Do you have any data to support any of this? This is GD, remember?
I politely ask that you do some homework before you attempt to extrapolate your own motivations to the rest of society. Scientists have kindly done a lot of work on this subject; there is no need to act as though the best we have is speculation.
The only part you really need to know, I put in bold.
Here’s more homework for you Damuri Ajashi. Read this:
(bolding mine)
If these two studies, plus common sense, fail to persuade you to reconsider your opinions, I don’t what would. Even though I mentioned both works in the last thread we had on this discussion, it didn’t stop people from putting forth the kind of arguments you’ve been making. It kind of stengthens the saying that you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves in to begin with, but hey, it’s worth a try.
Considering abortion goes against every anotomical, biological, neurological and emotional base instinct we have, your callous attitude and lack-of-recognition of such is in DIRECT correllation to…
"What kind of assholes would suddenly run around having sex irresponsibly simply because they were no longer going to be liable for child support?"
The kind that’s writing this blog! Men like YOU!..and I’ll tell you why…
**First…**teenage boys are unable to completely control their hormones, some throughout their life, but especially during adolescence. This is the time when men become “assholes” who would “suddenly run around having sex irresponsibly”–the opinions of a teenager’s parents can shift a young man from “screw child support” to “that’s my son, I’d never walk away.” Even with “good parents,” if the teenage boy suffers from mental illness or addiction, all bets are off. ANOTHER reason men don’t pay child support. But that’s another subject. Where was I? Oh yes…running away from child support is the NORM and…
IS EXACTLY WHAT’S HAPPENING NOW!…I’ll tell you why…
Teenage boys will lie, cheat, steal, manipulate, all for the driving instinct to “procreate.” A man’s base instinct is to have sex in order to continue the population. That is the VERY BASIC primitive force driving men to have sex in the first place. HUMANITY is what makes them responsible to their young. Instinctually, men would not be responsible. They’ve done their deed and can move on–like dogs. This is 2011. By now, all you missing links SHOULD have evolved from that. But because the male animal DOES NOT want to take the civilized, humane route and support his children, then unfortunately Uncle Sam will have to get involved. So step up to the plates men, do the RIGHT think. Civilize yourselves. Take resonsibility for your young. It’s the modern thing to do. Back to the original poster…
Please dig your head out of sphincter. I can’t hear your irrational rantings while you’re in this position. Thank you.
“The day that a woman is forced to have a child against her will because the father wants the child AND she is forced to pay child support, I will stop using the words father and mother.”
Noone forced her to have that baby. And if this debate was about whether SHE should have to pay child support, I’d say no, if the father insists on taking custody of the baby then that’s his choice. He should not be put in a better position than a total stranger that is adopting the child.
I love how someone can make an unsupported claim that child support payments deter irresponsible behaviour to any significant degree and when I say BULLSHIT, the response is “prove its bullshit, its great debates after all”
And where does your cite mention child support payments being a driver of behaviour?
Your article says nothing about child support payments being a driver for why people use condoms. It talks about pregnancy being a more significant reason for condom usage than disease prevention. Or are you saying the the main reason people want to avoid pregnancy is to avoid child support payments?
I’m sorry if I didn’t read every thread on this subject before posting to this thread. I just don’t understand the derisive tone towards people who didn’t read every thread ever posted on this topic. I could understand if i had participated in the other thread and then trotted out the same bullshit argument on every thread that ever came up but THATS NOT WHAT HAPPENED.
OK so you have established that “Stronger child support enforcement was marginally associated with men’s decreased likelihood of being involved in an unwanted pregnancy” BUT ITS FUCKING MARGINAL. I never said there was NO effect, I said it wasn’t significant, ceratinly not significant enough to support your position by itself.
By marginal they mean men’s overall rate of unwanted pregnancy would have been 4.8%, rather than the observed 4.5% (see page 122 the paragraph right before the conclusion). A 7% increase over the observed rate not an additional 7% rate of incidence.
So this silver bullet argument that you seem to think you have amounts to 4.5% versus 4.8% (and even that conclusion comes with half a page of caveats). But you have in fact established (at least as far as I’m concerned), a rebuttable presumption that child support payments have some marginal effect on men’s behaviour.
