The state spends billions of taxpayer money and forces private parties to spend billions more in its efforts to alleviate differences created by biology but in this case it legislates in the total opposite direction and worsens the difference by making the man pay for a child in which he has no say.
Abortion is an option open to women. It is not only sex which leads to a live birth and women have fought for that right to abortion. What leads to a live birth is the woman’s decision not to abort. That is what leads to giving birth, not sex. Women wanted to unlink sex from giving birth but now when it comes to a man sex and giving birth are inevitably linked. There is bias in favor of women in the culture and in the law.
But by giving the child to A and severing the tie to B you are accomplishing all those things. You are “terminating the rights of the sort of parent who drop babies off at fire stations” and you are leaving the baby in the home of a loving parent emotionally and financially able to take care of the child, and all this without the messy in-between of having the kid in orphanages and preadoptive homes.
If A wants the baby but is not financially and emotionally able to care for the child, then the state steps in just as it does in any other case of child neglect or abuse.
The only case where forcing B to pay would conceivably make sense, is when B’s contribution would demonstrably make the difference for A’s ability to support the child without ruining B’s ability to live his own life. Something like A on the edge of poverty and a financially secure B.
Making all Bs pay is casting too wide a net to catch those cases.
Two things: First, it is not intrinsically wrong to have only one parent. Many parents, abandoned, widowed or by choice manage just fine to raise children on their own.
Secondly, this is not about biology. It could just as easily be the woman who wants to drop the baby and the man who wants to keep it and push for financial support from a bankrupt woman while he is rolling in money. This cuts both ways. That statistically the men are more likely to be B, doesn’t excuse a law that hurts women who want to be B.
But they DID have input. Their decision to become fathers was 100% informed and voluntary. Any guy who ejaculates in a fertile woman is making a de facto agreement to potentially become a father. If you randomly shoot a gun into a crowd, you’re responsible for where the bullets go. If you shoot your sperminto a uterus, you’re responsible for any babies you create. There are consequences for decisions.
This is 100% equivalent to saying a man who does not want to be a father should just give up sex. Now try saying the same about a woman and see if it flies: A woman who wishes to not be a mother should just give up sex. MAybe the pro-life people have a valid argument after all?
All sex does not have to include ejaculating in a vagina. If you do, you might become a father. That’s the way biology works. If you know that doing A might lead to B, and you don’t want B to happen, then don’t do A. It’s called being a grown up.
No, a woman who does not want to become pregnant, should not allow people to ejaculate sperm into her vagina. Pregnant women who don’t want to become mothers can terminate the pregnancies.
There’s nothing unfair about women being the only ones able to make a decision after pregnancy. Ther bodies are the only ones involved.
Oh, I apologize. I had delusions that you were a rational and intelligent person who could make an argument. I wont make that mistake again :rolleyes:
I disagree that the father’s rights are any less important than the mother or the child. There is no right to grow up wealthy or with both parents. While it may be the preference, no one is entitled to that and enforcing it on the poor in the country would be catastrophic. I simply see this as a similar situation. Right now, it is clear that the father’s rights are diminished as the law currently stands. By using perfectly legal orphanages, the child’s rights are not harmed in any way. Nor is the father being able to opt out of paying for child support injurious to the mother’s rights. In fact, its simply giving him equal rights. The woman still has more rights by way of her ability to terminate the pregnancy at her choosing.
Your friend could have challenged the ticket, could he not? Theres no challenge to the will of a woman who decides that she wants the baby and wants the father to pay for it. I’m not against telling people to take responsibility for their actions. I’m against giving full abilities for one party to affect the life of the other party without the ability to protest.
From what I’ve read, theres no universal law granting men the ability to get a prior agreement to terminal potential parental rights. Like Gfactor’s links mention, often the court rules that because its not legal to give up the rights of a parent, men are still subjected to a standard they cannot challenge. I would totally support compromises to my proposals. Perhaps men at 18 could simply go to a lawyer and sign a document, sort of like a DNR or living will, stating that they renounce all parental rights, including financial responsibility, to any future children. It would be up to them to inform the women they sleep with of this document
Clear to you, maybe, but I really don’t see an clarity in your argument at all.
As regards financial obligations to a child, the law is gender neutral (its application may not be, and can be discussed elsewhere, but it is not relevant here). As regards termination of a pregnancy, the law allows the person who is pregnant to control whether that occurs.
Allowing a father not to pay child support in no way addresses the “inequity” involved in only the person carrying a fetus being allowed to determine whether that fetus is terminated.
Once there is a child, the law as to financial support appears to be (on its face at least) pretty sex neutral. The right to termination is utterly irrelevant to this.
It seems that way to me, too. If it’s a fetus, then the mother can abort it or have it. If there’s a baby, both are responsible for it.
