Two related GQs:
Is a father not responsible for costs of pregnancy? Why not? That makes no sense. If the father is responsible for the kid, pregnancy is a part of that, is it not?
How exactly does safe haven work? If loving couple ends up pregnant and they decide not to have an abortion but to surrender the newborn to the state and never make any further efforts to contact him, do they have any obligations? Do they stay on record as being parents of that child? Can anyone track them down?
In many cases the father will be required to pay at least some of the costs of pregnancy and delivery.
If they aren’t living together, the baby isn’t presumed to be his child and isn’t “his” until DNA testing is done and he’s adjudicated to be the father, which doesn’t happen until after birth. If he denies parentage and is found to be the father, he’ll probably get stuck with at least half of the hospital bills, probably more. If he admits it the court usually looks to their financial situations in determining who should pay; if she’s a bank president and he’s a student, the court may order her to pay all the hospital bills and just start him on regular support. This is just in my state, yours may differ.
If it’s a loving couple, they’ll usually contact an adoption agency instead - if nothing else, it’s a good way to get the hospital bills paid. Safe haven laws are pretty much a last ditch effort to prevent infants from winding up in dumpsters. If someone leaves a baby at a safe haven (or anywhere else), the baby will be placed in a foster home and legal proceedings will be instituted to terminate the rights of the parents. Attorneys will be appointed by the court to represent the interests of the child and the parents. After termination, they’re no more the parents of the child than you or I are.
Ok, so there is a way for the parents to opt out of their child rearing responsibilities, even after the child is born. Why is it important that both parents agree to this? Why can’t one parent opt out of it while the other assumes the whole of it? (and this applies the same to either parent, so it is not a matter of man vs woman)
If A+B want baby: A pays 50%, B pays 50%.
If A+B don’t want baby: Neither pays for baby.
If A wants baby and B doesn’t want baby:
Both pay for baby.? Why?
It would make more sense this way:
If A wants baby and B doesn’t want baby:
B doesn’t pay for baby.
If A still wants baby at 100%: A pays for 100% baby.
If A doesn’t want baby at 100%: Neither pays for baby.
Or you could alternatively have the State pick up B’s 50%, either way.
Why must B’s decision be dependent on A’s? And again, please note that B could just as easily be the woman.
I wrote this staff report Can a sperm donor be forced to pay child support? before the court issued it’s opinion. Pennsylvania is still in the minority on that issue.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004046062_sperm01.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,395642,00.html
The state has an interest in the welfare of the child exactly because he is incapable of looking after himself (which is why his rights are limited.) Since both parents are old enough, his rights trump their’s to an extent.
In general taxpayer responsibility is a last resort. If the parents are incapable of supporting the child, the taxpayers will. If they can’t keep the child, safe haven laws kick in and the state will take care of it. However it seems reasonable for the state to require parents who can support a child to do so. Both are on the hook - child support is never 100%, especially considering the burden of care.
Isn’t that what got them into this situation in the first place?
Not sure of the relevance here. Are there differences in how men and women are treated under custody law - absolutely, and some of those need to be changed. But I don’t see how the fact that a woman can have a child without the man knowing about it, and indeed may abandon that child without the man knowing about it impacts a man, or a woman and their responsibility for child support.
I’m all in favor of greater rights for fathers in many situations. What I don’t accept is the argument either that greater rights should come with lesser responsibilities, or that somehow the fact that fathers may in many situations get the short end of the stick with respect to their ex-partners leads to an idea that the child should suffer consequences from that. The battles for better visitation rights, for better custody rights etc are separate from the requirement for support for the child. And in situations where the father is awarded custody (and I would like to see those situations increase) the system should be equally as exacting on the mother to provide child support as it is on the non-custodial father.
The explanation I’m going to offer has already been mentioned in this thread, but I’m going to try a slightly different approach with it (hopefully helping to make sense of it).
Let’s work under the assumption that both parties involved have (implicitly) agreed to pay 50% in the upbringing of a child, in the event that a pregnancy occurs, since that is basically how the law looks at it. Let’s also assume that birth control was used, implying that neither party was particularly interested in such an outcome, as well.
If the pregnancy were carried to term (and is not placed for adoption, etc.), then both parents will be responsible for its care (courtesy of the aforementioned agreement).
However, since the pregnancy is taking place within the body of the woman, she has an additional option at her disposal: abortion. This option is only available to her, because the man is not physically involved in the pregnancy in any way (biologically speaking). If she chooses this option, then both parties are relieved of their agreement. If she does not choose this option, then the agreement stands.
So, the easiest way to think of it is: both parties had an equal say prior to the pregnancy, but the woman is granted a “trump card” of sorts, since her body is directly involved in the pregnancy itself.
… does that make any more sense?
That’s the beauty of an impression - I don’t have to go spend time proving it right or wrong to those who are stuck with an opposing opinion. If you think I’m wrong, you are welcome to try to prove it.
