Another aspect of your proposal and ones like it that want to make it more equatable for men is bad behavior among males. We already had a society where men could abandon children at will.
Let’s say the man decides he doesn’t want this child but the woman does. Do we still enforce an abortion? Does the woman, or girl, have to prove she can support this child before she’s allowed to have it? If not, is she eligible for welfare? If so that means society as a whole pays the price for the offspring of unwilling fathers who are enabled by law to avoid responsibility for their offspring.
You’re making this up. Every man (excluding the rare cases on female on male rape) has the opportunity to prevent a birth. It is an opportunity that is not identical to the woman’s opportunity, but, then again, a man’s involvement in pregnancy is different to a woman’s.
I understand the reasoning, I just wonder about the legality. If they have no say in a marriage what the child is entitled (except to be cared for i.e food, clothing, shelter), why do they get to decide in a divorce?
More than that, in all these discussions people need to understand that biology prohibits that it can ever be fair, and every virtually every suggestion they make to try and make it more fair has unintended consequences that have likely already been considered.
When you adjust to try and make one aspect more fair , you make another aspect more unfair. As imperfect as it is the system we have tries to promote justice, and personal responsibility for the parties involved and the general welfare of society as a whole.
I suppose, we as a people, would need to decide whether the right of the mother to have the child outweighs the rights of the society that might have to pay for it.
Absent rape, if there is a child, there was a relationship which is no longer continuing. Even if it was only 15 minutes behind the dumpster in the alley outside the club.
I’m not suing relationship here to imply anything deep and meaningful per se.
The problem with the system is that the only personal responsibility being assigned os to the father (if he doesn’t want the child). The mother can forgo her personal responsibility by having an abortion.
Because the law makes compromises between parental rights and child rights. It makes decisions based on what is practical and what works. And monitoring the expenditure of every couple with children is neither practical, nor respectful of the overwhelming majority of parents who try to do well by their children. Courts do have the power to require certain expenditures by a married couple, with the consequence of the child being taken into care if that doesn’t happen.
Once a couple divorces, they bring the state into that relationship. And, long practice has shown the state that leaving it to the parents to determine in this situation results in harm to the children. This thread has shown amply the number of people who view children as an optional extra, and who would refuse to pay any support if the state was not requiring it. So the state, recognizing this is a situation where it’s intervention is more needed, steps in, and requires a certain proportion of income to be paid for the child. It’s frustrating for those of us who would be responsible anyway, but there are too many who won’t.
The law does this a lot. When the probablity of individual irresponsibility harming an innocent party gets too high, then the law steps in.
Uhhh, no. In that case, the mother gives away the baby to the father, and has no financial responsibility for it, since she stated that she didn’t want it and the father did, back when she was X weeks pregnant.
Of course, the above does not apply to our society, but to a hypothetical one which would have the above legal framework in place.
What I was trying to say is that, in the above society, the only burden on the woman would be the pregnancy, and not pregnancy plus 18 years of support. And so, we can compare the two burdens: (A) 18 years of support against their will for men (in our current society) versus (B) 9 months of pregnancy against their will for women (in a some other society).
The fact that our society has gone for our current setup means that we consider burden A to be OK, but burden B to be extremely bad.
But I don’t think there is a universal law saying that burden B is worse than A.
Not true at all. Choosing an abortion is accepting personal responsibility and making a choice about it. That choice can’t be equal because of biological realities.
As I said, and is repeated 1000 times in every thread about this,
**
biology prohibits that it can ever be fair** and people know this upfront so that provides the amount of fairness you are able to have.
There’s no way I’ve ever heard to give men an extra say that wouldn’t be a tragic enabler of gross irresponsibility by males.
Do you think men should have the choice to make a woman have an abortion?
except you have grossly oversimplified to make this point. The woman who decides to keep the baby and demands child support is also financially on the hook for 18 years. So she has 9 months of pregnancy and 18 years of the financial burdon, while he has only the 18 years. Still seem equitable?
Not really. I am not a firm believe on either side of the abortion debate. What I do have an opinion on is whether or not a woman can take the man’s rights away by refusing to have one. If she chooses to have one knowing that he doesn’t want it, then I don’t think she should expect to be compensated.
Let me add, in the case of a marriage with children that child support should be enforced but it should be made mandatory that the parents agree to amounts as well as visitation.
I don’t think you understood the question then because it isn’t answered. You did answer the question of how and why the state gets brought into it but not why it isn’t a flat rate (not a percentage of income) if all the child is expected to receive is the necessities of survival.