I never said that a man should get off the hook because he was drunk. you mis-read.
Quote: “It is not unfair because the man can do exactly the same thing. If the woman doesn’t want the baby and the man does, he can raise it and ‘force’ her into motherhood (e.g. paying support).”
Now that is just silly. How can the father force the woman into motherhood? I am assuming that he would chain her in the attic for nine months? (assuming that she even tells him.)
But what about the situation when the man desperately wants the child and the woman decides to abort? Should the man then get reparations?
Any way you cut it, the woman controls the pregnancy.
I never said that a man should get off the hook because he was drunk. you mis-read.
Quote: “It is not unfair because the man can do exactly the same thing. If the woman doesn’t want the baby and the man does, he can raise it and ‘force’ her into motherhood (e.g. paying support).”
Now that is just silly. How can the father force the woman into motherhood? I am assuming that he would chain her in the attic for nine months? (assuming that she even tells him.)
But what about the situation when the man desperately wants the child and the woman decides to abort? Should the man then get reparations?
Any way you cut it, the woman controls the pregnancy.
I never said that a man should get off the hook because he was drunk. you mis-read.
Quote: “It is not unfair because the man can do exactly the same thing. If the woman doesn’t want the baby and the man does, he can raise it and ‘force’ her into motherhood (e.g. paying support).”
Now that is just silly. How can the father force the woman into motherhood? I am assuming that he would chain her in the attic for nine months? (assuming that she even tells him.)
But what about the situation when the man desperately wants the child and the woman decides to abort? Should the man then get reparations?
Any way you cut it, the woman controls the pregnancy.
I will reply to the latest posts in order and hope I hit everyone – or, rather, everyone’s post.
THOR – I’ll respond to each of your points in turn:
Well, this is off the subject, but I don’t think anecdotal evidence is necessarily crap in sociological debates such as this. What I said was that you’re wife’s experiences, while interesting and proof of a number of theses, are not relevant to this question as it was posted by Stodeila. But, like I said, that’s off the subject . . .
Okay. There’s no welfare. There’s no money from the government. The baby is starving. The mother must then decide whether to keep the baby or not? What kind of choice is that? Any person with a shred of maternal feeling would turn their child over to another to save its life. That isn’t a choice, it is another way of forcing the mother to surrender the child. It is unfair to put the mother in that position, and it is morally indefensible to risk the life of the child.
A 13-year-old crack addict (etc.) does not have the right to have a child and keep it, because such a person is almost by definition unfit. I am not arguing that such women – such children – should be allowed to raise their kids. I am arguing that a biological father should not be relieved of financial resposibility for his children simply because he didn’t want them to be born and doesn’t want to support them.
Thank you. In the end, we apparently do not disagree. The rights of the child should outweigh the rights of the father, because while sticking the father with a support obligation may be unfair, leaving the child without a means of support or expecting the government to support it is more unfair.
I certainly do not object to your continuing to oppose institution of such a support obligation on philosophical grounds which might apply in some other, hypothetical world. But I believe we are in agreement that such obligations are a necessary evil in the real world, because the interests of the child outweigh the financial interests of the father. But I must tell you that if you got drunk, slept with a stranger, and she turned up pregnant, I would not overflow with sympathy for you. It is irresponsible to engage in promiscuous behavior while drunk; it is irresponsible to sleep with people you don’t know unless you are VERY careful; and it is irresponsible to not take suitable precautions to prevent pregnancy. Sometimes irresponsible actions have long-term consequences.
YEPITSME – You said:
No, it wouldn’t be any different because, as explained above, the whole reason to stick the father with the obligation is to ensure the baby is supported and doesn’t lack for food, clothing, shelter, or any of the other necessities of life. The baby needs these things every bit as much even if its parents made the sort of agreement you suggest before the woman even became pregnant.
LUCKY – Amen, sister (brother?).
The bottom line is that I would agree in 999 cases out of 1000 that it is wrong to make anyone pay for something they didn’t order, so to speak. The reason we must do so in this case is that the result is an actual child, and the child must be supported by someone, and the people who should have to support it are the ones who created it.
