For abortion, you are correct.
For adoption, though, I believe the mother cannot put a child up for adoption without the consent of the father, unless the father isn’t around to object.
Yeah, it’s gonna be a real cakewalk for Mom, what with the taking care of the child for the next 18 years, and missing work when the kid is sick, and having to be there for the child through good times and bad, and so forth. All fun and games, yep.
If you’re good enough to give Mom a great big wad of your sperm, you’re good enough to give Junior a few fuckin’ dollars every month.
REXDART –
To a lot of women, it seems unfair that we have to endure the inconvenience, discomfort, disfigurement, and danger of pregnancy to bear children, but that’s an unalterable biologicial fact. So is the fact that only the woman gets to make the decision about whether a fetus is kept or not. It’s her body. That is no more “unfair” to men than pregnancy is “unfair” to women – it’s just biology. It’s her choice – must be her choice – because it’s her body.
But child support obviously is only triggered when the baby is born. Should a father’s responsibility be reduced or removed because the mother had the option to avoid parenthood, while the father did not? No. Why not? Because child support is for the benefit of the child, not the parent. There is no mechanism to “force” any competent parent into giving up his or her children, because the right to parent your children is a fundamental right. So the mother cannot be forced to “choose” to either waive child support or give up her kids, because (a) no one can force her to give up her kids and (b) the child support isn’t for her anyway.
First, you see an “unfairness” where I see none, anymore than I see “unfairness” in any other biological-based difference that we can’t do anything about. I don’t find it particularly “unfair” tat you can pee standing up and I can’t. 'SLife. Second, what is an “adequate amount”? Clothes from Second-hand Sal’s? K-Mart? Dillard’s? Gucci? The ability to eat out anytime you want to, or McDonald’s only on your birthday, and only if Mom made a lot of tips waitressing that night? Is Bob’s B-B-Q and Community College adequate, or is Harvard?
The courts have no interest in deciding what is an “adequate” childhood; rather, they tend to ascribe to the belief held by most parents – that the childhood that is “adequate” for your children is the best possible childhood you can give them.
Third, and aside from the fool’s errand that is attempting to determine “adequacy,” implicit in the responsibility to support your children is the assumption that the child is reasonably entitled to the same or similar lifestyle you yourself enjoy. There’s no reason you should be eating caviar while your kids eat cold ravioli from a can. Instead of asking why a child should enjoy luxuries extracted from a parent who doesn’t want to support him or her, ask why a parent should enjoy luxuries he or she won’t even extend to his/her own kids. A custodial father should not have to work two jobs to get his kids the best in life (if only on layaway), while the noncustodial mother picks out her third Ferrari, just because Dad’s income is “adequate.”
I agree that there are extremely rare cases in which the child support asked for is laughably ridiculous – Kirk Kirkorian’s situation, for example: $325,000 a month support demanded for one child? Please. What the hell is his ex going to do with all that money? What could the little girl possibly need that would tote up to 325K every thirty days? But that is the very rare exception and even there I would say – the father (father figure, in his case, since he’s not biologically the father) is a billionaire – why shouldn’t his child have riding lessons and private schools and a childhood that is in every way more than merely “adequate”?
In any event, I think the question is largely academic. The vast majority of child support cases involve a parent (mother or father) who cannot comfortably support a child or children without the assistance of child support. On the flipside, IME professional women who can comfortably support their children and who find the fathers want no part of the kids are usually perfectly happy to let the father walk away rather than deal with him. If you don’t need the help of the reluctant dad, why buy into all that trouble?
For some odd, evolutionary reason that I can’t quite put my finger on, heterosexual sex has a tendency to result in babies. Anyone who wants to have sex should keep this in mind, and pay for their child’s upbringing. Take precautions if you don’t want kids, but don’t weasel out if the woman gets pregnant anyway.
I think we need to have a simple, cheap, easily-reversible, minimally-invasive vasectomy procedure that can be done on any and all males that want it, even while they’re still teen-agers (or younger). Then this would become a moot issue.