That’s the beauty of GD - we don’t have to try to prove an “impression” wrong; we’ll just assume it is.
That isn’t what I meant. I am talking about those who are linking all sex with pregnancy, as if the only reason anyone has sex is to try to create a pregnancy.
The cite doesn’t seem to show whether or not the custodial parent was already living in poverty prior to the birth of the child(ren), nor the financial condition of the non-custodial parent. So if the non-custodial parent is also living below the poverty line, it seems doubtful whether he could pay child support and if he did, how much difference it would make. So this doesn’t seem to address my question regarding children that are going hungry were sired by men who don’t have money.
Yes, I’ve noticed that there are quite a few people here that make a decision on a subject and then become immediately hostile to those who do not conform.
Ok, I’ll explain. My response was to Diogenes’s assertion that the Constitution doesnt assume any right to to let fathers get away with having a child without support. Technically, he’s right, the Constitution doesnt talk about children outside of wedlock. But its clear that from his tone and debate position that what he really meant was “Because the Constitution doesnt mention it specifically, you can force fathers into unfair standards.” I find that silly and stupid, and my response was to highlight that specifically, the Constitution doesnt mention camera’s into bedrooms either, but the act would be wrong and a violation of the law.
In other words, it doesnt matter if the Constitution didnt specifically mention it, the current laws surrounding father’s rights is a gross violation of the inherent rights of fathers because it skews so against basic fairness. You’re free to argue otherwise but I stand by my statement
To stress the point again, choosing to have preventive safety precautions in place while on a bike is like putting on a condom: sometimes it doesnt work. The difference is that after the injury, nothing prevents you from treating it, while fathers who accidently impregnate a woman is forced to submit to her whims on whether or not the child will be born and they be on the hook for 18 years of alimony (assuming they dont get married). In one, we’re talking about preemptive precautions, and with the other, we’re talking about treatment. That is a huge difference and I’m sorry that you cannot see it
And because you missed it, this debate is about trying to convince the rest of you that my proposal is in the best interests of society. One way I’m doing that is by highlighting my belief that old Victorian values are still influencing people in a negative fashion long after their archaic uses are dismissed as prudish and harmful. Honestly, can you not read between the lines? I have to spell all of this out for you?
Only a few people see this as me trying to force some kind of sexual promiscuity on society. In fact, I do believe people should be responsible and just have vasectomies if they want to go around banging chicks without having to worry about having a kid. But that would still leave the inherently unjust laws in place that allow women more power than men to opt out of responsibility.
If you remember nothing else in my post, remember this: I want to make sure men have as much right to opt out of the responsibilities of a child as women. That is what my post is about, not how much of a prude you are
Well, sure, obviously people have sex for pleasure or out of professional obligation, but since we’re talking about sex that does result in pregnancy it’s a moot point.
If you read down, most people with support obligations can and do make payments. About three out of every four people with support obligations make at least some payments, for an average of $4300 yearly. Almost half make all payments, averaging about $5800 yearly. Among those making no payments whatsover, a certain proportion of them can pay but refuse or are incarcerated, so the number of parents who are completely unable to make any payments due to financial circumstances beyond their control is some smaller proportion yet. The minimum wage support obligation in my state for a single child is about $150 to $200 monthly, and most people can come up with it.
I mentioned orphanages in my original post. Those are not the best solutions, but its a solution. It also has the benefit of not intruding upon the father’s rights. No child loses his rights by growing up poor, otherwise we’d be rounding up poor people’s kids and forcing them into adoption by wealthier parents.
That may be the ideal to you, but to me, its better for taxpayers to shoulder a burden than to violate the rights of an individual, or in this case, the potential rights of 50% of the population. I see this no different than prison. Taxpayers shoulder the burden even though we could just violate individual rights by putting a very cheap bullet into every convicted criminal’s brain. Its not a great scenario to have large free public housing for criminals but its the path of least violation of individual rights
Ironically, our current child support laws are the exact opposite of Victorian values. During the Victorian era the common law rule was that so long as you weren’t married you could bang all the chicks you wanted, impregnate them all, and never pay any of them a dime of support. Child support was only due to children born in wedlock, those born out or wedlock were doomed to Oliver Twistesque urchinhood. Child support for children born out of wedlock is didn’t come aroung until the last forty years or so.
You said it was somehow an imposition on people’s “rights” to force them to be financially responsible for their offspring. I asked you what “rights” you imagined were being impinged on. You now admit that there aren’t any rights being impinged on. We’re getting somewhere.
Now, you’ll have to explain why it’s “unfair” for men to be responsible for their own sperm.
Completely, yes. But it is not what I am asking about right now on that post #125. That’s about safe haven laws. Both parents can agree to surrender the child and not be responsible for the expenses. But if one wants to surrender the child and the other does not, then they are both stuck in, which makes no sense. So they can either keep or surrender the baby but only if they both want the same thing. Why should the decision of one be tied to the decision of the other? Again, this is not a biology issue. Either man or woman could be B.