My brother and his ex-girlfriend had an accidental pregnancy. She did not want the baby but due to her religious beliefs, abortion was not an option. She was in the process of arranging an adoption through her church when my brother found out about the pregnancy.
He told her that he wanted the baby and eventually took court action to stop the adoption proceedings. He was awarded sole custody and has been raising my nephew solo for the last 9 1/2 years.
My brother is entitled to child support payments from this women who MADE THE CHOICE TO GIVE UP HER KID, although he hasn’t seen a dime due to the fact that this woman can’t keep a job.
>^,^<
KITTEN
He who walk through airport door sideways going to Bangkok. - Confucius
Yes, all of us pay toward supporting children on AFDC, etc. However, it must also be noted that parents who DO support their children get a tax break; therefore it can’t entirely be said that all of us pay equally toward that support.
(This is in no way intended to suggest that the state should not be involved in support issues; it must also be remembered that single folks without parental obligations don’t get the tax break, and are, therefore, paying equally with those who aren’t providing support.)
I am not sure what you mean by a tax break. Do you mean when filing income tax? I can’t speak for the rest of the nation, but here in Utah, child support is non-taxable, therefore, non-reportable income.
Interestly, alimony is reportable.
>^,^<
KITTEN
He who walk through airport door sideways going to Bangkok. - Confucius
Jodih wrote:There’s no welfare. There’s no money from the government. The baby is starving. The mother must then decide whether to keep the baby or not? What kind of choice is that? Any person with a shred of maternal feeling would turn their child over to another to save its life. That isn’t a choice, it is another way of forcing the mother to surrender the child. It is unfair to put the mother in that position, and it is morally indefensible to risk the life of the child.
Your argument here presupposes the decision to have the baby. My point on the “no Welfare” deal is that if women and men understand that there is no safety net, they might either a) not take as many risks that would lead to pregnancy and b) not have the child at all.
My point is that if the consequences are dire, people will change their behavior. (caution, Anecdotal evidence ahead.) My wife does hear from the kids in jail “Sure I’m gonna go ahead and have this baby. I can get welfare.” This burns me up.
Whooops - when writing that last post I was only refering to a tax break on child support money paid to the custodial parent.
I didn’t consider that those who are supporting their kids DO get a taxbreak in that they are able to claim their children as dependents when filing income taxes.
>^,^<
KITTEN
He who walk through airport door sideways going to Bangkok. - Confucius
Some other thoughs on this topic, while I’m at it.
I’ve seen an attitude here that seems to say, “If a man doesn’t want to be responsible, he should keep it in his pants.” And, while I agree with the sentiment in general… let’s pause for a moment.
If a woman doesn’t want the responsibility, she does have the right to either eliminate it or push it off on other parties. If this is acceptable, then I’d have to submit that on legal grounds, forcing men to accept the responsibility is illegal. They should, don’t get me wrong, but this is clearly a gender-based inequity.
Does that make sense? You have two people. They hop in the sack, obviously tossing the dice. Woman gets pregnant, she has the option of not being responsible for the consequences. The man doesn’t. (Responsible meaning legally responsible.)
Why do we, as a society, think it’s fair to force a man to pay child support when the mother not only refuses to allow the father a role in raising the children, or, at least, makes it nearly impossible… and all the while, she’s living with, or married to, another man who is getting all the benefit of fatherhood without the legal responsibility?
Do those of you who objected to the OP so strenously agree, or disagree, that if the mother is allowing - even encouraging - another party to act as the father, and allowing or encouraging the children to view him as such, then the responsibility for support should fall on that party?
Some other thoughs on this topic, while I’m at it.
I’ve seen an attitude here that seems to say, “If a man doesn’t want to be responsible, he should keep it in his pants.” And, while I agree with the sentiment in general… let’s pause for a moment.
If a woman doesn’t want the responsibility, she does have the right to either eliminate it or push it off on other parties. If this is acceptable, then I’d have to submit that on legal grounds, forcing men to accept the responsibility is illegal. They should, don’t get me wrong, but this is clearly a gender-based inequity.