I don’t believe you have clearly answered my question. Is it not still within the mother’s power to ** not ** terminate his rights and responsibilities, whether he shows or not? Or does the STATE decide that he has opted out and terminate his rights and responsibilities automatically, in every case, if he does not show up?
“Snip”
First of all, I think what the OP proposes might best be called a “financial abortion,” rather than a “male abortion,” as there are situations in which the father ends up with the child/ren and the mother tries to deny her financial responsibilities. Putting it all in “man vs. woman” terms is unnecessarily inflammatory, once one gets past the stage of physical abortion or live birth. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard women complaining that “the courts don’t give a DAMN about women!” and men complaining that “the law is set up to punish men!” Wrong. It’s not about Men and Women. It’s about custodial and non-custodial parents. Period. If it turns out, in practical terms, that Mom is the most frequent custodial parent due to the physical and societal facts of life, well, that’s not exactly something that the (future) Father is unaware of when he chooses to have sex without being 100% sure that no pregnancy will result.
I work in Family Court in New York State. The child support formula here is calculated the same way as RexBart says – Mom’s income (minus FICA) plus Dad’s income (minus FICA), then broken into percentages (two-thirds Dad and one-third Mom, in RexBart’s example) times the statutory percentage based upon how many kids the couple has. In New York, it’s 17% for one child. (For simplicity’s sake, one could just as well just take the non-custodial parent’s income minus FICA and multiply by 17% and leave out the intervening step. Calculating the relative incomes of the two parents really only comes into play when determing the proportionate share of payments for expenses OUTSIDE basic support, such as unpaid medical bills, copayments, educational expenses, day care, etc.)
ANYWAY, application of the formulas under the Child Support Standards Act (in New York State) is mandatory ONLY if the combined parental income is less than $80,000. If it’s more than that, the trier of fact (the Hearing Examiner, in my court) is allowed to deviate from the formula for the reason the OP states – that above a certain income level, child support based on a straight percentage can get just plain silly. Above $80,000, it’s a judgment call.
As far as letting the non-custodial parent opt out if the custodial parent is wealthy enough to support the child, well, beyond the fact that it would be morally repugnant, it fails to take into account that people’s financial situations change. The custodial parent isn’t the only one with a stake in the child’s financial well being. Just because Junior is in no danger of becoming a public charge TODAY doesn’t mean that he is in no danger of ever becoming a public charge before the age of 21 (the age of emancipation in New York).
Suppose we let Dad (or Mom) opt out of Junior’s life on the grounds that Junior is being well supported by the custodial parent. Let’s also suppose that there is no stepparent or adoptive parent around to pick up the absent parent’s end of things. Then let’s suppose that:
-
Custodial parent DIES. Or
-
Custodial parent becomes a crackhead, or becomes unemployed, (or just buys Enron stock,) goes broke, goes on welfare and puts the kid on welfare. OR
-
Custodial parent becomes a crackhead (or just gets bored with the kid, I suppose) and hands the kid over to his/her mother, sister, or friend to raise. The new custodian puts the kid on welfare. OR
-
Custodial parent is found guilty of neglect or abuse and the kid ends up in foster care. OR
-
Junior becomes a juvenile delinquent and has to be placed in a secure facility or rehab at county expense on a judge’s order. OR
-
Junior becomes a crackhead and goes to a rehab for the sixth time, the custodial parent doesn’t want to pay for it, and the kid applies for welfare to cover the expense.
The above six situations happen every single day. You’d be amazed at the crap people get themselves into.
If it were legal for the non-custodial parent to walk away from the resposibility to support the child, the County would be unable to take the non-custodial parent to court to recoup his or her share of the county’s expense in caring for the child. (In all cases except for the first example, the County would sue the custodial parent for his/her share, too, so don’t yell!) A very large percentage of child support cases in my court involve the County’s efforts to recoup welfare money. Should the taxpayers have to pick up the tab in these cases?
