I could live with that. As long as he got a vasectomy at the same time. This would balance out the fact that one man can get quite a few women pregnant in a very short period of time. He gets to opt out of ONE child support obligation, but then he doesn’t get to make any more babies, ever. And no, he’s not allowed to bank his sperm before getting snipped.
Wow, I never knew abortions caused so much harm to the woman’s body as to never be fruitful again.
The point wasn’t to equalize damage to the body. The point was to prevent one man from having a dozen or more unsupported kids.
I know. How do you do that for the woman?
The present system does subsidize risky behavior in women to some extent, yes. Because we’ve looked at the consequences of not doing so, and they are bad. But right now you have high risk to women for risky behavior and medium risk to men. With these proposed changes, we’d have ultra high risk to women and no risk to men. Some women would be discouraged from having sex, but they are already tolerating a great deal of risk. So we’d be completely knocking out one deterrent while only ramping up another somewhat. I don’t see it as neutral.
Given the political climate of the US, anything that encourages abortion would, I would think, be political infeasible. But there are anti-abortion advocates in this thread who seem to think making childbearing and rearing even more onerous is somehow going to make abortion less attractive (which honestly lends credence to the ideas that Der Trihs has that anti-abortion sentiment is more about harming women than it is about babies).
There is no way to argue that having more children on assistance would be good for society. There is no way to argue that having more children on assistance would be good for their mothers or for the children.
As for 6, sure. I wish men only had sex with women they trusted and vice versa. I’m in favor of men telling women “I will refuse to support you in any way if you become pregnant. You’re on your own,” before anyone gets naked. Strangely, men never seem eager to have that conversation. I wonder why.
That’s a value judgement. I don’t think parents “abandoning” a child they are unable to raise is a bad thing. The argument over what net effect changing the present legal assumptions would have on society at large, as you said, just boils down to arguing over details and what-ifs we can’t really know for sure, so it is probably better to agree to disagree on that point.
My argument from a values point of view is that trying to prevent children from being raised in families who are unable or unwilling to care for them is a much better solution than trying to coerce people into a good situation. I do believe that abortion should be encouraged in some cases. Per that census document, the average custodial parent recieves around 3k in child support. Most of these (3/4s about) are above the poverty line and our discussion here does likely not concern them. Undoubtedly the real indigent deadbeats who want nothing to do with their kids pay much less. I’d say if the government dropped the mandatory child support assumption and picked up the fraction of that child support burden not paid by the actual deadbeats (which they often do anyways, BTW), people would be more able to make responsible decisions. But who knows, maybe it would set off a generation of Screaming Jay Hawkins-es*. We’re in the realm of opinion now, and I’ve said mine. Also I have to go to work :).
*who fathered somewhere between 55-75 illegitimate children.
The problem here is unwanted children, and I think the simplest and fairest solution is to encourage as many abortions as possible. If the guy doesn’t want a kid and she does, then she can pay for the child herself. If they decide to get an abortion, they each pay half. If they agree to have the kid, then the father has commited to being a father and is now legally obligated to perform his patriarchal duties, and if he walks out after that, then he owes child support.
However, this would only work in a society where abortion is seen as acceptable, is cheap, and can be easily accessed by everyone.
Right now federal and state governments alike are facing huge deficits and budget shortfalls. The legislation you propose puts a new mutlimillion dollar burden on taxpayers so that men can engage in consequence free sex. I anticipate some resistance to the bill.
It pretty much does. The fact that an abortion (or birth) has long term effects on both parties is not the point of abortion rights. The point is that a person has the right to do what they want with their body. Since the woman is the only one who has the fetus inside her, she gets to choose what happens to it.
Why would you compare it to the cost of an abortion? If a woman terminates a pregnancy, then there is no baby. Once there is ababy, the father is ethically and financially responsible for it. He accepted that responsibility when he came.
Keep repeating that broken record, it might finally change my stance.
If you don’t think that fathers have any resposnibility to their children, then you’re right. I can’t change your stance. Fortunately, the laws don’t care about your stance.
I do believe I have gone out of my way to advocate a parental responsibility that Father’s need to own up to.
My argument (of which you have zero merit based argument so far other than your tired ‘came’ line) is one of fairness and what might possibly work a bit better than forcing someone to pay for something that they didn’t have the same choices as the other party.
They do have the same choices. They just don’t have the same biology. You do not have a right to consequence free sex. Sorry.
But a woman does?
You keep saying that, yet you’ve provided no logical or ethical rationale to back it up. Care to explain your position and how it equates?
Of course not. Where do you get the idea that they do?
Happy to. You are responsible for the disposition of your own sperm. When you choose to put it in a vagina, you choosing to assume responsibility for any child that results from it. Why you would think that your children are anyone else’s responsibility but your own is beyond me, but the choice to be a father is made at the moment of ejaculation.
“Unable” to raise is certainly relative as well. Very few are truly “unable” to raise a kid. Who makes that choice?
If you think it doesn’t concern them then you have no idea what you’re arguing about.
Answer the question for crying out loud! REGARDLESS OF OTHER OPTIONS AVAILABLE, WHAT DO YOU DO IN CASES WHERE A PARENT WANTS TO STEP OUT ON RESPONSIBILITY TO THEIR KID? DO YOU LET THEM?
Should you or I just be able to walk away from a kid without giving the government recourse to get money from us to support that kid? Whether you want him/her or not, a kid is a responsibility. Without stepping into the ‘when does life begin’ debate, once a kid is born you’re a mom and/or dad. Should a mom or dad be able to leave their kid on a whim?
It may be that encouraging adoption is a good idea, but it doesn’t preclude needing standards in place for a parent’s responsibility to his/her child.
I got it from the above. If each person has the same choice to make in having sex (unprotected) then how do you justify giving the woman a second go at determining whether or not to carry the baby to term. (by granting her sole responsibility in deciding whether to abort or not)
If you would just admit that the choices aren’t equal, we can stop quibbling over whether or not it’s fair.
Just admit that it isn’t fair and move on.