isn't that sort of the crux of the debate, rather than something to be assumed?

Specifically, the last sentence (of the 2 you asked me to respond to) does not follow from your evidence. You see, the mother has sole descrition over whether or not to abort. She does not have sole descrition over whether or not to birth.

I understand how you can say that, I see the distinction you're making. I guess I just don't agree that it's a meaningful one. It seems to me that if she has sole discretion over the abortion, and because the birth occuring or not is the direct result of that choice, that she de facto also has sole discretion over the birth (as opposed to the insemination). I think we may just have a fundamental disagreement on that point, and there's no more to debate. If that's the case, I'm at least glad it's clarified so I can respectfully disagree. :)

Razorsharp
01-29-2004, 11:50 AM
A right always depends on at least two parties.One's right to free speech never depends on a second party.Lots of rights are transferrable.Sometimes one loses his right to vote. Could someone who is not going to exercise their right, transfer that right to the person that lost his?A person with rights in a contract can transfer those rights to a third party through assignation.But, can a person transfer another person's rights?I wouldn't say that's what's happening inadoption; the adoptive parent is assuming the rights and duties of parentage on his own, not having them transferred from the biological parent,What is happening in adoption, is the transfering someone else's right. That is, if a child has the right to support from it's biological parents.Like pretty much everything else in the law, there are time limits one has to challenge things.Would this be the same time limit that a birth mother has to challenge a biological father for child-support?

pervert
01-29-2004, 12:14 PM
It seems to me that if she has sole discretion over the abortion, and because the birth occuring or not is the direct result of that choice, that she de facto also has sole discretion over the birth (as opposed to the insemination).But you have to remember that sole descrition over the abortion is not the same as sole descrition over the birth. Also, you have to remember that the fact that she has sole descrition is imposed by the reality of nature rather than as some legal conspiricy.

Let me see if I can illustrate it this way. Two people agree in a contract on the creation of a business, lets say. In the contract they agree that one of the partners will have sole responsibility over the day to day operation of the business during its initial startup period. Afterwards, they will share this responsibility in some way. The fact that one partner had sole power for a certain time does nothing to the other partner's responsibility toward the business.

Now, the point I am trying to illustrate: Imagine that the clause in the contract which gives one of the partner's sole custody (and sole power) over the business is not an arbitrary decision, rather, it is a necessary consequence of the nature of the business. That is, even if both parties agreed that it was unfair, they could not start the business without one of the partners taking full custody for a period of time.

Imagine now, that the first partner (the one who did not get initial custody) complains later that he does not want to participate in the business anymore. However, he does not want to pay the agreed to buyout because, he argues, the second partner could have killed the business before it required his participation. He argues that since the second partner had this power at her sole descretion, she should not be solely responsible for the business.

Now a question for you. How is the first partner's argument different than yours? I don't mean in the odd way that sex is not a negotiatied contract. I mean in the sense that the sole power did little to detract from the first partners responsibility.


I think we may just have a fundamental disagreement on that point, and there's no more to debate. If that's the case, I'm at least glad it's clarified so I can respectfully disagree. :)Fair enough.

pervert
01-29-2004, 12:24 PM
WHAT??!! "Does not affect the father's responsibilities."??? It totally determines the father's responsibilities, and there's your inequity of law.Correct. Does not affect. The rights and responsibilities of the father are imposed at conception. The fact of power by the female does nothing to change this.

Let me try one last illustration. Imagine that the child (at any age) once born has to undergo surgery. Further imagine that while in surgery, the surgeon could take some action which would kill the child. You have to stretch a little, but imagine that such an action was perfectly legal. Sort of a I had to to try and save him or 3 other patients or something like that. Now, imagine a father saying after the surgery "He could have legally killed the child, so I shouldn't have to be its father anymore."

I'm sorry, again, but the argument is ridiculous. Temporary power over a thing does not remove all responsibilities owed to that thing by the one who exercised (or not) that power. Nor does it remove all responsibilities owed to that thing by those who had no power during that time.

Now, if you want to argue that fathers should have some say in the woman's decision to abort then we can talk. I can see an argument that at least he should be allowed to say a few words.

OK, no I can't. The fact is that if a man wants children he has to grant complete power of life or death to that child for a short period to a woman. In the same way, if he does not want children, the only way is to not plant his seed inside a fertile female.

pervert
01-29-2004, 12:31 PM
Sorry about missing this before, but I need to add one clarification.
It seems to me that if she has sole discretion over the abortion, and because the birth occuring or not is the direct result of that choiceThis is where your (collective your) argument falls apart. The decision not to abort does not directly result in birth. It is a necessary but not sufficient condition of the birth. Just as the insemination is. Similarly, insemination does not confer total responsibility for the child on the father.

Consider that the decision to ejaculate or not is more of a decision than the one made by the female to ovulate or not. Could she argue that she had less of a choice in the conception and therefore should shoulder less of the responsibility? If you remove abortion for a second, could you make the argument that the father should take full and total responsibility for any child which results from his failure to "pull out"?

coleridge78
01-29-2004, 12:42 PM
Now, the point I am trying to illustrate: Imagine that the clause in the contract which gives one of the partner's sole custody (and sole power) over the business is not an arbitrary decision, rather, it is a necessary consequence of the nature of the business. That is, even if both parties agreed that it was unfair, they could not start the business without one of the partners taking full custody for a period of time.

Imagine now, that the first partner (the one who did not get initial custody) complains later that he does not want to participate in the business anymore. However, he does not want to pay the agreed to buyout because, he argues, the second partner could have killed the business before it required his participation. He argues that since the second partner had this power at her sole descretion, she should not be solely responsible for the business.

Exactly. Everything you say is true because it is legally defined that way. The first partner has the legal obligation to bear that responsibility to which he agreed, regardless of the interim period, because that is the legal structure of the contract.

In your example, the business is a particular thing defined by a contract; this "thing", and this is key, is always the same thing in the view of the law, regardless of who has responsibility for it.

The pregnancy, however, is not strictly analogous because the issue isn't just that one partner has inevitable sole custody/responsibility for a time. There are, under the legal standard which gives women the right to abort, two separate and distinct entities: first a fetus, then a child. Biologically, yes, the first is just a stage of development and its dependent nature is simply an evolutionary fact. But legally, it is distinct from the child, and only becomes a child if the mother, at her sole discretion makes the choice to allow it to become one.

robertliguori
01-29-2004, 12:47 PM
Let me see if I can illustrate it this way. Two people agree in a contract on the creation of a business, lets say. In the contract they agree that one of the partners will have sole responsibility over the day to day operation of the business during its initial startup period. Afterwards, they will share this responsibility in some way. The fact that one partner had sole power for a certain time does nothing to the other partner's responsibility toward the business.


No, you can't illustrate it thusly, because the point that we've made (and you've not rebutted) is that at no point does the man enter such a contract. You claim that having sex is equivalent to stating consent to care for any fruit of the union. We point out that it obviously isn't so on the female side of the equation. Besides, since with birth control and whatnot, a baby is not necessarily a likely outcome of sex, implied conset is hooey.

pervert
01-29-2004, 01:05 PM
You claim that having sex is equivalent to stating consent to care for any fruit of the union.No, I have not said that sex is a contract to care for a child. I have said that having sex is a contract to take responsibility for that action. If it does not result in a child, then no child care is required. If it does, however, then care is required. Both participants have power to prevent children. These powers are different. The fact of this difference does not negate the responsibilities of either participant. Which, unfortunately is what your argument amounts to.

robertliguori
01-29-2004, 02:46 PM
No, I have not said that sex is a contract to care for a child. I have said that having sex is a contract to take responsibility for that action. If it does not result in a child, then no child care is required. If it does, however, then care is required. Both participants have power to prevent children. These powers are different. The fact of this difference does not negate the responsibilities of either participant. Which, unfortunately is what your argument amounts to.

Okay, we'll take this from the top.
Say I follow you around, steal a germ cell from you somehow (both genders lose them on a regular basis), and borrowing lab equipment from the Raelians, produce your child. Why should you legally owe it child support?
Of course, you should have taken responsibility for your germ cells, in this above example. By your logic, you owe the child a debt. I think this is horse hooey, because you had a reasonable expectation that no one would attempt to grow a child from your cast-off cells, just as people who have sex with birth control have a reasonable expectation that no child will thusly result.

You can't have it both ways. Either we have a built-in obligation to care for our children, regardless of how they came about, or people don't have such an obligation as default and need to incur it, at which point you need to argue that taking some action (I.e., having sex) implied a willingness to pay child support.

Also, keep in mind I'm talking about what the law should eb==

I'm sorry, again, but the argument is ridiculous. Temporary power over a thing does not remove all responsibilities owed to that thing by the one who exercised (or not) that power. Nor does it remove all responsibilities owed to that thing by those who had no power during that time.

robertliguori
01-29-2004, 02:48 PM
Damn keyboard puts enter right next to backspace. Please ignore the last two paragraphs.

catsix
01-29-2004, 02:53 PM
pervert said:
I have said that having sex is a contract to take responsibility for that action.

And so long as one of the ways available to women for 'taking responsibility' is choosing not to become a mother, a man should be able to decide not to be a father.

Hamlet
01-29-2004, 03:46 PM
Yes the author did refer to divorce. In fact, divorce was mentioned so many times, it is obvious that the obligation being referred to was a man's legal (not moral) obligation to provide support for his "legitimate" children.Your argument is completely and utterly devoid of logic and any indication of critical thinking skills. I would be embarrassed to put forth such an argument to a first grade class, yet alone a message board. The entirety of your assertion is that because the author uses the term divorce when discussing societal trends in the latter nineteenth century, it must mean child support arises from the marriage contract. Do I understand you correctly? Despite my providing you with numerous cases, multiple articles, and direct quotes to the opposite, you insist on saying "it's obvious". Good God man, what's your next argument, I know you are, but what am I? Or perhaps, "Oh yeah, well your mother smells funny." The defense rests. Thank you for making my case.The court specifically states that alimony arises from the marriage contract and child support arises from the parent/child relationship and you think that proves your case? Congratulations, you have left me all but speechless.

pravnik
01-29-2004, 03:47 PM
One's right to free speech never depends on a second party.

Of course it does. The government has a duty not to infringe on your right of free speech. If you were the only person alive free speech wouldn't come up too much.

Sometimes one loses his right to vote. Could someone who is not going to exercise their right, transfer that right to the person that lost his?

Note where I said "lots of rights" and not "all rights". Additionally, in some circumstances someone will be able to assert the rights of another who is unable to assert them themselves, if a special relationship exists between them.

But, can a person transfer another person's rights?