Now how is that inconsistent with what i said “I don’t think that the threat of child support is a major contributor to people behaving responsibly. Your arguments for the behavioral effects of child support is similar to people who think that increasing the tax rate on the rich from 35% to 39.6% is going to make a lot of rich people leave the country. It simply isn’t that big a factor.”
You didn’t read the post that came immediately after the one you’re responding to, obviously. Either that or you don’t comprehend it. I provided a cite that shows that the more lax child support enforcement is, the more unwanted pregnancies there are.
Are you paying attention?
Forcing parents to pay child support is inversely proportional to the rate of unwanted pregnancies. Really, why would this be surprising? If child support is so brutually harsh and unfair, why wouldn’t that cause people to behave more responsibly? Even sex-induced irrationality has its limits.
If you have data that contradicts mine, feel free to bring it up, dude. This thread is like…how old? And you’ve contributed…how many cites to back up your assertions? Unless you’ve snuck some in while I haven’t looked, I count zero.
You seem kinda bitter. Are you OK?
Men like me? It sounds like your getting upset and that is driving you to make this kind of personal. You shouldn’t do that on great debates.
And once again, women have no say in the matter?
I can’t tell if you’re trying to make an argument or simply bashing men.
Up until now I think you’re the first one to cite anything. I will cite the same report you cited where they said that the difference is 4.5% unwanted pregnancy rate to 4.8% unwanted pregnancy rate. Its not exactly a driver of unwanted pregnancies now is it?
The two questions are related in that they both have to do with child support, but that’s it. In a thread about whether or not men should be able to opt out of parental rights and obligations altogether, the question of whether child support should be based on income or a flat rate if they aren’t allowed to do so is off-topic. If you want to debate that, by all means start a thread on it.
If I have an impatient attitude towards your posts, it’s not because you haven’t read every thread ever posted on this topic. It’s because you seem to believe you can make arguments based on opinions only, not evidence.
But we’re talking about a relatively small change in enforcement level. It’s not as though enforcement went from non-existent to strong. It went from one level to another level, spanning a 20 year period. So the fact that they saw a statistically signficant difference at all is noteworthy. It’s cool and all that you’ve seized on the word “marginal”, but the finding is still significant.
Did you read the intro of the paper? The authors cite another study that concluded teenaged boys were less promiscuous and more likely to use contraception when they perceived a higher likelihood of enforced child support. What do you make of that? Anything?
Because you have no evidence for this, at all. It’s just a opinion.
What we do have is evidence that irresponsible behavior increases when child support is lax. You say we have no evidence that these behaviors increase substantially, but can you not see that this kind of evidence is inherently difficult to obtain? We live in a society where child support exists; taking that away to conduct research to prove its necessity to the naysayers is unethical. So the best we can do is show that even small increases in enforcement lead to detectable effects. You can dismiss this all you want in favor of your opinions, but doing so will not compell anyone to agree that you’re right in this debate.
And like I said, up until now, EVERYONE’S argument was supported by opinion and cites to previous threads.
I do’t know about that. As far as I can tell, the report says"Specifically,
the child support enforcement index in this analysis improved from –0.76 in 1982 to 1.06 in 2002." I can’t tell what that means. I conceded the fact that there was a difference but the argument but we’re still talking about a difference that is “marginal”
Marginal seems to be the opposite of significant. In fact the report doesn’t use the word significant and it never uses the phrase statistically significant, it DOES use the word marginal. So why do we ignore the word that is actually used in favor of a word that the report never uses to characterize the effect of child support payments on unwanted pregnancies?
Is it possible that you are reading more into this report than the report actually says?
If the effect is so significant, then why does the report conclude that child support may…MAY have a positive impact. Why use the qualifiers and weasel words?
I tried to get the text and all I could get was an abstract.
The abstract says there is an effect but doesn’t really mention the scale of the effect. It really depends on how significant the effect is.
One that has some support in the article you linked.
