Note he mentioned orphanages. If the mother wasn’t allowed to keep the child if she couldn’t afford to raise it without help from the father, it seems she would be much less likely to go thru with the pregnancy and might actually actively do something to prevent it.
The Victorian attitude towards sex and how it must be viewed as alway possibly resulting in a child kind of amazes me here. Also that all child support must be paid in order to make sure the kid gets fed. Are there any stats out there that show that having child support is keeping children from starving? My impression is that the children that are going hungry were sired by men who don’t have money, and that the men that are paying child support are doing it to women who could afford to feed their kid(s) without help.
I am totally with you on this but it has been debated quite a few times here and I avoid it because, like with gun threads, it is just an endless repetition of the same things over and over. I think the present legal situation is unfair to men and people feel justified, or more justified, in flouting laws which they deem unfair to them. I think men get the raw end of the stick these days in these matters.
Preferably with, and always with his knowledge. If he refuses to sign (and I cannot imagine a dude not paying $100 for a ballpoint pen if he doesn’t have one at the moment), then it should still happen with his dissent duly noted. Similar to how you can divorce without the other part signing.
FTR, I am not really supporting either side of this. I am coming on the side of “semen should be free” because it is the most obvious one, but I came with the hope of being educated on why it should be the other way since I tend to assume that laws are there for a reason, after all.
It does seem that as you note, this is one that has been done way too many times and people just rapid fire their party lines hoping to outshout the other side. I wish someone would take the bother of using small words and make me see it. As of now, I am not seeing it yet.
I do think that the system has a strong pro-women bias in the way custodies and all that is handled. That should not be an excuse to either flout the rules or to campaign for a new bias in the opposite direction, just as “biology is not fair” should not be an excuse for “laws are not fair”. It has that affirmative action that is nothing but discrimination under a fancy name.
What I would have liked to see is a reasoned argument for why things should be the way they are, beyond the statement that it is the law and in a digestible format.
I am not a lawyer but I bet this wouldn’t stop the state from pursuing the father for support if the mother went on state aid. I also bet the child, when turning 18 could also pursue the father.
Just so we are clear, are you picturing an at fault divorce model where you can obtain an involuntary removal of rights by showing cause, or a no fault situation where no reason needs to be given? I know I would not willing sign, and would probably sue for custody if I was asked to.
Family courts tend to be biased towards mothers, in general. This has not always been the case, nor is it always the case today. If you want to debate how to fix, that, more power to you. But that should not affect whether parents are responsible for children they bring into the world. Here is a breakdown of the risks and rights we are discussing:
Male:
Risks: Financial duty to child. STDs.
Rights: Can choose which sex acts to participate in, when, with who, and what precautions he wants to take (from pulling out to vasectomy). Put child up for adoption, if mother agrees and adoptive parents are located.
Female:
Risks: Financial duty to child. STDs. Pregnancy, and related costs, injuries (up to death), and conditions, including those associated with abortion.
Rights: Can choose which sex acts to participate in, when, with who, and what precautions she wants to take (from rhythm to tubes tied). Put child up for adoption, if father agrees (or is never informed) and adoptive parents are located. Terminate pregnancy.
I highlighted the differences between them. Because biology has decreed that only females get pregnant, they assume additional risks for any sexual encounter. Legally, they also have the right to choose to terminate. But they also legally responsible for the financial cost of the pregnancy, not the male. Both are financial responsible for the child, since both had preconception choice. But only the woman can choose to continue the pregnancy and only she is responsible for the costs, and takes all the risks associated with that. That seems fair to me.
ETA: The woman can also hid the baby from the father, although this is not a legal right, just a practical side effect.
I’m equally amazed that the acknowledgement that casual sex can result in unplanned pregnancy is somehow “Victorian.” I keep hearing arguments about how in our modern age sex doesn’t necessarily mean pregnancy, but sex meant pregnancy in one hundred percent of the cases we’re talking about. If that weren’t the case we wouldn’t be having the discussion.