Yes, in certain circumstances. Your right to control over your person or estate may be tranferred to a guardian in the event of your incapacity. If you kill a family member for the inheritance or insurance your right to collect may be transferred to another party.

What is happening in adoption, is the transfering someone else's right. That is, if a child has the right to support from it's biological parents.

No, that's not what is happening. Rights and obligations are being judicially terminated on the one hand, and judicially created on the other. There is no transfer, although if there were it wouldn't necessarily be improper.

Would this be the same time limit that a birth mother has to challenge a biological father for child-support?

In my state, the time limit isn't set in stone. The length of time that you have assumed the role of father is one of several factors the court uses to make a determination.

pravnik
01-29-2004, 04:03 PM
The defense rests. Thank you for making my case.

Reread that:

"The right of the wife to alimony arises immediately out of the marriage contract, but the right of the child to support at the hands of its parents springs from the incidental relationship which has its origin in marriage, to wit, that of parent and child."

The author is saying that the relationship between parent and child is created during the marriage, but the duty of support doesn't come from the marriage contract, unlike alimony. It comes directly from the relationship with the child.

Razorsharp
01-29-2004, 04:41 PM
<snip>(hysterics)<snip>
The court specifically states that alimony arises from the marriage contract and child support arises from the parent/child relationship and you think that proves your case? Congratulations, you have left me all but speechless.No, you left out a very important part to the quote that you provided....the right of the child to support at the hands of its parents springs from the incidental relationship which has its origin in marriage,And this is consistant with Texas state law prior to "Gomez". And not just Texas, but many other states as well. See, that was one of the reasons that illegitimacy was such a social taboo. Not anymore though, illegitimacy is commonplace. My how we've progressed.

Razorsharp
01-29-2004, 04:46 PM
But you have to remember that sole descrition over the abortion is not the same as sole descrition over the birth. Also, you have to remember that the fact that she has sole descrition is imposed by the reality of nature rather than as some legal conspiricy.I find it somewhat difficult to sympathize with the "fact of biology" argument, especially since the Supreme Court of the United States, through an act of judicial decree, provided women relief from their burden of biology.

pervert
01-29-2004, 04:57 PM
And so long as one of the ways available to women for 'taking responsibility' is choosing not to become a mother, a man should be able to decide not to be a father.Why?

As long as this extra power is merely a result of necessary biology, temporary, and known going in (so to speak), there is nothing inequitable about it.

Okay, we'll take this from the top.
Say I follow you around, steal a germ cell from you somehow (both genders lose them on a regular basis), and borrowing lab equipment from the Raelians, produce your child. Why should you legally owe it child support?
Of course, you should have taken responsibility for your germ cells, in this above example. By your logic, you owe the child a debt. I think this is horse hooey, because you had a reasonable expectation that no one would attempt to grow a child from your cast-off cells, just as people who have sex with birth control have a reasonable expectation that no child will thusly result.2 things wrong with this scenario. 1st, of course, you are implying that the child in both cases is created without any action taken by the father. This is certainly not true. Look again at your last sentence. Notice the phrase "reasonable expectation". It is perfectly reasonable that sex could result in children.

Look at it this way. Take your example and change it slightly. If you volunteered your germ(germ is the wrong word, I believe, but lets use it anyway) cell. Even if you thought the cloning process was likely to fail, you would still have some responsibility to the prduct of it.

Remember, I did say that if you could propose a method of reproduction which did not require input from the male, I would support the man's right to withhold support for it. While you have proposed such a method, you have not linked it properly to the act of sex.

For instance, if we change your scenario once again, and posit that people have been stealing "germ" cells and reproducing that way for thousands of years, then I would agree that we need to begin controlling who can take our "germ" cells. Otherwise...

Razorsharp
01-29-2004, 04:59 PM
Reread that:

The author is saying that the relationship between parent and child is created during the marriage, but the duty of support doesn't come from the marriage contract, unlike alimony. It comes directly from the relationship with the child.I have reread and reread, but that one little phrase, "which has its origin in marriage", draws the lines seperating legitimate and illegitimate children, just as Texas state law did.

Hamlet
01-29-2004, 05:22 PM
If you are going to grossly misinterpret a quote, Razorsharp, please have the decency to do it to the entire quote: The right of the wife to alimony arises immediately out of the marriage contract, but the right of the child to support at the hands of its parents springs from the incidental relationship which had its origin in marriage, to wit, that of parent and child.

Here's another quote from Ruge:

Palpably neither executive edict, enactment of Legislature, nor decree of court can change the relationship existing between parent and child. The courts may decree that the marital tie shall be absolutely severed and the parties be placed, so far as the law is concerned, in the same situation that they occupied prior to the solemnization of the marriage ceremony; but they cannot alter or modify the fact that a father is the parent of his offspring. This parental relationship springing as it does from the relationship of marriage is to this extent incident to the marital status. But the duty of the father, if he has means with which to do so, to support his infant children, springs immediately from the parental relationship.

Here, I'll try and help you out some more:

But the duty of the father, if he has means with which to do so, to support his infant children, springs immediately from the parental relationship.

pervert
01-29-2004, 05:43 PM
I find it somewhat difficult to sympathize with the "fact of biology" argument, especially since the Supreme Court of the United States, through an act of judicial decree, provided women relief from their burden of biology.The point is that the Supreme Court of the United States was able to provide such relief to women because of the biology. Men have an equal right to withdraw all of the nutrients that thier bodies provides to the fetus. They simply do not have the power for such a decision to mean anything.

robertliguori
01-29-2004, 06:20 PM
Why?

As long as this extra power is merely a result of necessary biology, temporary, and known going in (so to speak), there is nothing inequitable about it.

2 things wrong with this scenario. 1st, of course, you are implying that the child in both cases is created without any action taken by the father. This is certainly not true. Look again at your last sentence. Notice the phrase "reasonable expectation". It is perfectly reasonable that sex could result in children.

No, the father (in my first case) shed some sperm cells. And given that it is possible for someone to steal them, why is that unreasonable, but sex with precautions reasonable?

Look at it this way. Take your example and change it slightly. If you volunteered your germ(germ is the wrong word, I believe, but lets use it anyway) cell. Even if you thought the cloning process was likely to fail, you would still have some responsibility to the prduct of it.

Why? I'm not controlling the waky Raelian biology lab. In fact, once they've got my cell, I can't do a thing. This is in fact the point I am trying to demonstrate, along with the fact that I feel you are using arbitrary criteria for determining which method of giving up cells makes people responsible for outcomes thereof.

Remember, I did say that if you could propose a method of reproduction which did not require input from the male, I would support the man's right to withhold support for it. While you have proposed such a method, you have not linked it properly to the act of sex.

And I say that when you can inexorably link sex to reproduction, I'll shut up. The fact is that if a man has sex with a reasonable expectation that no child will result, it's not right to expect him to be responsible for any children resulting, just as it is not right to take his genetic material without his knowledge and consent and use it for the same purpuse.

For instance, if we change your scenario once again, and posit that people have been stealing "germ" cells and reproducing that way for thousands of years, then I would agree that we need to begin controlling who can take our "germ" cells. Otherwise...
An interesting proposition. Wouldn't it just be easier and more logical, if such wanton biological theft occured regularly, to state that there wasn't necessarily a link between biological and legal fatherhood?

Also, just for the record, do you feel that a man who has sex with birth control and the understanding that the woman will get an aboriton if necessary is as responsible for his child as a father whose sperm is stolen? If so, I admire your consistency, although I disagree with your biology-implies-law premise. If not, I'd like to hear why the scenarios are different.

pervert
01-29-2004, 11:43 PM
No, the father (in my first case) shed some sperm cells. And given that it is possible for someone to steal them, why is that unreasonable, but sex with precautions reasonable?Well, as they say, extraordinary claims and all that. If you really think a single human birth has ever occured via stolen sperm cells then I invite you to post a cite to the proof. Otherwise, you example is silly.

Why? I'm not controlling the waky Raelian biology lab. In fact, once they've got my cell, I can't do a thing.I think you misunderstood me. I suggested that you volunteered your cells for the labv to try and clone a human. That is, you gave cells for the express purpose of trying to create a human.


I feel you are using arbitrary criteria for determining which method of giving up cells makes people responsible for outcomes thereof.Arbitrary? What the heck are you talking about. There is a perfectly reasonable normal application of the cells in question. There is nothing arbitrary about a child which results from sex. It happens all the time. It is perfectly predictable. I don't think you know what arbitrary means.

And I say that when you can inexorably link sex to reproduction, I'll shut up.Well, I hope you did not mean this the way I first read it. For our purposes, there is not reproduction without sex. You are not arguing that sometime women steal sperm and men should not be held liable for that. If you are, you need to probvide proof that it has happened sometime.


The fact is that if a man has sex with a reasonable expectation that no child will resultAnd a reasonable expectation that it might.

it's not right to expect him to be responsible for any children resulting, Its more reasonable than claimin he had nothing to do with it.

An interesting proposition. Wouldn't it just be easier and more logical, if such wanton biological theft occured regularly, to state that there wasn't necessarily a link between biological and legal fatherhood?That's what I'm saying.

Also, just for the record, do you feel that a man who has sex with birth control and the understanding that the woman will get an aboriton if necessary is as responsible for his child as a father whose sperm is stolen?No, I'm saying that one is a possibility and the other is just silly. I consider the question just as silly as asking "Should the man who pulls the trigger be held responsible for murder even if aliens made him do it."

If not, I'd like to hear why the scenarios are different.Well, lets put them side by side shall we? One is a scenario where a man and a woman have sex and a child results. Another is where the man knows nothing about the woman, has never seen her before, never offered a sperm sample to her or any of her agents, and nevertheless, she has a child.

On of these things is not like the other ;)

catsix
01-29-2004, 11:54 PM
pervert said:
As long as this extra power is merely a result of necessary biology, temporary, and known going in (so to speak), there is nothing inequitable about it.

Because as long as only one person chooses to have a child, only one person should be financing that decision.

pervert
01-30-2004, 12:26 AM
Because as long as only one person chooses to have a child, only one person should be financing that decision.No, only as long as one person and one person only engages in activities which result in children should one person only be held accountable.

I'd like to take a stab at answering robert a little less snippily.

1st. If you demonstrate that a woman has given birth to a child with absolutely not help from the father (sex counts as help, so does vountarily donating sperm), then I'll go along with you that the father should not be held responsible.

2nd. The female's power over the fetus during the early part of pregnancy is not the same as having a child without help from the father. It is certainly more power after sex. But it does not remove the father from his responsibilities.

