Seconded. I support the right of a future biological father to opt-out of a pregnancy, but only where and when abortion is fully legal and accessible (we’ll have to work on the public shaming). As for keeping a woman from having an abortion, well, there’ll always be the back alley, staurcases, etc.
good point
I have no idea what you’re trying to say here, but I think it’s directed at me.
No, not true. “Safe haven” laws allow the parent to abandon the child without fear of criminal prosecution - they do nothing to change the parent-child relationship. The child still has a right of support from both parents until a court terminates the parent-child relationship. The court may eventually decide that judicial termination of your rights is in the child’s best interest, but until they do so both mother and father have a duty of support to the child and owe the state child support. If the mother drops the child off at a safe haven and the state reunites it with the biological father, the mother must pay child support to the father.
As long as we’re clear that men can unwillingly become parents, just as skiiers can unwillingly break their legs.
Well, that’s not really true, is it? If the state really didn’t care how the child got there, it could just randomly pick two people (or maybe five people, why not?) and assign them to care for the child. But instead, one particular man and one particular woman are chosen because they are, to a certain degree, responsible for the child’s existence.
I agree, which is why I haven’t said anything like that.
How can you say that’s any more equitable than dividing the duty up among the rest of society, when you just said child support isn’t about culpability for the birth of the child? With all else being equal, wouldn’t it be more equitable to take 1/10 of a cent each month from 500,000 people than to take $500 a month from one person?
Interesting. I’m not sure what to think of that, but it does seem slightly more fair than the reverse situation.
How so? If the mother doesn’t want to be a parent (drops the baby at a safe haven), and the father wants to be a parent (finds and is reunited with the child) it is exactly the same situation as when the mother wants the child, but the father doesn’t. Only the genders are reversed. One is not more fair than the other. Either *both * parents surrender their parental rights and duties , or neither does, except in the special case of a stepparent adoption, in which another person is assuming the rights and duties.
Except it won’t be 1/10 of a cent per month from each person. It will be 1/10 of a cent per month per person times the number of kids in the population. Because if it’s not at all about the two people who had a hand in the conception being responsible, then why shouldn’t you chip in to support my kids? Because I wanted them? How do you know those men who “don’t want to be parents” wouldn’t love to have kids, but just don’t want to support them? (such men do exist , you know. I see them all the time- proud of their 11 children, proud that two women are pregnant by them at the same time - just don’t expect them to support these children)
It’s not exactly the same, because she had one more chance to avoid becoming a parent, and she declined it at the time. But that’s not much of a difference, which is why I said “slightly”.
Yup. If you think it’s a good idea to bring new hungry mouths into the world, then you can feed them. It’s only when you’re unable to feed them that anyone else has to step in. On the other hand, if you try to prevent it, but it still happens anyway, then I’ll recognize you as a victim of circumstance and chip in right from the start.
Because if they don’t support them, they have no parental rights. They’re just sperm donors, and those kids are hardly theirs in any meaningful sense.
If they want to take pride in someone else’s decision to give birth, that’s kind of stupid, but so what?
How do you know my husband’s not a victim of circumstance? Maybe the condom broke and I wouldn’t have an abortion. Maybe I wanted to put the kid up for adoption but he wouldn’t, and now I don’t want to contribute support. Prove we’re lying- you can’t. You’ll have to take us at our word about what we wanted and what we tried to prevent. Poor way to make public policy- give out money based only on a possibly self-serving statement.
I hope you mean that this is how you believe it should work, cause it ain’t how it works now. Right now the two are unconnected- the fact that one parent refuses to pay doesn’t entitle the other to deny visits just like the fact that one denies visits doesn’t entitle the other to refuse to pay support. They might go to jail for defying a court order (which doesn’t necessarily stop visits) , but the other issues depend on the best interests of the child. Lack of support doesn’t always indicate a lack of interest. Some people (men and women both) want kids and want to have all the pleasant parts of being a parent , but none of the responsibility.
My point is that they aren’t unwilling to be parents, they weren’t tricked into it, plenty of them have relationships with the kids, some go to court to seek and enforce visitation- they’re just willing to leave the support to you, me and the mother. You will never be able to determine who was tricked, who encouraged an abortion and who is only claiming that’s the case because that way the mother can get welfare without the father having a support obligation. Or who’s claiming now that he never wanted kids and he wanted the mother to have an abortion, when in reality he was willing to support the kids while he and the mother were together, he doesn’t want to continue now that they’re not together.
Er… not really. There is such a thing as a paper trail. Let him file a statement, during some reasonable period of time, announcing his intent to give up all parental rights and responsibilities. If he doesn’t file a statement, assume he had no objection, unless he can convince a jury that you hid the pregnancy from him until it was too late.