The poverty rate among custodial parents who are paid all the child support they are due is higher than in the population in general. Note that that’s not including parents who are due support but are receiving less than what they’re owed, or receiving nothing - that’s among parents receiving everything they’re owed. If you include all custodial parents, their poverty rate is about twice that of the general population. If you compare the poverty rate of custodial parents to that of married parents with related children, it’s four times higher. Depending on what year you’re looking at, about one out of every three to one out of every four mothers who are awarded child support are under the poverty level. Cite.
Because he’s definitely going to know that there is a baby, and where it was taken to be dropped off, no questions asked. Right?
Right, because the father’s going to have the ability to get the kid away from the mother to drop it off at the hospital? She can it without him being involved. He’d never even have to know there was a kid.
The same ability does not exist for a man.
If he finds out. And how’s she going to be on the hook for child support when she can drop the kid off and not even be asked her name?
The answer there is pretty simple. The one who wants the kid can have it - without attaching the wallet of the one who does not.
You’d definitely see a decrease in the number of women who say they’re on the pill when they aren’t, and those who use a pregnancy to trap a man. Go ahead and jump on me for that, but it does happen.
I agree it happens, and if I could make the law, the man in such a situation should be able to sue to get back the child support, after the kid turns 18. But I doubt if that happens in the majority of these cases. There are many bad things that happen with any part of the law, but that doesn’t mean we should make the exceptions the focus of the law. The law should address the exception as much as practical, but they shouldn’t be the focus. Right now, we as a society, have deemed that it is in our best interest that those who biologically produce children be financially responsible for them. Hence child support. We have also deemed that it is a lesser evil to let parents drop off children at safe havens than to not have such an option and potentially kill the children. Hence safe haven laws. I know I would rather my son get dropped off at a hospital, even if it means I may not know where he is or what happened to him, then to come home and find him drowned in the bath tub. At least if he is alive I can find him.
Yes, if he finds out, and if he knew he was a parent. In fact, the court will appoint an attorney to represent his interests whose job it is to try to find out if there’s a father or other family member out there looking for the child before they terminate the rights of the parents. If the father is found, he’s generally going to know who the mother is. I’m sure it doesn’t happen terribly often, but my point is just that safe haven laws can’t be used to unilaterally terminate the rights of an interested parent - the kid doesn’t automatically become the property of the state at the moment of handoff. A mother doesn’t have any control over the father’s rights, and doesn’t abdicate the rights and duties of both parents when she drops it off. If the father were to show up a day later looking for the kid his crazy crackhead ex dropped off, the state doesn’t say “sorry, both of your rights were terminated the moment she left him here.”
I’ll give it a shot. Your original question was: “I am having a hard time reconciling how is it that a woman can at the same time decide whether or not a baby she is carrying lives, and also exact child support from a man who cannot make that decision.” The gist of the question, if I get you right, is that such an arrangement violates traditional notions of what’s fair and what’s unfair. The long and short of it is that once the baby is born, fairness to either one of the parents is only of secondary concern, if even that. One may think that the law should be crafted to be maximally fair to all parties at all times, but that’s not always possible, or even desirable. It’s not fair that a child has to grow up without the emotional or financial support of a father because he’s committed a crime and been sentenced to prison, but the law can’t always be fair to all concerned.
The law frequently has to deal with important interests that are in direct competition with one another. Protection of the public from crime is in direct competition with the civil rights guarantees of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Prosecution of crime is in competition with the rights of the accused guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Legislatures and courts have to make some very fine distinctions about which of these interests they’re going to protect, and at what cost to other interests. In the issue of child support, fairness to a parent who doesn’t want to assume the responsibilities of parenthood is in competition with the state’s interest in maintaining the welfare of children, and to the degree the two are in competition the law is crafted to favor the latter.
The laws as it stands now is inconceivably harsh on one party while giving almost full control to the other. In my view, if we can’t bring father’s rights up to the level of the mother, then we need to lower mother’s rights down to the father. At least everyone gets fucked equally
The interest of the state or the child is irrelevent in this case. Neither of the parents should have to abrogate their rights, not for the child, who has less rights anyway in society and should be acknowledged as such, and certainly not for the state in a democratic society that values individuals over the state anyway. Yes, I know there are always exceptions, but in this case it my approach is fairer.