As I said, you guys have not come up with a single example in law or morality where power over the product of cooperation negates the responsibilities of the powerless partner. It simply does not follow that powerlessness implies negation of responsibilities.

catsix
01-30-2004, 09:00 AM
pervert said:
No, only as long as one person and one person only engages in activities which result in children should one person only be held accountable.

Only one person does. The person who chooses to be pregnant.

Two people participate in activities that might lead to a fetus. Only one of them participates in activities that lead to a child.

Telemark
01-30-2004, 11:40 AM
Only one of them participates in activities that lead to a child.
You mean leading a normal healthy life?

You seem to be saying that if the woman does nothing out of the ordinary she is fully responsible for the child. She has no way to compel the father for support since she and she alone is responsible for the successful completion of the pregnancy.

If and only if she aborts the child does she get relieved of that full burden in the eyes of the law. The father can choose or not choose to support the child, but there is no way to compel his support since he can always say that he didn't want the child.

What you seem to be saying is that abortion should be the default state, and only if the mother and father agree that they wish to have the baby will they share the responsibility. The woman must undergo an abortion or support the child by herself.

From a very detached viewpoint I see that as a valid argument, but it fails the "human nature" test. Once pregnant, the decision to abort isn't a simple financial decision for the woman (or the father) in the vast majority of cases. To reduce it to that seems to reduce human reproduction to a purely financial transaction.

athelas
01-30-2004, 12:00 PM
>Once pregnant, the decision to abort isn't a simple financial decision for the ]
>woman (or the father) in the vast majority of cases. To reduce it to that seems
>to reduce human reproduction to a purely financial transaction.

Which is exactly what pro-choicers want - to reduce the status of the fetus to something that can be accepted or rejected at will. If you believe that default abortions are inhumane or at least questionable, you question whether the fetus is a living human being. In which case, you would seek to end the practice of killing living human beings - fetuses - that is to say, oppose abortion.

catsix
01-30-2004, 12:18 PM
What you seem to be saying is that abortion should be the default state, and only if the mother and father agree that they wish to have the baby will they share the responsibility. The woman must undergo an abortion or support the child by herself.

No, what I am saying is that the choice as to whether or not there ever is a child belongs to one person and one person only. So long as only one person has the right to make that decision, only one person is responsible for making that decision and for whatever outcome results from the decision. That means only one person should pay for that decision and whatever outcome results from that decision.

Telemark
01-30-2004, 01:58 PM
No, what I am saying is that the choice as to whether or not there ever is a child belongs to one person and one person only. So long as only one person has the right to make that decision, only one person is responsible for making that decision and for whatever outcome results from the decision. That means only one person should pay for that decision and whatever outcome results from that decision.
The end result is that the woman is the only one who can ever be responsible for the care of a child. Biology dictates that women carry the child until birth. You seem to be trying to seperate this fact of biology from the legal responsibilities.

I still say this fails the "human nature" test. One person is not reponsible for the outcome of the pregnancy. True, the woman does have the option of an abortion but this is balanced by the fact that she is the one who must carry the child. My opinion remains that giving the man such an easy out (don't want the child, ain't gonna pay for it) is unfair on the face of it. In practice, it would lead to a huge increase in single moms with no redress for child support.

Again, I understand you argument, I just disagree that it is valid. If this was about starting a business, or an aquarium, or anything but a child I would agree with the argument, but not with human reproduction. There is too much emotional and biological baggage to apply that argument in this case.

Razorsharp
01-30-2004, 01:59 PM
Of course it does. The government has a duty not to infringe on your right of free speech. If you were the only person alive free speech wouldn't come up too much.Yes, the government is prevented from infringing on one's right to free speech, but if the government does infringe on that right, you still have the right, you just may get sent to the gulag for exercising that right. The right to speech is like the right to breath, it is inherent to one's being. It does not require the assistance of a second party.No, that's not what is happening. Rights and obligations are being judicially terminated on the one hand, and judicially created on the other. There is no transfer, although if there were it wouldn't necessarily be improper.So, as long one's rights are terminated judicially", it's okay? Even without the consent of the holder of said right?

If the concept of child-support is based on a "child's right" then adoption is the transference (or termination and creation, if you prefer.) of that child's right.

If child-support is based on a parent's "obligation", then adoption is the transferring of an obligation.

Now, which is the more proper role for government under the United States Constitution? The "termination and creation" of rights? Or the transference of obligations?In my state, the time limit isn't set in stone. The length of time that you have assumed the role of father is one of several factors the court uses to make a determination.The idea that there is even a time limit on such a determination is another example of the judiciary using "arbitrary law", rather than "the rule of law", to reach the politically correct ruling. Furthermore, to put a time limit on a continuing fraud, is repugnant to the idea of justice.

On the other hand, requiring fathers to continue supporting children to whom they have found not to be genetically linked, upon divorcing their mother, further solidifies my position that "child-support" is the extension of the parental obligations that are found within a marriage.
Your argument is completely and utterly devoid of logic and any indication of critical thinking skills.What's devoid of logic and critical thinking is the notion that the phrase, "which had its origin in marriage,..." has no meaning or purpose within the sentence.The court specifically states that alimony arises from the marriage contract and child support arises from the parent/child relationship and you think that proves your case? Congratulations, you have left me all but speechless.The quote that you provided states:The right of the wife to alimony arises immediately out of the marriage contract, but the right of the child to support at the hands of its parents springs from the incidental relationship which has its origin in marriage, to wit, that of parent and child.The right of the child to support from its parents, springs from the maritial relationship of its parents. That is what the quote is saying. What this means is that both parents, not just the custodial parent, still have the obligation to provide support for a child, even if the marriage has ended. Your quote is specifically speaking of "legitimate" children. If not, then why was the phrase, "which has its origin in marriage", included in the sentence? For decoration?The court specifically states that alimony arises from the marriage contract and child support arises from the parent/child relationship and you think that proves your case? Congratulations, you have left me all but speechless.Again, you have conveniently omitted the part about the "incidental relationship" of the parents that has its origin in marriage. If you would submit such a "quote" as evidence, you would be disbarred.The entirety of your assertion is that because the author uses the term divorce when discussing societal trends in the latter nineteenth century, it must mean child support arises from the marriage contract.Because the author repeatedly used the term divorce. In fact, the author even refers to abandonment as a "cheap method of divorce". I would be embarrassed to put forth such an argument to a first grade class, yet alone a message board.Yeah, and let alone have such arguments published.

You know what they say... "Nothing breeds contempt, like success."

Telemark
01-30-2004, 02:09 PM
If you believe that default abortions are inhumane or at least questionable, you question whether the fetus is a living human being. In which case, you would seek to end the practice of killing living human beings - fetuses - that is to say, oppose abortion.
No, that doesn't follow from my position. I hold that it is a complex decision, one best made by the people directly involved. Ideally, the mother and father have a voice in the matter, but biology has dictated that the mother has the most invested and thus the greatest voice.

Whether the fetus is a human being is not directly relevant. What is important is that there is a deep emotional and biological connection and people have the right to decide for themselves what they want to do. I don't want the government getting involved in that decision.

I dislike the default abortion condition the same way I dislike the default euthanasia decision. Important choices should be left up to the people who are directly affected by them. IMO, the fetus doesn't and shouldn't have a voice.

Razorsharp
01-30-2004, 02:19 PM
If and only if she aborts the child does she get relieved of that full burden in the eyes of the law.No, there are other options. Adoption, foster parents, safe-haven programs.

Why is it that contemporary society is derermined to give women choice after choice after choice in matters of reproduction, but men are to have no choice.

Why is it that contemporary society is determined to give women various options to free themselves from the consequences of sexual intercourse, but men are to be held fully accountable, under the threat of incarceration, for the consequences of sexual intercourse?

That is a double-standard that is not compatible with a justice system supposedly founded under the principle of "Equal Justice Under the Law".

catsix
01-30-2004, 02:30 PM
Telemark said:
True, the woman does have the option of an abortion but this is balanced by the fact that she is the one who must carry the child. My opinion remains that giving the man such an easy out (don't want the child, ain't gonna pay for it) is unfair on the face of it. In practice, it would lead to a huge increase in single moms with no redress for child support.

They shouldn't have a 'redress for child support'. If they choose to have a child knowing that it is not wanted by anyone else, they should be the ones paying for that child.

Oh, they can't afford it on their own? Then they shouldn't have one. The fact that they cannot afford the child they chose to have and to raise as a single mother does not entitle them to another person's money to fund all of it.

Important choices should be left up to the people who are directly affected by them.

And the responsibility for the consequences of those choices should be left up to the people who directly made them.

pravnik
01-30-2004, 06:01 PM
Yes, the government is prevented from infringing on one's right to free speech, but if the government does infringe on that right, you still have the right, you just may get sent to the gulag for exercising that right. The right to speech is like the right to breath, it is inherent to one's being. It does not require the assistance of a second party.

Finish this sentence: "Amendment I: _______ shall make no law..abridging the freedom of speech..." People have the right to free speech, the government has the duty to respect it. If there is no government it makes no sense to speak of a right the government must respect. Remove the people or the government from the equation and the point is moot. Two parties.

So, as long one's rights are terminated judicially", it's okay? Even without the consent of the holder of said right?

If the concept of child-support is based on a "child's right" then adoption is the transference (or termination and creation, if you prefer.) of that child's right.

If child-support is based on a parent's "obligation", then adoption is the transferring of an obligation.

Now, which is the more proper role for government under the United States Constitution? The "termination and creation" of rights? Or the transference of obligations?[/i]

Either one. You seem to be thinking of "rights" as God given certainties for all time and space, neither created nor destroyed. Pehaps some high minded and lofty rights are, but the the government creates lesser rights and duties all the time. Prior to 1966 you had no right to information the government held in secret about you, and they had no duty to disclose it. After 1966 you did have that right and they did have that duty. Even if everything you say about the origin of the marriage contact were true it still wouldn't prevent the state from extending that right and duty outside the marriage, since marital and contactual obligations are matters of state law and subject to change by the state.

The idea that there is even a time limit on such a determination is another example of the judiciary using "arbitrary law", rather than "the rule of law", to reach the politically correct ruling. Furthermore, to put a time limit on a continuing fraud, is repugnant to the idea of justice.