Correct.
Isn’t what I’m proposing a solution to that problem? Either they’d have both rights and responsibilities, or they’d have neither. Those who opt out would have no more of a legal relationship with the child than they would with a stranger.
Requiring a statement up front would solve that, wouldn’t it? No one is suggesting he’d get to opt out of being a parent after the kid is already born. At some point, his answer becomes final.
I still say it has to be before the kid is conceived. Make sure that women know the exact stance of the men they sleep with–“it ain’t my problem.”
Which could be up to 72 hours after sex, right? 
Well, theoretically. But it’s safer to say that it has to be before it’s even possible. The pants come off, and that legal thingie had better be signed, buckaroo!
Some women would of course be so stupid that they would ignore it, or make excuses, or say that it’s just a formality but that he’s not really like that. Other women would then have the information needed to make a better choice. For someone like me who would have an abortion in any case, it doesn’t really matter. For someone pro-life who doesn’t want sole responsibility for a child, they’d better leave/send him away.
1/10 of one percent is a lowball to the extreme. Basically, you’re offering $35,000+ at an extremely bare minimum any woman that gets pregnant or any man that raises a child alone. If a non-custodial parent makes minimum wage he or she will earn about $10,000 a year, which will put his or her monthly child support obligation for one child at $167 a month. Over the course of the child’s life he or she will pay about $36,702. That’s still a ridiculously low figure, though, since that won’t even get you above the poverty line. So say you base it instead on U.S. average yearly income, which most recent figures show to be about $36,764. The obligation for a single child would then be $613 monthly, or $132,408 over the child’s lifetime. That’s $132,408 in taxpayer money to any woman capable of bearing a child, and it’s only the figure for one child, and doesn’t even take into account health insurance or the unreimbursed medical and dental expenses that the parent would otherwise have to pay. With a governemnt check like that rolling in, what’s the incentive for anyone to claim an interest in a child, male or female? Just live with your “roommate” and “her kid,” wink wink, and put a down payment on a new house! State carries health insurance and half medical and dental on the kids, too. Heck of a deal.
Not only that, but allowing a parent to “opt out” is an exact reversal of the system we have now and would have to be legislated as such. Limiting or disallowing child support is the one thing you can’t make a mutual agreement about in a prenuptial agreement, and you can’t make a legally binding “pre-sex” agreement that you won’t have to pay child support in the event of a pregnancy. It’s void as against public policy. So basically you’re proposing that you, as a politician, try to pass legislation that will relieve biological parents of their current financial obligations toward their biological children at a significant cost to the taxpayer. What exactly is going to be your campaign speech on that?
You could make the same argument about the current child support system. The only difference is where the money comes from.
If you’re fine with not having any legal relationship with either of them, I suppose that’s all right. Better hope you never split up, because that’ll be the last day you ever see “her kid”.
Well, frankly, you could describe any social program like that - for example, what is national health care but “legislation that will relieve people of their current financial obligations to their doctors or insurers at a significant cost to the taxpayer”? That argument’s a non-starter because the program’s goal is social justice, not saving the taxpayers money. A successful campaign for paternal opt-out would convince them that it’s worth paying a little more to live in a society where no one becomes a parent against their will.
Irrelevant. Choosing to have sex puts you in the position of potentially being a parent. As has already been well explained, the purpose of child support obligations is not to punish the parent. It is to provide the child with what they’re owed by the party that owes it.
Actually, I seem to be the one who understand who has what rights. Children have a right to parental support.
Just like crossing the road puts you in the position of potentially being hit by a drunk driver. Do you think someone who’s run over in a crosswalk has chosen his fate? Should he have to bear the costs himself–no insurance, no state aid–because he chose to walk across a street instead of staying home?
You’ve provided no reason to believe that an unwilling father owes anything. I find it far more logical to place that responsibility upon the person who is directly responsible for the child’s birth: the person who had one last chance to prevent it but decided not to.
Repeating that doesn’t make it true. I say they have a right to support in general, but the only specific people who owe them anything are the ones who chose to bring them into this world–willing parents–not just the ones who contributed DNA. You’ve done nothing but wave your hands in response to that.
I’m going to agree with Jsgoddess that a pre conception agreement seems to be a good proposal to me. Couples should talk about what to do in case of accidental conception before sex anyway, and this proposal can only encourage that talk.I would think the most common way to broach the topic would become the man asking the woman what she’d do if she conceived. If she’d abort anyway, then he gets his signature, and things go on normally, and if she wants to keep it then they both need to decide whether it’s worth the risk. So it could prevent some sex when only the woman wants a kid, but that’s the kind of sex that causes the problems this thread addresses.