Not every right is a fundamental human right. Child support is a legal right of the child. I’d say the child has a fundamental right which to “nuture and care conducive to a healthy life” and by far the most effective and fair way of guaranteeing that right is to give the child a legal right to “financial support from non-custodial parent.”
I can accept that - if you feel you have no responsibility to care for your children, then sure. I think it says an awful lot about a person who thinks that, but you pays your money (or not), you takes your choice.
Well clearly there is hyperbole involved. And if the non-custodial parent drops dead, the child will get survivors benefits from social security in many cases. But I don’t think you recognize in many situations the child support is the sole thing keeping the child out of extreme poverty. Will the child die? Probably not, though I am sure infant and child deaths would increase if fathers were permitted to walk away from their responsibilities. I guess you are relying on the state to pick up the pieces for the deadbeat fathers.
There is so much blatant falsehood in this I don’t know where to start.
Most of the financial burden of supporting children is extremely rarely placed on the man, unless you are so absolutely naive as to assume the financial burden is solely calculated by the amount of a money spent. The burden of custodial care itself creates a major financial burden - in increased expenses, but, more importantly, in dramatically reduced earning opportunities. Until you factor in that drop in income (which you haven’t) you have absolutely no clue where the financial burden of supporting children lies.
You keep talking about men who are not the father. What situation precisely are you talking about here - is it the legal presumption that a married man is the father of children born to his wife? I think there is a case for making that a rebuttable presumption. However, there would need to be a time limit involved. I wouldn’t support someone who has raised a child for 8 years, then divorcing the mother being able to call for paternity testing. Parenting is about way more than passing on one’s genes, and if you choose to be a father for that period of time, then you handle your ongoing responsibilities.
You keep talking about denying contact between the child and the parent. Your response to the illegal denying of access to one’s child by the custodial parent isn’t to use the legal system. It isn’t even to try to cure the faults in the legal system. It’s to punish the child because it’s mother is doing something wrong. That’s a phenominally childish attitude.
Let’s add a touch of personal experience to this. I’m divorced, with a child. My ex has primary physical custody and we have joint custody. I pay significantly more child support than the courts would have required me to pay. My ex had a child later with someone else, who does not make any money. She decided it wasn’t worth the effort of going after him for the tiny amount of support the system would require him to pay. That puts me in a tough position - the second child undoubtedly affects my child’s financial situation. Now I can be a dick about it, or I can man up and take care of my responsibilities - which I did, by increasing the child support I pay and take care of my son. My other option is to sit at home, cry into my beer about how unfair the world is, and spend countless thousands on lawyers making my life, my ex-wife’s life, my son’s life, and his half-brother’s life a misery.
Pondering your quandary got me to asking myself, why would you not try to get custodial custody of your son? If he would clearly be in a better position with you (financially), why not?
Do you not want custodial rights? Is it too burdensome? Is there something I am missing?
And by doing so (paying more than what you owe your son) you are enabling this other dead beat dad to pay nothing…
Yes, yes, you are doing so at (possibly) a net benefit to your son but he could be with you (and presumably) in a much better financial position if you had custodial rights.
Huh? It’s beside the point whether or not the fetus is a baby; what matters is that you’re opening yourself up to the objection that any negative impacts of illegalizing abortion are moot, because (by your argument) the woman accepts responsibility by choosing whether to have sex. This isn’t to make an argument that abortion shouldn’t be legal, but rather to close off one kind of argument for abortion rights, viz. those relying on the negative consequences of forcing a woman to carry a child to term.
Besides, the man isn’t creating a baby, either. He’s creating the semen which fertilizes the woman, who makes a non-baby, which becomes a baby eventually if she so chooses.
Although to some extent I’ve divorced myself from that point of view, I’m not sure how it’s prima facie asinine. The mother creates the child, houses the fetus, nurtures it, chooses whether it is born; her bond with the child is usually greater than that of the father. He’s just a semen machine. Now, there are deleterious consequences to such a point of view – children must be taken care of. But it’s coherent and at least plausible on the face of it.
Getting an abortion is taking responsibility for a pregnancy, and responsibility for a pregnancy and responsibility for a baby are two different things anyway.
He’s choosing to assume a risk that his voluntary actions will result in a baby.
The mother does not create the child, she just gestates it. The father contributes just as much genetic material as the mother does, and does so voluntarily. The fathjer is responsible for the disposition of his own genetic material and for any children which directly result from his own voluntary and completly informed choices.
No, he would be in a significantly worse financial position if he was with me, because I would earn significantly less. The sort of financial cost of custody that Der Trihs conveniently ignores.
The arrangement I have regarding custody is the best solution for myself, my ex, and most importantly my son for multiple reasons.
Which actually does suggest to me a situation where I would allow a father to terminate parental rights without any financial responsibility at all - where the pregnancy is the result of female on male rape. I don’t imagine there is any significant number of pregnancies from this in a year, and the logistical aspects of such an exception might be a complete and total nightmare, but it would make sense to me that such an exception should exist.
The mother is responsible for her genetic material as well, she just gets to decide a second time whether or not to keep this ‘whatever you want to call it’
I’ll just have to take your word for it, as she would be paying YOU. You are under no hardship to stop working (that’s what childcare is for)
I’ll take your word for it but I have done considerable research into my own child’s welfare (as it pertains to potential divorce) and my situation would be very different from what you describe.
And yet you presume to know the details of my situation. Even with childcare, I would need to change jobs, into one that would pay massively less than what I am earning now. If I could get such a position, my best bet would be to work for the government, earning around 50% of my current salary.
So did the woman. Furthermore, she also knew that unless she choose an abortion, giving birth to a child was the most likely result of a pregnancy. She had multiple opportunities to avoid being a single parent. She rejected them. She should be held acccountable for her actions (i.e., deliberating having a child whose genetic donor vehemently is opposed to being born). If the child suffers from proverty. That’s unfortunate, but there is no one to blame other than the mother.
No, not details. You haven’t provided any and that is ok with me.
I’m just telling you what I know about my situation since this “I’ll take your word for it but I have done considerable research into my own child’s welfare (as it pertains to potential divorce) and my situation would be very different from what you describe.” was the rest of that very same post you replied to.
You have no idea of my situation. And the arrogant assumption that you know what is best for my son, combined with the presumption that I haven’t researched what is best for him is frankly pretty damn insulting.