Ordinarily, that's correct. Fraud isn't subject to the ordinary statute of limitations, since fraud by its very nature conceals itself. The time limit for fraud doesn't start running until the defrauded party realized or should have realized it. However, not all these situations are fraud, as many times the father voluntarily assumes the role with the full or partial knowledge that the child is not or may not be his, and continues to do so for many many years. Even when there has been intentional or unintentional deception the child is the innocent victim of it, and the court is loathe to "punish" the child who committed no deception for the mistakes and decptions of the adult. Still, there are very serious issues of equity to the father to be considered. The thorny nature of the issues presented are the exact reason the legislatures have not enacted hard and fast calculus to determine decisions. Courts instead use factors that must be considered, such as the length of time between the filing of the paternity action and the date the father was put on notice, the length of time the father has assumed the fatherhood role, the age of the child nd the nature of the relationship, the potential of harm to the child if paternity is disproved, and so on. At any rate, since the original conversation was over supporting one's biological children out of wedlock, it's a different topic.

Again, you have conveniently omitted the part about the "incidental relationship" of the parents that has its origin in marriage. If you would submit such a "quote" as evidence, you would be disbarred.

"But" is disjunctive, establishing a relationship of contrast or opposition. "Incidental" connotes accompaniment to something separate and distinct from itself. i.e.,

"Alimony arises from the marriage contract between husband and wife, but child support comes from the relationship between the parent and child that originates during the marriage and is incidental to it."

Hamlet
01-30-2004, 06:39 PM
Yeah, and let alone have such arguments published.

You know what they say... "Nothing breeds contempt, like success."Oh, wait. This OP has been published? Well, I take back all I said, all the proof I offered, the citations I provided, and the statements I made. I had no idea it had been PUBLISHED. I completely concede all arguments I've made. I had no idea you had joined the ranks of Jayson Blair and Mohammed Saeed Al-Sahaf. How can I argue with that? And I'm sure Judge Hartin was just jealous when he said: "But the duty of the father, if he has means with which to do so, to support his infant children, springs immediately from the parental relationship."

pervert
01-30-2004, 06:52 PM
Only one person does. The person who chooses to be pregnant.Nope. You have provided no argument which even comes close to proving this. Please do so.

Two people participate in activities that might lead to a fetus. Only one of them participates in activities that lead to a child.This again, is your fallacy. A fetus is a thing which if left alone will become a child. Therefore, participation in the activity which creates the fetus must imply some responsibility for the child. Note, I did not say all responsibility. Some responsibility does not mean all responsibility. That is the fallacy you are falling prey to. Because the woman has power over the fetus, you are proposing the she has all responsibility for the child. This is patently false. She certainly has her share of responsibility. But there is no way to make the argument that her responsibility is all responsibility.

Seriously, I don't get why you can't see this. It would be one thing if you were arguing that in special cases where females lied about birth control, or stole sperm, or created the child through some other fraud. But you are not. You are simply arguing that since she has power over the fetus that she has total responsiblity for it. I simply cannot fathom what you are missing.

catsix
01-30-2004, 07:11 PM
The logic whereby one person's choice (and to remain pregnant is as much a choice made by one person as to have an abortion is) should be paid for by another.

I don't think you will ever convince me of that.

pervert
01-30-2004, 08:27 PM
The logic whereby one person's choice (and to remain pregnant is as much a choice made by one person as to have an abortion is) should be paid for by another.But I do not think that one person's choice can dictate to another person. The problem, in the context of this discussion is that the decision to have a child is not an individual choice. You guys have failed to make a good case that abortion makes children an individual choice.

Let me see if I understand you guys.

- The choice to abort a fetus is the woman's choice alone.

- The choice to abort is a choice to end a pregnancy.

- Therefore the choice not to abort is the choice to be pregnant.

Have I got the argument right? If I lay it out that way, can you spot the fallacy?

robertliguori
01-31-2004, 12:53 AM
But I do not think that one person's choice can dictate to another person. The problem, in the context of this discussion is that the decision to have a child is not an individual choice. You guys have failed to make a good case that abortion makes children an individual choice.

Let me see if I understand you guys.

- The choice to abort a fetus is the woman's choice alone.

- The choice to abort is a choice to end a pregnancy.

- Therefore the choice not to abort is the choice to be pregnant.

Have I got the argument right? If I lay it out that way, can you spot the fallacy?

I can't.


A fetus is a thing which if left alone will become a child.

Wrong. Wrongwrongwrongwrongwrong.
I'll repeat your challenge: show me a fetus which when left alone (i.e., not provided with nutrients, oxygen, et al), and I'll shut up. You presume that the default state upon being pregnant is gestation followed by pregnancy. Even barring any human intervention at all (aside from abovementioned nutrients and life support), this is not necessarily true.

Therefore, participation in the activity which creates the fetus must imply some responsibility for the child.
[/[QUOTE]
Say reading this thread makes some couple very horny, and results in them having a child that they wouldn't otherwise have had. How much responsibility do we bear for inciting their lust?

None at all, you (I really hope) say. They made the choice of their own free will to get it on, regardless of such temptations as we may provide. Similarly, we argue that if a woman makes the choice of her own free will to have a child, regardless as to what the man did, she's responsible.
[QUOTE=pervert]
Note, I did not say all responsibility. Some responsibility does not mean all responsibility. That is the fallacy you are falling prey to. Because the woman has power over the fetus, you are proposing the she has all responsibility for the child. This is patently false. She certainly has her share of responsibility. But there is no way to make the argument that her responsibility is all responsibility.

Woman has total control over fetus. Therefore, woman has total control over whether or not there is a child. Total control = 100% responsibility. Woman's control + everyone else = 100%, everyone else = 100% - Woman's control, everyone else's responsibility = 0.
Or, you can argue that even though the woman had free choice whether or not to have the child, other interested parties have a stake in the matter, starting with the father, and moving to those who made the conception possible, their parents, etc... In fact, if you remove the fact that the woman has full control over the matter from the equation, you can make a good case that an infinite number of things had to happen for that act of conception to occur, and therefore the responsibility of any one of those things (e.g., the father) is zero.

pervert
01-31-2004, 02:04 AM
Wrong. Wrongwrongwrongwrongwrong.
I'll repeat your challenge: show me a fetus which when left alone (i.e., not provided with nutrients, oxygen, et al), and I'll shut up. Well, ok, every child ever born has passed through the fetus stage. During this stage the woman did not have to make a single concious decision to provide nutrients to the fetus. That is, all she had to do was not interfere. The process of pregnancy leading to child is perfectly natural and beyond her concious control.

Obviously, accidents can occur. I believe I read somewhere that most fertalizations do not lead to pregnancies or births. More importantly to our discussion, the female has the additional option of abortion. But again, this is not the same as total control over having a child. Your equations from the rest of your post falls apart when you realize that only the pregnant woman has control of the fetus. So when you write
Woman has total control over fetus. you are wrong. The woman does not have control over whether there is a fetus. Therefore she does not have total control over the fetus. The only people who have total control over the fetus are the parents.


Both parents.


You guys are being willfully obtuse on this aren't you.

Fallacy of complex cause. (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/complex.htm) If any of the logic professors around here are still paying attention, they may be able to correct my identification of the appropriate fallacy. I suspect that others apply. For our purposes, I believe you guys haveidentified one cause of children (namely that the mother did not choose to abort). However, there are other causes (especially that the couple had sex). You are proposing that your cause is the only cause when it is plainly not. I really cannot understand how you maintain your position.

Do you really not see any problem with the proposition [not aborting] = [pregnancy]? It is so blatantly false that I have trouble understanding how an otherwise articulate mind can accept it. My problem I suppose.

Razorsharp
01-31-2004, 08:57 AM
Finish this sentence: "Amendment I: _______ shall make no law..abridging the freedom of speech..." People have the right to free speech, the government has the duty to respect it. If there is no government it makes no sense to speak of a right the government must respect. Remove the people or the government from the equation and the point is moot. Two parties.In context of the Amendment, the right existed prior to and independent of the government. It relied on no other."Alimony arises from the marriage contract between husband and wife, but child support comes from the relationship between the parent and child that originates during the marriage and is incidental to it."but the right of the child to support at the hands of its parents springs from the incidental relationship
spring (spring) v., sprang or, often, sprung; sprung; spring•ing;
n.— v.i.
4. to come into being; arise.

And what are the origins of the "incidental relationship"?...which had its origin in marriage,...Both parents must continue to provide support for a child upon dissolution of the marriage.

Razorsharp
01-31-2004, 09:11 AM
Oh, wait. This OP has been published? No, the arguments.

See, this is why you are having trouble interpreting the quote that you submitted as evidence.

Hamlet
01-31-2004, 09:30 AM
No, the arguments.

See, this is why you are having trouble interpreting the quote that you submitted as evidence.Hey, I can't make you understand what you clearly don't want to. I can't force you to not use critical thinking skills to interpret sentences. I can't make you abandon a legal argument that has no basis. I can only attempt to show you why you are wrong, and you have to be willing to do the rest. I suspect that this was never really a debate, you have absolutely no interest in debating any part of this. You merely wish another forum to spew out your misinformation. Not much I can do about that.

Oh, you have yet to use your wonderful skills at "interpretation" to tell us what this quote means: "But the duty of the father, if he has means with which to do so, to support his infant children, springs immediately from the parental relationship."

Razorsharp
01-31-2004, 09:37 AM
Oh, you have yet to use your wonderful skills at "interpretation" to tell us what this quote means: "But the duty of the father, if he has means with which to do so, to support his infant children, springs immediately from the parental relationship."For the third time now. The "parental relationship" is a relationship between the parents that originates from the marriage of the two parents.

Both parents continue to have an obligation to support the children of a marriage, upon dissolution of that marriage.

Razorsharp
01-31-2004, 09:54 AM
Oh, I see what you are doing. Now you are moving the goal posts on me by giving me a different quote to interpret.

Hamlet
01-31-2004, 10:11 AM
For three pages, I've cited law review articles, child support webpages, and caselaw that have shown you are incorrect in your assertion that a child does not have a right to support from his parents. I've done about an hour or two of research on my own time in an attempt to correct your misinformation. Yet, still without one citation, or even a link to these published arguments, you would rather use tortured interpretations of "parental relationship" and moving goalposts.

As the ever prophetic pravik said: "... which explains why all the lawyers except me have thrown up their hands and gone home." Consider my arms thrown up. You enjoy the rest of this thread. I may be back when you make even more outrageous assertions, but at this juncture it's just pointless.

In closing, to those who have actually paid attention, here's a quote interpreting the Ruge decision:

The duty to pay maintenance arises from the marriage relationship, but the duty to pay child support arises from the parent-child relationship without respect to existence or non-existence of the marriage relationship of the parents.

Washington Practice Series TM
Family And Community Property Law

robertliguori
01-31-2004, 10:24 AM
Well, ok, every child ever born has passed through the fetus stage. During this stage the woman did not have to make a single concious decision to provide nutrients to the fetus. That is, all she had to do was not interfere. The process of pregnancy leading to child is perfectly natural and beyond her concious control.