Taxpayers are already responsible for many of society’s mistakes and everybody contributes. For the same reason why we have free emergency care and dont euthanize invalids at birth, we shouldnt see raising someone else’s kid as some unnecessary burden. We’re already doing it, and at least this way it’ll be more fair to like 50% of the population. You dont want the taxpayers to be responsible for someone else? Fine. Lets kill the homeless, they’re a burden. Lets kill criminals, they’re a burden. Anyone who doesnt have a job and paying taxes, unless they’re children, dont get to live. Would that be your paradise?
If you answered no to any of that, understand that you only see my plan as extreme because we’re not already living it. If we never had to pay for invalids in hospitals and suddenly today I advocated it, you and everyone else would cry that its an unnecessary burden and a terrible idea.
Of course, the other, even more extreme but sensible idea is to force women to have abortions if they cannot or will not raise the child. Crazy? Maybe, but its in line with your “taxpayers shouldnt have to pay for it” mentality. Once you acknowledge that we do pay for stuff we dont want, then you’ll understand that adding one more to the list is neither extreme or an overwhelming burden. My concerns lie with people who think that the simple act of sex for men should be an unrenouncable ticket to 18 years of unwanted dependency. If women can end it, why cant men? Biology only dictates that women bear the child, it doesnt dictate men should pay for it out of some arbitrary system of guilt
Its funny you talk about rights when you defend a system so unfair. I suppose that since the Constitution doesnt talk about a right to privacy, I could sneak cameras into your daughter’s bedroom and stream the contents to the world without penalty. Dont talk about rights when someone else is limited in theirs
The mistake is in thinking that what you pay now is equal to or more than the maximum that you’re supposed to pay. If property taxes go up, people will cut somewhere else, or make laws mandating abortions for people who dont want to raise their kids. But thats still no reason to say fathers lose rights so that you can keep your morgage the price it is now
All of your examples include easily attained remedies. Have an elbow problem? See a doctor. Injured in a fall? Put some bandages on. No one tells you that you’re not allowed to treat the injury nor are you forced to suffer it at the whims of someone else. I’m not trying to teach that sex has no consequence, simply to provide a cure in case it does end up with unfortunate consequences.
Doesnt mean its not illegal. Thats a poor straw man, trying to sustain the argument when we both know that my actions in that example would be illegal for a number of reasons.
Then what does Victorian mores have to do with it? You complained that we are inserting pregnancy into sex when they should be separated. I could bruise my elbow riding my bike, or I could break my neck causing paralysis or death. I choose to wear a helmet and gloves to reduce my risk of injury. Would a PSA reminding people to wear protective gear and have health insurance be enforcing outdated morals?
There already is a cure, it isn’t perfect, and you don’t like it. You are free to propose an alternate and we can debate, but you decided that this all because we hate you for wanting to have orgasms. If you feel that supporting children should not be a potential consequence of men having vaginal intercourse with women, then either work on making birth control fool proof, or convince the rest of us that your proposal is in the best interests of society. But, if you choose the second option you will not get far by starting out telling us how repressive we are in putting limits on your sex life. That makes it sound like you are just selfish and irresponsible.
Thanks for the effort. I think the problem is that I am not clear in what exactly is my question and because of that no answer will be satisfactory.
I understand and approve the laws that give a woman a right to make all the decisions about a pregnancy.
I also understand and approve the laws that give a child a right to financial support from the two people responsible for him being alive.
I also understand that those laws are separate as they regulate separate issues that happen at different times.
Still, I am somehow getting a feeling of injustice about something I cannot put my finger on. For some reason, all the right parts add up to a wrong.
My problem keeps being about the fact that the mother can opt out of the burden of raising the child while the father cannot.
I understand that this is an inequality that stems from the earlier inequality of sexes being different, and I understand that the law is not necessarily about making all things equal for everyone.
I am sorry I cannot put my question in a form that will allow you to give a better answer.