villa and Damuri Ajashi, both of you need to tone it down and discuss this issue without the hostility and personal aspersions.
No, I understand that both parents of the child are responsible (currently). This debate is about more than that though. This debate is about whether or not a father (male = no abortion rights) needs to be told by the State to pay for a child he doesn’t want.
This part of the debate doesn’t really hold water for folks who have children in wedlock. This is also the part I think you are failing to comprehend.
Once again, if the child is the sole beneficiary of the monies that fathers may pay, why isn’t it a set amount but rather a percentage of what the father makes?
I know what you’ll say… (think before you do though) This argument doesn’t hold for children born into wedlock where they are used to a certain standard of living. This would be for children still in the womb whom have no standard of living.
Of course not. You are the only person who ever said these words. As a woman, I would also sign these papers if I had the possibility to. If your options are:
A: Make an irrevocable decision that could potentially have the government decide when, where and how much you have to support your kid.
B: You decide when, where and how much you support your kid.
Option B is the only one that makes sense. Nobody would rationally take on a legal obligation that they do not have to. Why would anyone make themselves subject to extra laws? Being a scumbag has nothing to do with it.
I would say that is an area where the state should step in. Of course, in my ideal world, child support would not be based on the non-custodial parent’s salary rather on the the basic minimum calculated necessary for raising the child and identical to what families on various social safety net programs like TANF for example get.
nm
I’m (very) pro-life and yet I find myself agreeing with Diogenes.
What’s happening to me?
It’s not punish the slut. It’s punish the stupid. It’s punish the people that choose to bring a unwanted child into the world with no plan to support it.
If that were true no one would ever adopt a child either. Plenty of people voluntarily make themselves subject to extra laws by joining the military or certain government agencies and it is considered quite honorable and laudable. What is not honorable is involuntarily forcing someone of either gender to be a parent.
The forced birth movement and the forced fatherhood movement have common ground. Both believe in trampling adult rights in favor of potential children.
Yes, I think this is true. There are a few things to keep in mind about ZPG Zealot when engaging in this kind of discussion with her. First, she hates children and doesn’t value their existence at all. Second, she resents people who DO value children because those people have the temerity to bring them into the world, where ZPG doesn’t want them to be. Third, she curiously seems to believe that it’s mostly women who value children, and that if it were left up to men, she’d live in a blissful world where children don’t exist. Ergo, she kind of hates women, as well.
Once you realize all of this about her, her arguments start to make a little more sense.
Its not rational, its scummy and I don’t for a minute believe you would sign those papers with the sort of deception you proposed, you simply aren’t that scummy.
Here was your scenario:
“So what would happen is that men and women would make plans to have a baby (or, at least, not make plans not to have a baby) and then when the woman was pregnant her partner is going to say something like “Honey, of course I’ll take care of you and our lovely child and I love you guys to pieces. We don’t need a legal contract to guarantee that! I have to sign this paper to make sure I have the flexibility to take care of you guys the right way. We are never splitting up, honey, so don’t worry about it. It doesn’t change a thing. Everything it going to be okay.” Or maybe, in between painting the nursery walls and shopping for car seats, he’ll duck into the courthouse and sign it without telling a soul, for insurance.”
Ducking out between painting the nursery and shopping for car seats to absolve yourself from legal responsibility for a child that you purport to love, that you have with a woman that you purport to love, that the woman gave birth to after you tell her you love them both and will support them… is a scumbag move. Do you really think that is rational or do you think taht maybe some scumbags somewhere might try to pull something like that?
I could turn your rationality argument around and say that it is irrational to give birth to a child you cannot support without child support payments form a reluctant father.
And the rule we are talking about would nto apply to msot situations.
And once again, why can’t the woman be a bit more careful about letting scumbags stick their penis in her?
And that is not the subject of this thread. NOONE is saying that you should be able to abandon your child support obligations for a child you wanted to have in the first place.
Because its have to get approved by a judge and a judge wouldn’t let that happen without notice to the pregnant woman. It simply isn’t the sort of thing that can happen in secret.
In this sentence, you are talking about defaults. Should the default be that you must support unwanted children unless you agree that you wont before the act of sex OR should the default be that you can absolve yourself from responsibility by timely notice unless you agree to support any children taht result from sex beforehand.
IOW, why can’t the default be, the man doesn’t have to support unwanted children born outside of marriage unless the man signs an agreement that he will in fact support any such children?
Considering that fact that the woman has the ultimate ability to abort an unwanted pregnancy, why is your default more equitable than my default?
Thats not it at all. Why can’t we shift the burden of obtaining consent to the party who has the greatest ability to avoid birth? Why not make women who only want to have sex with men taht will support unwanted children make the men sign that pre-agreement.
Its all a matter of defaults. You can contract around anything, the question is how do you craft defaults. If you have some reason why your default is better than my default, I’d like to hear it.
Everyone needs to be careful. People need to control what they can control for, and both men and women can control conception pretty darn well if they really choose to. So what we are talking about here is where both people either choose not to control conception or are actively seeking conception. The whole “she tricked me!” scenario that so much of this debate is about is a fake one that basically never happens. What does happen is people choose not to use birth control. Thus, both sides take responsibility.
Again, the purpose of keeping abortion legal is not to provide women with a “free pass.” It is to make sure you have the right to make medical decisions about your body. I don’t find it relevant to child support.
But this is what will happen.
The number of men who take basic precautions and still knock up a woman who refuses to abort is somewhere around .0000001%. It is a non-factor.
The number of people who willingly have kids and then decide at some point later that they would rather not support them is pretty damn high. I know quite a few myself. My own father is among them. This happens all the time.
You may not be intending to serve the latter, but that’s who this law will practically serve. To protect a basically non-existant population of hapless guys, you will be making it easier for millions of deadbeats who like having their spawn out there but don’t want to stick with it when the going gets tough.
This thread isn’t about the legality or lack thereof of abortions? But the ability to have that abortion at solely the woman’s choice is what drives the unfair nature of today’s law, which is why it has been brought up.
If the man were given that same 3 month period to determine whether or not he could afford or even want the child in question, then the woman’s choice doesn’t get diminished, in fact, it relegates the responsibility for raising the child solely to her as it is solely her choice whether to have it.
That being said, if she so chooses to have an abortion, I feel that the man should have to pony up the cost. Only because the woman’s body is taking the hardship of the surgery (otherwise it would be a 50-50 split)
So to answer your question, yes it directly pertains to abortion (or at the very least the ability to get one)
Could someone please explain to me what parental agreements have jack all to do with the well being of child?
The child didn’t have any say in coming into the world, why shouldn’t the parties responsible have to support the kid?
The child is a 3rd party being unjustly injured by not being supported.
This supposed ‘law’ would do no such thing. This ‘law’ would not serve those couples whom are married and happily have three kids until such a time they divorce (when the kids are 1, 3, and 5)
The point you seem to be missing is that the only people affected by this law are the unmarried lucky or unlucky couples who get pregnant.
Once you willingly have kids, you don’t get a free pass to later go back and say “I don’t want him/her”
Again, this all depends on what you are calling a ‘child’