Obviously, accidents can occur. I believe I read somewhere that most fertalizations do not lead to pregnancies or births. More importantly to our discussion, the female has the additional option of abortion. But again, this is not the same as total control over having a child. Your equations from the rest of your post falls apart when you realize that only the pregnant woman has control of the fetus. So when you write
you are wrong. The woman does not have control over whether there is a fetus. Therefore she does not have total control over the fetus. The only people who have total control over the fetus are the parents.


Both parents.


You guys are being willfully obtuse on this aren't you.

Fallacy of complex cause. (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/complex.htm) If any of the logic professors around here are still paying attention, they may be able to correct my identification of the appropriate fallacy. I suspect that others apply. For our purposes, I believe you guys haveidentified one cause of children (namely that the mother did not choose to abort). However, there are other causes (especially that the couple had sex). You are proposing that your cause is the only cause when it is plainly not. I really cannot understand how you maintain your position.

Do you really not see any problem with the proposition [not aborting] = [pregnancy]? It is so blatantly false that I have trouble understanding how an otherwise articulate mind can accept it. My problem I suppose.
The fact that a woman may or may not get an abortion isn't the only cause of a child. However, if you posit free will and all that stuff, since the woman made the choice to keep the child, it's her responsibility, regardless of the choices made by others. Or, you can say that the decisions of people don't matter when determining responsibility, and you've lost your grounds for holding anyone responsible.

Razorsharp
01-31-2004, 11:42 AM
Oh, you have yet to use your wonderful skills at "interpretation" to tell us what this quote means: "But the duty of the father, if he has means with which to do so, to support his infant children, springs immediately from the parental relationship."Well, it would depend on how the court is defining "parental relationship" at the moment.

If the court is addressing a man who has found that the child he thought to be his, was not genetically linked to him, but the product of his wife's infidelity, then it is the marriage that determines his obligation.

If the court is addressing a man named in a paternity suit, by a woman with whom no relationship existed, other than a consensual sexual encounter, then it is the genetic link to the child that determines the obligation.

See what happenes when the judiciary moves away from "the rule of law" and, instead, uses "arbitrary law".

The judiciary can then render any politically correct decision they wish.

Razorsharp
01-31-2004, 11:55 AM
And you can, with a straight-face, refer to such as "legal authority"?

That is legal tyranny.

Hamlet
01-31-2004, 12:18 PM
"If the facts are on your side, argue the facts; if the law is on your side, argue the law; and if you have neither on your side, pound the table."

-Old Lawyer Saying

"If the facts are on your side, argue the facts; if the law is on your side, argue the law; and if you have neither on your side, call it politically correct, legal tyranny, and pound the table."

-Razorsharp's Update.

pervert
01-31-2004, 01:44 PM
I really have to thank you robert. I have not been this motivated to look up logical fallacies before.
if you posit free will and all that stuff, since the woman made the choice to keep the child, it's her responsibility, regardless of the choices made by others.Now you are using the false dilemma. (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/fd.htm) . The fact of the matter is that the woman does have responsibility for the child. No one in this thread or anywhere else that I am aware of has ever in the history of mankind ever said that she did not. Your problem is that you are forgetting that the father also has responsibility. You see how this works? Both parents share responsibility.

Or, you can say that the decisions of people don't matter when determining responsibility, and you've lost your grounds for holding anyone responsible.No, You are the one saying that the father's decisions don't matter. And yes, it is one of the reasons you are loosing ground.

IWLN
01-31-2004, 04:51 PM
The fact that a woman may or may not get an abortion isn't the only cause of a child. However, if you posit free will and all that stuff, since the woman made the choice to keep the child, it's her responsibility, regardless of the choices made by others. Or, you can say that the decisions of people don't matter when determining responsibility, and you've lost your grounds for holding anyone responsible.By your thought process, if I decided NOT to have chemotheraphy, that means I chose to have cancer. You have an interesting POV, but it hasn't made any more sense with clarification.

robertliguori
01-31-2004, 05:17 PM
By your thought process, if I decided NOT to have chemotheraphy, that means I chose to have cancer. You have an interesting POV, but it hasn't made any more sense with clarification.
Not a perfect analogy, because abortion is much better at ending pregnancy than chemotherapy is at ending cancer, but basically, yes. The decision not to get a treatment for a condition (assuming that the treatment is available and you aren't being coereced) implies that you're willing to accept the consequences of said condition. Is there something somewhere in this analogy I'm missing?

IWLN
01-31-2004, 05:33 PM
Not a perfect analogy, because abortion is much better at ending pregnancy than chemotherapy is at ending cancer, but basically, yes. The decision not to get a treatment for a condition (assuming that the treatment is available and you aren't being coereced) implies that you're willing to accept the consequences of said condition. Is there something somewhere in this analogy I'm missing?Yes, you're missing the point of it. NOT getting chemo in no way reflects a decision to have cancer. There wasn't an opportunity to make that decision. NOT getting an abortion is not choosing to be pregnant. Being unable to terminate a life doesn't make me solely responsible for that life. Unless you believe that it is right to impose some sort of financial sanctions on people with different values and choices than yours. If this is right, we are going to have to change a lot of existing law.

pervert
01-31-2004, 05:35 PM
Is there something somewhere in this analogy I'm missing?Yes.

The choice to treat cancer or not is not identical in every sense to the choice to have cancer or not. Similarly, the choice to abort or not is not identical in every way to the choice to be pregnant. In each case, you are trying to equate the two choices.

Certainly, in both cases, the choice not to undergo medical procedures carries with it certain responsibilities. But in neither case does it carry with it total responsibility. That is, if a person died from cancer, would you say they were guilty of suicide? That is, would you say that it was entirely the patients fault? If it had been possible for a third party to give the patient cancer, would you absolve him of responsibility since the patient did not seek out treatment? Can I kick the crap out of someone and avoid responsibility if they do not seek treatment?

You see, robert (and the rest of you), you are simply missing the fact that there is another choice besides the woman is responsible or the man is responsible. The fact of the matter (biologically, legally, and morally) is that both participants are responsible for the sexual act and anything which results from it.

If the female becomes pregnant, she is responsible to make the decision (with consultation with her doctor and hoepfully with her mate) to undergo the invasive abortion procedure or not. Since she has the final say on this, she has to shoulder complete responsibility for the results of that decision. However, your argument fails when you try to claim that children are the result from a decision not to abort. Such a decision is a contributing factor, but it is not the only wilfull concious act which lead to the child. Therefore, the female cannot be the only participant who is responsible for the child.

RazorsharpYou are missing the simple possiblitiy that parental responsibilities can be derived from marriageand from genetic parentage. That is, you are a parent if you fertalize an egg which is then born. You are also a parent if you marry a woman with children and support them. It is not an either or situation. There is nothing arbitrary or tyranical about such a situation.

catsix
01-31-2004, 06:50 PM
IWLN said:
By your thought process, if I decided NOT to have chemotheraphy, that means I chose to have cancer. You have an interesting POV, but it hasn't made any more sense with clarification.

That's exactly the case.

My grandfather chose not to have any kind of treatment for his cancer, knowing that without it the cancer would be fatal, and with it there was a very good (around 90%) chance of beating the cancer.

He chose for his cancer to be terminal. The choice to do nothing is still a choice.

IWLN
01-31-2004, 07:21 PM
That's exactly the case.

My grandfather chose not to have any kind of treatment for his cancer, knowing that without it the cancer would be fatal, and with it there was a very good (around 90%) chance of beating the cancer.

He chose for his cancer to be terminal. The choice to do nothing is still a choice.The point is he did NOT choose cancer. He later chose not to have treatment. Did not having treatment make him responsible for getting cancer? The point is two people are responsible for causing a pregnancy. Decisions made after the conception will NEVER negate that fact. Abortion is not an option for everyone and NOT surgically intervening does NOT absolve the other parent's responsibility to their child.

catsix
01-31-2004, 11:11 PM
So, she didn't choose a zygote. Everything that happens after she knows the fetus exists is a choice. She chooses that the pregnancy results in birth. She chooses to have a baby. She chooses to keep the baby. She chooses to raise the baby.

Then she chooses to make someone else who had no say in the situation pay for it.

robertliguori
01-31-2004, 11:17 PM
Yes.

The choice to treat cancer or not is not identical in every sense to the choice to have cancer or not. Similarly, the choice to abort or not is not identical in every way to the choice to be pregnant. In each case, you are trying to equate the two choices.

Certainly, in both cases, the choice not to undergo medical procedures carries with it certain responsibilities. But in neither case does it carry with it total responsibility. That is, if a person died from cancer, would you say they were guilty of suicide? That is, would you say that it was entirely the patients fault? If it had been possible for a third party to give the patient cancer, would you absolve him of responsibility since the patient did not seek out treatment? Can I kick the crap out of someone and avoid responsibility if they do not seek treatment?

You see, robert (and the rest of you), you are simply missing the fact that there is another choice besides the woman is responsible or the man is responsible. The fact of the matter (biologically, legally, and morally) is that both participants are responsible for the sexual act and anything which results from it.

If the female becomes pregnant, she is responsible to make the decision (with consultation with her doctor and hoepfully with her mate) to undergo the invasive abortion procedure or not. Since she has the final say on this, she has to shoulder complete responsibility for the results of that decision. However, your argument fails when you try to claim that children are the result from a decision not to abort. Such a decision is a contributing factor, but it is not the only wilfull concious act which lead to the child. Therefore, the female cannot be the only participant who is responsible for the child.

RazorsharpYou are missing the simple possiblitiy that parental responsibilities can be derived from marriageand from genetic parentage. That is, you are a parent if you fertalize an egg which is then born. You are also a parent if you marry a woman with children and support them. It is not an either or situation. There is nothing arbitrary or tyranical about such a situation.
I could quote myself, as I referred to these exact points earlier, but that would be depressingly circular. Shall we simply agree to disagree?

minty green
01-31-2004, 11:17 PM
Suddenly, I have this picture of a new mom, walking down the street and randomly pointing out some dude while saying "You! You will pay for my baby!"

It's a completely idiotic picture, of course, but there you have it.

catsix
01-31-2004, 11:45 PM
And I think the subjective decisions on who supposedly has a 'duty' to pay child support (biological father unless mother was married to another guy and then it's the husband even though it's not his kid and even if they were separated when the kid was conceived) are evidence that your funny scenario really isn't that far off and the women I've heard complaining that the child support payments they get aren't high enough because they can't live on it and have to actually have a job are indicative that the child support industry is so flawed that it should be scrapped entirely.