I do remember reading a book about a young guy (about to go to college) who gets his girlfriend pregnant. She wants to put it up for adoption and he wants it, and he has to go to court to get the baby. Does this scenario ever come up in real life, and is that at all a realistic way to resolve it?
If both parents want the child, though, what happens? Joint custody? Is anyone paying child support in that situation? Then again, that sounds theoretically like it could be amicable. It sort of reminds me of two people who are friends but perhaps not married having a child and raising it but in two households. I guess child support wouldn’t really enter into it, would it?
The rights of the child is not violated by having one or two missing parents. You and others are confusing what’s desirable (a nuclear family) with what is right. Fact is, fathers as things currently stand do have less rights than the mother. Children who’s parents die are not stripped of their rights any more than poor children are for having 2 parents but no money
Nobody’s rights are being violated when the many pay to support a government. I dont use public parks, nor do I have any schoolage children, and I buy my own health insurance. Should I have the power to demand the government lower my taxes by the appropriate amount? I dont support religion either so I dont want my taxes going to those mooching no-tax religious instutions. The fact is, as a citizen of a country, you pay into a collective fund that the government uses to allocate and help what all of us deem a communal necessity. Taxes should and does go to orphanages right now. Where is your tirade about the current violation of your rights?
Right now the woman has more chances to terminante pregnancy (birth control, abortion, giving up for adoption) and is the sole determinant in whether or not the father pays. The father has birth control only. Failing that, abortion and adoption can be done only with agreement by the mother. As far as financial responsibility goes, his choices are either pay willingly or forced to pay. What more clarity do you need?
The law is most definitely NOT gender neutral. Mothers get priority over fathers in divorce and out-of-wedlock custody battles, plus all of the available options to the woman as I stated above. Also, I have mentioned already that I agree that the woman should have the sole voice in deciding whether or not to have an abortion. That is ok. However, she gets far more rights in addition to that, and that is not ok
Except that we are not arguing termination. Let me be clear, I have never in any way objected to the fact that woman are and should be the sole determinants of abortion. Its her body, her right.
However, in addition to that very correct right that she has, she is granted:
Custody preference
Alimony independent of her income
The right to give up the child for adoption without consent from the father
The right to force the father to pay or not
All I’m saying is give the guy something more in addition to his one option of birth control. She doesnt have to get his permission to force him to pay, so why should he have to get her permission to not be a father? Let him opt out of paying for the child. If the mother doesnt want it, she can put the kid up for adoption or abort.
Custody Preference: I’ve already said this should be reviewed. Custody should be based on best interests of the child, and I think, facially at least, it is under the law. If the law is codified as to state “the mother has preference for custody” I think that should be changed. I don’t believe that is the case, but if it is, it should be changed.
Alimony independent of income: Never seen anywhere this is the case. I’m not a family lawyer, but I have a limited awareness of divorce law. Everywhere I have seen alimony awardable it is based on a drop in income and/or a surrender of career/education in order to stay at home. Again, could be the case that some jurisdictions award alimony independent of the financial status of the woman, and the law in that jursidiction is codified to specifically state this is available for women, not men, but I would nto only be surprised, I would also support it being changed.
Right to give up child for adoption without father’s consent; I was under the impression if a child was placed for adoption, and a biological parent had not given permission, that parent would have a chance to claim custody. I have certainly read cases that way. Again, I think the standard is best interests of the child.
Right to force the father to pay or not: this is a right the custodial parent always has - a custodial father can choose not to pursue child support against the mother of the child. Now, in the majority of situations the sole custodial parent is the mother, but that goes back to many factors, including problems in custody application (not the law I think) that need to be addressed.
The termination thing is irrelevant here because at that stage there is no child. Once there is a child, the rights seem, on the surface of the law (though not its application) to be pretty much even. As to the rights of the child - no, no rights are violated by a child being born to a poor family, or a child that is orphaned. However, that is a different scenario to the present structure where we are willing to hold people responsible for the consequences of their actions, especially where those actions create a burden on someone innocent.
as a possible point of interest. A lady I dated left her two kids with her ex when they separated and later divorced. He had a good job and she was starting from scratch working several menial jobs to make ends meet.
Because of their income differences and the fact that he got the house, they agreed that she would not pay child support. The judge wouldn’t have it and ordered her to pay some child support. She paid.
I should have been clearer. The court can force a person to pay child support, whether or not the other parent asks for it (I think). But a custodial parent’s decision was to whether it seek child support isn’t determined in any way by his or her genetalia, as far as I know. Nor is said genetalia a determining factor in the law to the best of my knowledge (if it is, the law should be changed).