Does that make sense? You have two people. They hop in the sack, obviously tossing the dice. Woman gets pregnant, she has the option of not being responsible for the consequences. The man doesn’t. (Responsible meaning legally responsible.)
Why do we, as a society, think it’s fair to force a man to pay child support when the mother not only refuses to allow the father a role in raising the children, or, at least, makes it nearly impossible… and all the while, she’s living with, or married to, another man who is getting all the benefit of fatherhood without the legal responsibility?
Do those of you who objected to the OP so strenously agree, or disagree, that if the mother is allowing - even encouraging - another party to act as the father, and allowing or encouraging the children to view him (or her!) as such, then the responsibility for support should fall on that party?
We cenceded early on in this debate that the abortion decision must be made by the woman. It may not be fair, but it’s her body. Go complain to Mother Nature.
So, now we’re talking about the woman having the baby and the adoption vs. raising it issue. One more time: The man has exactly the same choices and responsibilities as the woman. If she doesn’t want the responsibility and wants to give the baby up for adoption, but he decides he wants to raise it, she is obligated to pay child support.
And:
We don’t think it’s fair. She is obligated by law to allow visitation. If she doesn’t comply, he can take her to court (just like when a man doesn’t pay his court ordered child support)
Lastly, if the man wanted ‘all the benefits of fatherhood’ perhaps he should have thought about selecting a suitable mate rather than knocking up the tart of the week. The guy she married afterwards is taking on a hell of a lot of responsibility for someone else’s kid. I’m sure if he had his choice, he would not be parenting someone else’s child. The natural father ought to be damned grateful that his kid has a father figure in his life every day (assuming the man is a good father–if not, perhaps the natural father should consider suing for custody).
Frankly, whether it’s the man or the woman who’s paying, I think having only to part with some cash is a small price to pay for having brought a child into a less than ideal situation.
So, how was it again you intended to garnish the kids?
When was the last time you saw the picture of a mother refusing visitation hanging on the wall of your post office, or on the sensationalistic cheese program of the week?
There is still a gender-based inequity. Period. Melin was kind enough to throw out that “one deadbeat mom for 999 deadbeat dads,” which (no offense, Melin) I think is: - a complete crock,
completely obfuscatory; it fails to take into account (a) the disparity in where kids end up in a custody hearing (it’s been getting better, but it’s still horribly skewed toward the women), (b) the support guidelines, which due to the fact that women are far more likely to owe only a token amount of support if the male has custody (because men [wrongly and quite unfairly, no flames on this point, please] are more likely to make a hell of a lot more money than women).
You can’t say “men have the same rights as women after the decision to bear the child” when courts routinely allow the argument that children should not be separated from the mother unless there is compelling reason. Pretending that we do is folly.
Sorry Jon, I don’t buy it. I won’t say that anecdotally there are deadbeat moms to talk about, but statistically speaking the overwhelming odds are that the deadbeat parent in the family is the dad.
And I’ll match you anecdote for anecdote. I know a few professional women who lost custody of their kids to the stay-at-home dad. And you don’t think it’s fair that the courts take into account each parent’s income when deciding who pays what in child support? That’s garbage. I make twice what my husband makes. My kids have had some advantages in their lives, thank goodness, that require us to spend some money, whether it’s private school, extra-curricular activities, or vacations to visit family east of the Mississippi (we have no family west of the Mississippi). Based on our incomes, I figure I pay two dollars of my salary towards the kids events and my husband pays one dollar of his. If my husband and I were to get a divorce, I think the kids are still entitled to maintain their music or tennis lessons, etc. If I were to get custody, I guess that means I should still pay two dollars for every one he pays. If he were to get custody, then I guess I should still pay two dollars for every one he does.
If the family is together the person who earns more pays more. I see no reason why that should change, and the kids suffer accordingly, when the family is not together.
-Melin
I’m a woman phenomenally
Phenomenal woman
That’s me
(Maya Angelou)