And if it's such a big deal that the child gets this money owed to it, why is it that there is such a crackdown on 'deadbeat dads' (the 26.9% of non-custodial fathers who totally default on child support) while no such crackdown has happened on 'deadbeat moms' (the 46.9% of non-custodial mothers who totally default on child support)?

And isn't it funny that the only 'responsibility' that the half of all single mothers seem to think a man should have for raising a child that supposedly belongs to both of them is financial? ( 50% of mothers see no value in the father's continued contact with his children (Surviving the Breakup by Joan Berlin Kelly))

pervert
01-31-2004, 11:51 PM
Then she chooses to make someone else who had no say in the situation pay for it.Again, how can you say that a man has no say in the matter? Are you positing the alien teleported his sperm into her vagina argument? You continue to ignore that the man does have a say in the initiation of the whole process.

I could quote myself, as I referred to these exact points earlier, but that would be depressingly circular. Shall we simply agree to disagree? I'm not sure. I still do not think you have given any reason at all why the male's input (again, sorry about the pun) should be ignored. You continue to harp that the female has total control over the pregnancy. Yet you failt to suggest why this should negate, change, or even affect the fact that she cannot become pregnant without help from a male.

I've said it several times now, and not one of you has addressed it. Can you name a single case where moral, legal or physical facts make your case? Can you name a single instance where a mutually created entity becomes completely divorce from one of the creators because of the actions of the other?

pravnik
01-31-2004, 11:52 PM
Suddenly, I have this picture of a new mom, walking down the street and randomly pointing out some dude while saying "You! You will pay for my baby!"

It's a completely idiotic picture, of course, but there you have it.

"No! Since you could have aborted your baby and chose not to, you selfish person, neither I nor any other man should have to pay for it! That duty should fall to taxpayers!"

pervert
02-01-2004, 12:02 AM
and even if they were separated when the kid was conceivedAre you talking about a specific case, or just blowing something out of somewhere?

the women I've heard complaining that the child support payments they get aren't high enough because they can't live on it and have to actually have a job are indicative that the child support industry is so flawed that it should be scrapped entirely.And now you are suggesting that men should not have to pay because women do not get enough money??!!??

And if it's such a big deal that the child gets this money owed to it, why is it that there is such a crackdown on 'deadbeat dads' (the 26.9% of non-custodial fathers who totally default on child support) while no such crackdown has happened on 'deadbeat moms' (the 46.9% of non-custodial mothers who totally default on child support)?Now this is a good subject to debate. Are the courts biased against fathers in this area of law? First of all, I'd like to know the numbers. If 27% of 1,000,000 fathers don't pay while 46% of 20 mothers don't pay then the answer to your question is obvious. I'm not at all claiming that these are the numbers. Personally I think there is a bias in our society towards women when child custody is concerned.

However, I find it hard to argue against such bias when I hear the claptrap out of the minds of males that you guys have been spewing.

( 50% of mothers see no value in the father's continued contact with his children (Surviving the Breakup by Joan Berlin Kelly))I have to call bullshit on this stat. I have never seen a reputable study which suggests that 50% of all mothers want their children to have nothing to do with their fathers. Most women (in my experience, I don't have any statistics) want to get married. Partly at least to have fathers for their children. Maybe he meant half of all divorced mothers? Half of all single mothers? Can you link to it or at least indicate where mr. Kelly got this figure?

pervert
02-01-2004, 12:05 AM
If 27% of 1,000,000 fathers don't pay while 46% of 20 mothers don't pay then the answer to your question is obvious.

I forgot to add that there have been crackdown on deadbeat moms. I specifically remember a time here in Arizona when our much maligned Sherrif Arpio decided to get some publicity by arresting some dead beat parents. Quite a bit was made of the fact that he rounded up mothers as well.

IWLN
02-01-2004, 12:14 AM
So, she didn't choose a zygote. Everything that happens after she knows the fetus exists is a choice. She chooses that the pregnancy results in birth. She chooses to have a baby. She chooses to keep the baby. She chooses to raise the baby.

Then she chooses to make someone else who had no say in the situation pay for it.Well his sperm sure as hell did the talking for him, now didn't they? I think I'm the most disgusted at the whole concept of having a son or daughter and feeling nothing for them. No interest, no responsibility, just selfishness. God, I'm getting old. I gotta stop reading this thread.:(

Quint
02-01-2004, 12:33 AM
I've said it several times now, and not one of you has addressed it. Can you name a single case where moral, legal or physical facts make your case? Can you name a single instance where a mutually created entity becomes completely divorced from one of the creators because of the actions of the other?
If the court is addressing a man who has found that the child he thought to be his, was not genetically linked to him, but the product of his wife's infidelity, then it is the marriage that determines his obligation.
Now pervert, I'm not saying that Razorsharp's example is valid, I don't know. If it is valid, it would seem to me that the *genetic* father of the child in question is completely divorced from the "mutually created entity" because of the actions of the other "creator".

pervert
02-01-2004, 12:44 AM
I think I'm the most disgusted at the whole concept of having a son or daughter and feeling nothing for them.Wanna bet? ;)

It is probably another thread, but I have long felt that men who feel nothing for their children are not men. I'm not really very old. So I've only experienced a few very profound things. One of the most profound experiences I've ever had, however, was when my son was born. There had been lots of drama surounding the pregnancy. What were we going to do. All of that. I refer to it as my summer in hell. But when that slimy wriggling little bundle was pulled out of his mother, something happened. I don't understand it completely myself. It was a complete surprise. Suddenly all of the drama became meaningless. A complete phase shift occured in my head. Before, I could not imagine my life with a child. It seemed an unfair burden. Since then, I cannot imagine the hell I would go through if I were seperated from him. The amazing thing about this world view, is that it is not limited. Every time I think my children have surprised me for the last time, they simply do it again in totally new ways. I find myself re experiencing the day my sone was born, or the first ultrasound picture of my daughter's chubby face.

I'm sorry to hijack this thread for such a sappy post. But I can't stand that an impression of neanderthal males is perpetuated any more than necessary. Don't despair, IWLN, I propose that many of these men are so pasionate about this subject for the very reason that they are in fact intimately attached to their children. I believe they have concocted this vast facade of no responsibility as a perverted way to shield them from the anguish of being seperated from their children. It is not healthy. It is not as common as it sometimes seems. And as you have seen, it is certainly not rational.

I gotta stop reading this thread.:(If you find a way to stop looking in here, please tell me. I've been trying to stop for days.

pervert
02-01-2004, 12:49 AM
Now pervert, I'm not saying that Razorsharp's example is valid, I don't know. If it is valid, it would seem to me that the *genetic* father of the child in question is completely divorced from the "mutually created entity" because of the actions of the other "creator".two things to note about his example. First of all, of course is that he made it up. Did he ever mention an actual court case when this exact thing happened?

Secondly, is that even if it did happen just that way, the genetic father was not divorced of responsibilities because the mother refrained from abortion.

Thirdly, I don't think his example suggests that the genetic father is completely divorced from all responsibility. Only that the cuckolded husband may have responsibilities as well.

Quint
02-01-2004, 01:35 AM
two things to note about his example. First of all, of course is that he made it up. Did he ever mention an actual court case when this exact thing happened?
I guess that'll teach me. Too chicken to call "Cite?" and winding up with my foot in my mouth.

Secondly, is that even if it did happen just that way, the genetic father was not divorced of responsibilities because the mother refrained from abortion.
I'm a little confused by this... I think you should have quit with "he made it up"- 'nuff said. There was no mention of abortion in your question, "Can you name a single instance where a mutually created entity becomes completely divorced from one of the creators because of the actions of the other?" and in the hypothetical situation in question I assumed that the "actions of the other" were just choosing to raise the child with the cuckolded father rather than the genetic father. That seems to me to fit the criteria of your request.

Thirdly, I don't think his example suggests that the genetic father is completely divorced from all responsibility. Only that the cuckolded husband may have responsibilities as well.
This all depends on the details of the situation, and as it's hypothetical there is no way to determine this without creating details from thin air. He certainly *has* responsibilities, whether he wants them or not, the question would be if he is aware of them.
All that being said, I don't think the example in question has any value if it has no bearing on reality. So Razorsharp, if you're following this... cite?

pervert
02-01-2004, 02:01 AM
[QUOTE=coven]I'm a little confused by this... I think you should have quit with "he made it up"- 'nuff said. There was no mention of abortion in your question, "Can you name a single instance where a mutually created entity becomes completely divorced from one of the creators because of the actions of the other?" and in the hypothetical situation in question I assumed that the "actions of the other" were just choosing to raise the child with the cuckolded father rather than the genetic father. That seems to me to fit the criteria of your request.[QUOTE]Yea. Probably. My language gets more and more flowery when I become frustrated. Last time around on this subject these guys were full of if a man and woman created a pointy stick and the woman killed someone with it sort of examples. I found them difficult to refute last time because I did not understand my position as clearly then.

So, I agree that being married to another is certainly an action of the mother. And so the hypothetical applies in that way. I still don't think it divorces the genetic father of all responsibilities, however, so it does not prove the case in that way. For instance, aren't there cases of genetic fathers suing for custody rights of their children? Certainly there are cases of suragate mothers suing to get rights to children.

I'm not opposed to hypotheticals, BTW. I'd take that. I suppose I should amend my requirements to say that I want an example where a mutually created entity (not necessarily a child) is divorce from one of the creators because the other partner has temporary custody of it. Including the legal and even moral right to destroy the thing. So it has to be this power of the second partner rather than any action at all.

IWLN
02-01-2004, 02:38 AM
If you find a way to stop looking in here, please tell me. I've been trying to stop for days.Still looking! Thanks for reminding me that all men aren't slime. :)

Quint
02-01-2004, 03:46 AM
Last time around on this subject these guys were full of if a man and woman created a pointy stick and the woman killed someone with it sort of examples.
Whoah! I'm gonna have to check that out. I thought this thread was getting esoteric! I don't know why I posted anyway, just got sorta swept up in the debate. From what I've gleaned from this debate, the "non- responsibility" side needs to remember one thing- the baby is going to be made up of a 50/50 split in genetic material. The baby will look like the man, share mannerisms, ways of acting, thinking, weird little quirks... and if he puts in any effort at all will LOVE him more fiercely than any friend. Maybe that's an appeal to emotion, but think about it guys.

catsix
02-01-2004, 11:49 AM
pervert said:
And now you are suggesting that men should not have to pay because women do not get enough money??!!??

No. I'm saying that's evidence that so-called child support isn't about children at all. It's about selfish women who want things they can't afford and then want someone else to pay for it.