I’d have to look it up, but I strongly suspect outcomes from being in an orphanage are worse than being with a parent. A parent has the right to give up a child, but you are basically forcing it to be taken. You are also objecting to equal obligations to the child who whose conception was the responsibility of both. Now, I personally would be for abortion in this kind of case, but being pro-choice means exactly that - giving the woman the choice of carrying the baby or not. Since birth control is legal, and sex is not mandatory, the man exercised his choice a bit earlier (as did the woman.)
To go reductio ad absurdum on you, do, you still consider it fair if a billionaire refuses to pay say $1,000 a month to a woman who is on the edge of poverty?
He was guilty, guilty, guilty. Sometimes you just get caught, even if the odds are against it. As for the rest, remember that his actions have influenced her life far more than a request for payment influence his. Would your opinion change if she was known to be anti-abortion from the start, so there was no chance going in, as it were, that she would abort an accident? He can make his opinion known all he wants, but he still has responsibility. Plus the father is helping to pay for it. I certainly don’t say he has 100% responsibility.
I’m aware that in some states the option doesn’t exist. Pre-nups used to be almost non-existent, now they seem fairly common, and I’m in favor of law changes to make this feasible. However I’d certainly require that the man get the woman’s signature acknowledging his refusal of responsibility, otherwise we have a he said she said situation. Buzz killer for sure, but that may be a feature.
But A is claiming that that B’s financial support is necessary for raising the child, and legally the kid has a right to the support of two parents. Change the facts a little bit: say that A has a new husband (or wife) that wants to step in and adopt the kid, A is okay with this, and B wants out and is very okay with this. The court is much more likely to approve terminating B because there’s someone willing to step in and take his place. If nobody’s willing to step in and take his place, the court isn’t going to be nearly as willing to let B out of his obligation.
That’s much, much harder and more expensive than it sounds. Parental rights aren’t just a tradition or a matter of state law, they’re fundamental rights under the Constitution. First someone has to report the parent to the state, which generally isn’t gong to happen just because a parent is poor. Assuming that it does, the state would have to take the kid away, put them in a foster home (who they have to pay), get the court to appoint an attorneys for the child, mother and father (who they have to pay), and have a jury trial. Convincing a jury to take a child away from a parent and give it to the state is no small thing. Parental termination cases are the death penalty of family law. Termination is final; after termination, the parent has no right to ever see or hold their child again. It’s a sobering affair, and juries in general aren’t willing to take children away from a parent just because they don’t have money. Even if they did, courts of appeal (the state also pays the attorney to appeal) will overturn a parental termination case if there aren’t very good and clear grounds to terminate, because there’s a good deal of Supreme Court precedent outlining the fundamental rights of parents, saying they’re “far more precious than any property right” and among “the basic civil rights of man.”
The reality is that it won’t happen. Nobody’s going to take the kids away from parents just because they’re poor. The kids will remain right where they are, more kids will be in poverty (or at least living with less than what they could have), and using more government assistance programs. We keep talking about abstract, hypothtical people and children, so maybe a concrete example will help: A was my wife’s mother and B was my wife’s father. My wife’s mother was poor and her father “opted out” of parenthood. He bailed on them and never paid one dime of child support. She never had health insurance, never had new clothes, and ate a lot of beans because they could rarely afford meat. One Christmas, she got a blanket her mom made.
And it’s her choice to have a baby which affects his wallet and I disagree with this. IMHO if she wants to have a baby by herself that’s fine but she should have no right to make an unwilling partner pay.
There are answers to these questions, but you probably won’t like them. The reasoning for this one is that their support obligations are technically owed to the child, not to each other. If you’re dividing up their property after marriage, then yes, their relative financial situations are taken into account, but a parent’s duties to the child is completely independent of the other parent. I’ll fully admit that this can lead to some situations that can seem completely unfair. Say a janitor’s wife gets divorced, gets custody of their two kids, and marries a doctor. She’s living in a quarter of a million dollar house in the rich part of town and living the kind of lifestyle that a six figure income brings…and he’s paying her 25% of his net income! I completely agree that’s that’s raw as hell, but I undertand the logic. Technically, the money is owed to the children, even though she’s probably spending it on jewelry polish.
Good in theory, but in practice it’s just not feasable. Parents fight every chance they get, and if you give them another weapon to use the courts would be completely jammed with parents claiming the custodial parents aren’t spending the child support properly, a good proportion of which would be groundless or even harassment. Worse, it’s nearly impossible to prove that the money’s being misspent unless it’s very, very clearly being misspent to the detriment of the child. If it’s that clear, there already is an avenue of relief for the non-custodial parent: sue for custody yourself.
No, and I agree that the state should provide assistance to poor children, but if the law is crafted in such a way that the primary obligation lies on those responsible for its birth, I’m okay with that.