Its not exactly a scientific study (for example it doesn’t take into account increased condom usage and general changes in attitudes after the spread of AIDS, it doesn’t explain why the decrease in unwanted pregnancies was so much more dramatic among married men than among unmarried men), it only points to a correlation between an increase in child support enforcement over a 20 year period with a decrease in unwanted pregnancies from 4.8% to 4.5% over that same period. While there is some logic to the notion that imposing a cost to irresponsible behaviour is going to change that behaviour I don’t see how we can make the sort of statement that people have made about how much of a difference eliminating child support will have on male behaviour with the sort of marginal effects this report tries to point out…
Is it possible that condom usage increased after people found out about AIDS and that had a corollary effect on unwanted pregnancies? Is it possible that people are more educated about birth control generally? Is it possible that this report is flawed? Is it possible that even if it isn’t flawed that it doesn’t come anywhere near supporting the dramatic effects that some people have said that child support payments have on male behaviour?
Looks like somebody didn’t get her check this month? It’s 2011, the civilized thing is for people to only create children with another willing partner; however, a subset of the female animal (homo lazee golddiggerous) DOES NOT want to take the civilized, humane route, and wait for a willing partner or get her own finances in order so that she could comfortably be a single parent that we have the problems of child proverty. So step up to the plates fellow women and do the RIGHT thing. Civilize yourselves. Take responsibility for your life and your uterus. If your sex partner makes it clear he does not want to be a father (one high indicator of that may be he is gasp only interested in sex, not a relationship with you), don’t expect getting knocked up will change things.
Read the tables that show the results and you’ll frickin see that where statistical signifcance (at the 90% and 95% confidence level) is denoted. You can’t just read the text; stop being so lazy!
Why be so focused on one adjective when you have the author’s conclusions to go by? Let alone, actual numbers? They say the effect was “marginal” to show that it was small effect, but it was detectable and significant nevertheless. That much is clear, otherwise, their conclusion would be that child support enforcement had no real effect on behavior.
Is it possible you aren’t reading it at all?
Because that’s how scientists state their conclusions when a retrospective study design is used. They can’t say what will happen if child support is increased or decreased because they aren’t in the fortune telling business. Come one now. This rebuttal is desperate.
If find it precious that rather than coming up with your own cites to supports your stance, you are picking nits in this one. No one is saying its the holy grail of holy grails; it’s just one study that weakens the case to be made for letting fathers off the hook. Where’s your study that strengthens the case?
Of course. You’ll never find a study that doesn’t have limitations. But you know this paper was peer-reviewed, right?
Did somebody want to take you to court?? If not yet, with that attitude, I’m sure they will…eventually.
Whether you want to believe it or not–the male instinct thing is true. What you said is true as well–minus the misogynistic undertones. Everyone can continue to point the finger, but the bottom line is that these babies are getting here because BOTH people were irresponsible. So BOTH should have to take responsibility. It’s just a shame that so many have such a poor attitude toward new life. A very scary predictor for the direction society is heading.
An extremely small subset, who can be almost entirely thwarted by a thin piece of latex, a tiny pill and perhaps a couple of yes-or-no questions…measures that even the “uncontrollable” male libido can surely muster up.
If a sperm and ovum fertilize in a test tube, get implanted in someone’s womb, gestates, is born and a human being, it’s biological parents are responsible for it’s well being, without regard to how the circumstances came about.
There are plenty of other more important problems with the legal approach to ensuring this basic concept besides whether or not the father wanted to have a child.
Anyone else picture an evil woman, perhaps green, crying “I’m meltinnngg!” when the condom appears?
Um.
Just me, then?
Actually yes, my asshole of an ex tried to force me to gestate a fetus which contained his DNA. I wanted the little parasite out of my uterus. Luckily in the United States, the law was on my side and I got my abortion. If I had been a man who didn’t want to be a parent I would not have had such an option, that’s why I think it’s only fair that a man should have the right to get a paper abortion cutting all legal ties to a child he doesn’t want within a few weeks (roughly the same amount of time a woman has to choose abortion) of being notified a fetus is being gestated or a child has been without his knowledge of the gestation.
Want to bet? Every single mother I know fits this description. Thin pieces of latex break. There is no male birth control pill. And baby or marriage-money rabid women can lie.