However, I find it hard to argue against such bias when I hear the claptrap out of the minds of males that you guys have been spewing.

When women complain about legal inequity, it's something to argue against, but when men do it, it's just claptrap?

Are you aware that it would be rather difficult, in fact impossible, for me to spew anything out of the 'mind of a male'? Dismissing an argument against legal inequality as spewing claptrap would be called misogynist if it were women complaining, so right now that statement looks like misandry.

Can you link to it or at least indicate where mr. Kelly got this figure?

First of all, 'Mr.' Kelly's first name appears to be Joan. Why did you assume an author named Joan Berlin Kelly was male? By the way, the book was co-written with Judith Wallerstein. Its full title is Surviving the Breakup: How Children and Parents Cope with Divorce. It's available over the web, or if you don't want to spend any money, you can probably borrow it at the library. I have provided a reference for my numbers. If you don't like them, prove me wrong.

IWLN said:
Well his sperm sure as hell did the talking for him, now didn't they?

I think as long as we don't tell a woman that her 'eggs did the talking for her' that this argument is utter bullshit.

I believe they have concocted this vast facade of no responsibility as a perverted way to shield them from the anguish of being seperated from their children. It is not healthy. It is not as common as it sometimes seems. And as you have seen, it is certainly not rational.

Your misandrist speculations are not evidence. Nor does it matter what the motivation of a man is who wants to choose his own version of abortion. It doesn't matter what the reason is that a woman wants to abort. Are you going to call those women unhealthy and irrational too, or do you reserve these insults only for men?

two things to note about his example. First of all, of course is that he made it up. Did he ever mention an actual court case when this exact thing happened?

Florida state law is that any child born in a marriage is legally the child of the husband, regardless of biological paternity. In the case of a divorce, if the mother has custody the 'legal father' is the one who pays support.

There was a case in Iowa in which the Iowa District court ordered a man to pay support for a child conceived in his wife's affair with another man, because according to Iowa law, the fraud committed by the wife was not relevant to who the legal father of the kid was.

In Louisiana, the following ruling that makes irrelevant the fraud committed by the mother:
Gallo v. Gallo, No. 03-C-0794 (Louisiana Supreme Court, December 3, 2003): A divorced man who discovered after divorce that a child born during the marriage was not his biological child did not have a right to recover the child support paid to the mother.

And the case of Patrick McCarthy of New Jersey, who was not only ordered to pay child support for a child that was not his biological child, he was not even allowed present evidence of the fraud committed by his ex-wife in court when he learned of the deception and paid out of his own pocket for a DNA test. Also the cases of Carnell Smith, Decatur, GA. and another man, unnamed in the article who were denied a hearing by the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue are of men paying child support for children that are not biologically their chilcren.

Before you accuse me of making it up: Is ABC News reliable enough for you? (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/paternity021002.html)

Child support is a scam.

catsix
02-01-2004, 11:50 AM
coven said:
Maybe that's an appeal to emotion, but think about it guys.

You'll say that to a man who wants his version of an abortion. What do you say to a woman who wants to abort? Do you try to guilt her into wanting to support a child?

Razorsharp
02-01-2004, 12:50 PM
You see, robert (and the rest of you), you are simply missing the fact that there is another choice besides the woman is responsible or the man is responsible. The fact of the matter (biologically, legally, and morally) is that both participants are responsible for the sexual act and anything which results from it.False. The whole purpose of "Roe" was to give women autonomy over their pregnancies. It was a PRIVATE issue, as put forth by counsel for the plaintiff. The Court agreed, it was a PRIVATE concern. That's why John Stackous had no remedy to prevent the aborting of the fetus that he helped create and wanted to raise as a child. He was not considered responsible for the sexual act, in fact, he was prevented by law from being responsible for the sexual act, and he certainly was not responsible for the abortion that ensued, that was his fiance's "private choice".If the female becomes pregnant, she is responsible to make the decision to undergo the invasive abortion procedure or not. Since she has the final say on this, she has to shoulder complete responsibility for the results of that decision.Now we're getting somewhere. Since it is her private decision, she should shoulder complete responsibility for the results of that decision. See, it does make sense. It makes so much sense that you can't help but come to that conclusion, even if you really don't mean to.

Razorsharp
02-01-2004, 12:56 PM
two things to note about his example. First of all, of course is that he made it up. Did he ever mention an actual court case when this exact thing happened?BIG SPRING, Tex. It should have been good news when Morgan Wise's doctor told him that genetic testing showed he was not a carrier of cystic fibrosis, the disease his youngest child, Rauli, has struggled with since birth. But instead, the 1999 test results led to the complete unraveling of Mr. Wise's relationship with Rauli and his three other children. "For a child to have cystic fibrosis, both parents have to be carriers," Mr. Wise said. "When I got the results, my first thought was maybe we'd misdiagnosed Rauli. But the doctor came around from his desk and said, `I'm just going to come straight out with it: Is there any reason to think this boy may not be yours?' He advised me to have DNA paternity testing. I was in such shock I couldn't even drive home." The paternity tests showed that Mr. Wise had not fathered Rauli or his two other sons, Marti and Rowdi. Of the four children born during his marriage to Wanda Fryar, which ended in 1996, only the eldest, daughter Carli, was biologically his. But the court that had handled his divorce would not consider the genetic evidence and refused to allow him to stop paying child support for the boys. The court also cut off his visitation rights, even with his biological daughter. http://listarchives.his.com/smartmarriages/smartmarriages.0103/msg00015.html

"According to the American Association of Blood Banks, 280,000 paternity tests were conducted in 1999, three times as many as a decade earlier. And in 28 percent of the tests, the man tested was found not to be the father.
But in most states, the law has not caught up with the science. And in dozens of cases around the country, divorced men like Mr. Wise - and single men who have previously acknowledged paternity - are having their genetic evidence of non paternity rejected by the courts. They are also being ordered to continue supporting children they did not father." http://www.massey.ac.nz/~kbirks/gender/whosdad.htm

IWLN
02-01-2004, 03:10 PM
I think as long as we don't tell a woman that her 'eggs did the talking for her' that this argument is utter bullshit.I don't think I've ever heard a woman try and deny partial responsibility for her pregnancy unless rape was involved. Poor innocent sperm. :( I think we got to utter bullshit on page one and went downhill from there. Abortion never would have been legalized under the terms you're suggesting.

pervert
02-01-2004, 03:22 PM
Thank you Razor. I had not been following your legalese debate very closely. I would like to point out the salient point here.
And in dozens of cases around the country, divorced men like Mr. Wise - and single men who have previously acknowledged paternity - are having their genetic evidence of non paternity rejected by the courts.

The point, of course, being that rejecting a child after having supported it for some time is problematic. That is, when a parental responsibility has been accepted it can not be discarded easily.

Also, I'd like to acknowledge this statistic from your quote:
280,000 paternity tests were conducted in 1999, three times as many as a decade earlier. And in 28 percent of the tests, the man tested was found not to be the father. This seems like a very small amount for the fuse being made in this thread. Unless we assume that paternity tests are ordered as standard practice, it seems the only 28% of all cases where sufficient doubt exists to test is the doubt actually well founded.


Now, as for cutting off his visitatation rights, I'd have to read the decision. Some people can take news like this (his wife bore 3 children not his own while married to him) very badly indeed. Are you sure in that specifica case his visitation was cut of merely because he was not the genetic father? Or did the court sever such ties because he became abusive when he found out? According to your cite ( a post in a message list BTW) "The judge made it clear to all parties that they were not to talk to the children about this, and when Morgan did so, that's why he cut off visitation". So it appears to have had nothing to do with any principle of divorcing him from his children.

pervert
02-01-2004, 04:07 PM
False. The whole purpose of "Roe" was to give women autonomy over their pregnancies.Quite right. Autonomous temporary control over the pregnancy. Lest we forget, a pregnancy is not a child.

He was not considered responsible for the sexual act, in fact, he was prevented by law from being responsible for the sexual act,No. You see here is where you put your looney spin on things. He was prevented by law from being responsible for the pregnancy because it was not inside his body. This does nothing to lessen his responsibility for any child which would have resulted if she had not chosen abortion.

Now we're getting somewhere.No, we're not. You still refuse to provide any proof whatsoever that abortion or lack of it is sufficient to produce a child. Look at it this way. Anyone can have an abortion at any time. Well, ok, not anyone. I can't. I don't have the equipment evenif my doctor does. ;) But my wife could have one at any time. The procedure could be perfomed at her request with a doctor's agreement whenever she wanted. However, as has been pointed out to you many times and you have refused to acknowledge, such a decision could not produce a child. Similarly, the decision not to have an abortion does not produce a child. If it could, we would be hip deep in babies before we could sneeze.

I propose that most women choose not to have abortions almost twice a day. OK, thats a little bit low. Probably more often then that. If the decision to avoid an abortion were all that is required to produce children, men would have become superfluous many eons ago.

Do you see how silly your notion of "not abortion" as the deciding factor in producing children is? Its not simply wrong. Its fraudulently wrong.


Since it is her private decision, she should shoulder complete responsibility for the results of that decision. Of course. But the result of that decision is not the production of a child. The production of a child requires somethine else. What could that be? I'm trying to work it out. Can any of you loonies help me? I seem to be missing something important here. A woman decides not to have an abortion, but then needs some other thing to make a child. What, oh what, could that other thing be? Where will she get it? What will it cost her? Will it come with any responsibilities from this other person or persons?


I'm sorry about the snippiness to everyone except the loonies in here. I just needed to do that for my own health. ;)

pervert
02-01-2004, 04:39 PM
When women complain about legal inequity, it's something to argue against, but when men do it, it's just claptrap?No, not at all. If women were arguing that they should be able to harvest sperm without the male's consent I would call bulshit just as vociferously.

Dismissing an argument against legal inequality as spewing claptrap would be called misogynist if it were women complaining, so right now that statement looks like misandry.Yes you are right. IF there were any legal inequity here to argue about. In a previous post you started down a road towards a real argument. But most of this thread has been about the looney assertion that abortion is identical to fertalization. I would argue with men, women, or aliens if they posited such an absurd notion.

First of all, 'Mr.' Kelly's first name appears to be Joan.Sorry. My bad. I looked at the name quickly and saw John.

I have provided a reference for my numbers. If you don't like them, prove me wrong.And I have questioned their veracity. Can you provide additional proof as to what those numbers really mean? I assume you have the book. You are not merely reading some anti fatherhood site which quotes the book are you? If you have it, please see if there is a footnote or appendix which indicates what numbers the percentages are taken from. Also if you could point out which study the "50% of all mothers want their children to have nothing to do with fathers" came from.


Your misandrist speculations are not evidence.OF course not. That's why I started the paragraph of with "I believe". It was directed specifically at IWLN and I believe I identified it as a hijack. If I did not do so loudly enough let me do so now. My personal opinions about the motivations for the people makeing the argument in support of the OP is not evidence of anything. Happy?


Nor does it matter what the motivation of a man is who wants to choose his own version of abortion.That right. I have said several times that men are perfectly and legally entitled to withdraw any and all material support from the fetus during its first 3 months. Just like the female. If withdrawing this support kills the fetus, then so be it. If it does not, however, then so be that.


It doesn't matter what the reason is that a woman wants to abort.Absolutely. As long as we are limiting our discussion to the first trimester I agree.

Are you going to call those women unhealthy and irrational too, or do you reserve these insults only for men?I reserve insults for people of any sex who deserve them. A man wants to stop feeding his fetus durign the first 3 months? Ok by me. A female wants to do the same? Ok by me as well. You see? No legal or moral inequity.

The problem comes when you guys (agenderal guys) want to complain that the man does not have the power to kill the fetus by withdrawing support for it. This becomes a silly rant against the facts of nature. And yes I insult you for believing that such things are unfair. Notice, I did not unsult you in the begining. Even after having gone through this same idiotic argument once before. I always try and believe that 1) the mistake could be an honest one or 2) I could be mistaken. After going round and round, however, I now believe that you guys(agenderal guys) are simply pissed about something and trying to avoid responsibility for your own actions.

[extraneous uncited examples snipped]And the case of Patrick McCarthy of New Jersey, who was not only ordered to pay child support for a child that was not his biological child, he was not even allowed present evidence of the fraud committed by his ex-wife in court when he learned of the deception and paid out of his own pocket for a DNA test. This one at least you provided a link to. But did you read the link? It contains this little gem "Three years ago, McCarthy found out he was not the biological father of his then-15-year-old daughter." That is, this gentlman had raised the daughter as his own for 15 YEARS! If that does not constitute acceptance of the parental responsibilities then I don't know what would. You guys are nuts if you think that a fraud committed by the mother 15 YEARS ago is relevant to the questio of who this girl's legal father is. I'd also like to point out that your original problem was worded like this "(biological father unless mother was married to another guy and then it's the husband even though it's not his kid and even if they were separated when the kid was conceived)". Do any of your examples include cases were the man was divorced from his wife during conception and never took any action to accept the child but was still compelled to do so? I'd be willing to quibble over a few months. But 15 YEARS? Come on!

Also the cases of Carnell Smith, Decatur, GA.But calm down, pervert, maybe this case is closer to the issue. Oh, wait, I just read the appropriate portion of the article. "after learning three years ago that her 13-year-old daughter is not his". 13 YEARS!?!?! WTF?

Do me a favor, catsix. Try and find a single case where a married man wants to withold child support early enough that no argument can be made that he already accepted paternity.

Child support is a scam.:)Yes. Yes it is:) <backs away slowly. No loud noises, no sudden movements>

pervert
02-01-2004, 04:40 PM
You'll say that to a man who wants his version of an abortion. What do you say to a woman who wants to abort? Do you try to guilt her into wanting to support a child?If she wants to abort after the child is born, definately. And we might even arrest her, give the child to its father, and make her pay support.

Nic2004
02-01-2004, 04:52 PM
So, what's your point? There is life outside of "Straight Dope".

To Razorsharp- I am sorry for the innane discussion that has followed your OP. The inability to focus on the central issue of your message is unbelievable. All the "Plagerism" and "previous postings" and "grammatical accuracy" is hard to take.
The issue at hand is the fair application of the law to men involving pregnancy, yes? In this sence I am in full agreement with you. Your points are valid and thoughtful.
Also, what are the circumstances leading up to sex that these people are referring to? Sit down and discuss, consider the implications, what kinda crap is that. We met, danced, went home together and had fun. No contract negotiations or long-range plans. Maybe we see each other again, maybe not. These clinical settings they consider are obsurd.

pervert
02-01-2004, 05:03 PM
Also, what are the circumstances leading up to sex that these people are referring to? Sit down and discuss, consider the implications, what kinda crap is that. We met, danced, went home together and had fun. No contract negotiations or long-range plans. Maybe we see each other again, maybe not. These clinical settings they consider are obsurd.I'd like to answer this.

No one is positing that clinical negotiations are taking place before sex. However, we are all assuming that only mature adults are involved. Given that assumption, I think it is safe to say that both parties are aware of the possible outcomes of the encounter. Also, that they are both capable of assuming the responsibility of such outcomes.

That's it. No one is saying that sex cannot be romantic, spontaneous, and even adventurous. Just that adults engaging in adult behavior should be willing to take adult responsibility for the outcome of that behavior.


As you have not participated in this thread up to now, so I will refrain from offering you a tinfoil hat. ;)

catsix
02-01-2004, 05:41 PM
pervert said:
You are not merely reading some anti fatherhood site which quotes the book are you? If you have it, please see if there is a footnote or appendix which indicates what numbers the percentages are taken from. Also if you could point out which study the "50% of all mothers want their children to have nothing to do with fathers" came from.

I posted the source for the numbers. It's not my duty to prove them wrong for you. If you're so freaking sure they're wrong, refute them.

As for the rest of your post, didn't you previously say that the statute of limitations for fraud only begins when the defrauded party learns that there was a fraud committed?

Why are you now singing a different tune when the defrauded party is a man and the fraud is paternity fraud?

pervert
02-01-2004, 06:17 PM
I posted the source for the numbers. It's not my duty to prove them wrong for you. If you're so freaking sure they're wrong, refute them.Well, I did not claim they were wrong. I only asked pertinent questions. Are you really sure you cannot look up whether or not the percentages mentioned really mean that more women are deadbeat parents than men? I'd think that proof of such a thing would be central to your case. If it were true you'd be willing to back it up many times over. Similarly to your claim that half of women do not want their children speaking to the children's fathers.

Again, I'm not claiming that such assertions are wrong. Only that a single post of unsubstantiated percentages cannot constitute proof that they are right. Remember, I did not destroy your numbers. I only pointed out a way in which your numbers could be completely true, and yet not mean what you claim they mean. I also proposed a simple way for you to refute this. In the time it took you to post three times since then, you could have looked up the numbers. In case you need help, I found a reference you the 50% statistic you quoted on another message board. It is supposed to be on page 125 of the book.

Oh, wait. Maybe you did look them up. ;)

Just to provide a little input into this debate, this is from the Amazon review of the book in questionBased on the Children of Divorce Project, the landmark study of how children, adolescents and their parents cope during the first five years after a family dissolution, Surviving the Breakup revolutionized the way society thought about divorce. Among other things, its findings showed how the adjustment of the child depends more on what happens after the divorce than on conditions in the predivorce family, that the father-child relationship does not diminish in importance regardless of how infrequent their contact becomes and that the child's anger and yearnings can last for an extraordinarily long time.

As for the rest of your post, didn't you previously say that the statute of limitations for fraud only begins when the defrauded party learns that there was a fraud committed?

Why are you now singing a different tune when the defrauded party is a man and the fraud is paternity fraud?I'm not sure I was the person you are refering to. But even if I were (or rather if that were true), the defrauder was not the child. In all of the cases you mentioned, the man has definate action against the woman. In every one of the cases, the man was able to divorce her. You guys are arguing that he should be able to divorce the child as well. furthermore, you are claiming that he should be able to divorce the child after years of accepting parantage.

You see, children are not chattel. You cannot accept responsibility for a child and then decide years later to simply abandon it.

pravnik
02-01-2004, 06:22 PM
As for the rest of your post, didn't you previously say that the statute of limitations for fraud only begins when the defrauded party learns that there was a fraud committed?

Why are you now singing a different tune when the defrauded party is a man and the fraud is paternity fraud?

No I said that, and I also said why a different standard applies in paternity cases.

Fraud isn't subject to the ordinary statute of limitations, since fraud by its very nature conceals itself. The time limit for fraud doesn't start running until the defrauded party realized or should have realized it. However, not all these situations are fraud, as many times the father voluntarily assumes the role with the full or partial knowledge that the child is not or may not be his, and continues to do so for many many years. Even when there has been intentional or unintentional deception the child is the innocent victim of it, and the court is loathe to "punish" the child who committed no deception for the mistakes and decptions of the adult. Still, there are very serious issues of equity to the father to be considered. The thorny nature of the issues presented are the exact reason the legislatures have not enacted hard and fast calculus to determine decisions. Courts instead use factors that must be considered, such as the length of time between the filing of the paternity action and the date the father was put on notice, the length of time the father has assumed the fatherhood role, the age of the child nd the nature of the relationship, the potential of harm to the child if paternity is disproved, and so on. At any rate, since the original conversation was over supporting one's biological children out of wedlock, it's a different topic.

catsix
02-01-2004, 06:48 PM
Until you come up with a cite that refutes my numbers, they stand as correct. Your attempt to weasel by saying I didn't list 'enough' sources for those numbers is just that. I gave you a source. You're free to refute it, but you can't.

And as for paternity fraud, the child isn't the only victim. Why should a man have to pay for a crime someone else comitted?

pervert
02-01-2004, 07:10 PM
Until you come up with a cite that refutes my numbers, they stand as correct. Your attempt to weasel by saying I didn't list 'enough' sources for those numbers is just that. I gave you a source. You're free to refute it, but you can't.Dude, seriously. If we have this much trouble understand each other on a simply matter, it is no wonder when a small amount of complexity it thrown in we are at loggerheads.

So, for the record. I did not refute your numbers. I believe them. You said they were published in a book, that is good enough for me. If 27% of dead beat dads, and 47% of dead beat moms are not paying any child support, then fine that is the number.

However, you drew a conclusion from them that may not be warented. It is this conclusion that I question. You questioned why we were pursuing dead beat dads and not the moms. You made the question as if it were obvious that your number meant that more moms were dead beat than dads. I am trying to suggest to you that your numbers do not prove this. Let's accept you numbers. OK. Even so, there may still be many many many more dead beat dads than dead beat moms. If this is so, then the reason we are pursuing dead beat dads is obvious. There are more of them. That is, it is a bigger problem.

Even at that, we have to take the assumption that more is being done to pursue dead beat dads than is being done to pursue dead beat moms. Your assertion that this is so also is not proof. In fact, I gave you anecdotal evidence that it was not, in fact, true.

And as for paternity fraud, the child isn't the only victim. Why should a man have to pay for a crime someone else comitted?Well, he shouldn't. However, a child who is now 13 or 15 is not a crime. Paying support for one is not paying for a crime.