Situations like these are the reason why a parent can choose to sign away their parental RIGHTS any time they want, but are unable to sign away their parental RESPONSIBILITIES unless there is an adoptive parent willing to take on the child and an adoption is finalized.
The bottom line is that we all know where babies come from. If you don’t want them, don’t conceive them. Period.
If I sound like I’m being a bit of a jerk, or as if I have a grudge against men or non-custodial parents, I’m not and I don’t. (My brother used to have to pay child support to my crackhead ex-sister-in-law for YEARS while she smoked up the support money and the mortgage money and the kids dressed in rags. Finally, the Child Protective Service took the kids away from her and gave them back to him. And, NO, he has not managed to collect a single cent of support from her. And, NO, he has not put them on welfare.) It’s just that people who think they can impregnate someone and then maintain complete control over their own destinies are living in a dream world. Once those little bad boys with the lightbulbs in their heads start swimming upstream, all bets are off.
Finally – and I think someone else touched on this, but I can’t find it, sorry – do you really think that the courts would stand for a system which allowed wealthy non-custodial parents to opt out but not poor parents? I don’t. Who gets to decide what income level is high enough to allow the non-custodial parent to opt out? What if Custodial Mom and Non-Custodial Dad both decide that Mom’s welfare check is sufficient support for the kids? Can Dad opt out for each and every one of Mom’s multiple babies and leave the taxpayer holding the bag? Don’t tell me they won’t try. I see it every day.
From looking at the relevant part of my post…
… I hope it’s clear that “they” refers to “many women”, that is, the women who would change their minds about continuing the pregnancy if they weren’t going to receive financial support from the father.
Are you suggesting that there are no women who would change their minds about having a child if the father were to die, or otherwise become unable to give financial support? That every woman at every stage of pregnancy is determined to have that child even if it means living in poverty?
I think this analogy might help illustrate my position:
Imagine a friend picks you up in his car to go fishing. While you’re both on the lake, his car is stolen - maybe he left his door open, maybe you left yours open, or maybe the lock just broke. The only way home is over one of two toll bridges, and although he lives in the opposite direction, your friend is going to help you get home.
You both start walking back, and you soon come to a fork in the road. To the northwest is a long bridge with a $1000 toll; the first part of the bridge is unpleasant to walk on, but it gets better after a while, with beautiful vistas and a petting zoo. To the southwest is another bridge with a $5 toll; the bridge is shorter but also unpleasant, and it’s operated by a company that you might feel morally troubled about supporting.
However, both bridges are about equally safe, and they’ll both get you home. Is your friend obligated to pay the $1000 toll if you’d rather go that way, or can he just give you $5 and let you decide whether to spend the remaining $995 from your own pocket?
Jodi
It’s her choice, and her responsibility for that choice. If she chooses to have the child, then she should be responsible for it.
I do not believe that the father bears any responsibility. Let’s say two adults consent to sex. They are both well aware that sex could lead to the woman getting pregnant. It is the woman’s body that gets pregnant. She knows she could get pregnant. If she does have sex she is knowingly putting her own body at risk of becomming pregnant.
This is a rough analogy, to be sure, but imagine that a man has a sexually transmitted disease. Now let’s say that a woman knows this about him, but the two agree to have sex anyway. She catches the disease. Should he have to pay for part of her doctor’s bill?
Because it’s his money, not the kid’s.
sturmhauke
For some odd, evolutionary reason heterosexual sex has a tendency to result in babies. Any woman who wants sex should keep this in mind, and be responsible for what happens to her body.
tracer, I agree that such a thing would be very beneficial.
Tenar
We all know where babies come from. If you don’t want to support a child by youself, don’t become pregnant. (It is, after all, the woman’s body. She has rights over her body, but also responsibilities for the use of that body.)
Maybe when Men become a feared and respected voting demographic, such common sense legislation will come to pass. But you can’t expect a woman to care about men’s rights, just like we don’t care about theirs.
I don’t think this is a useful analogy at all. There’s only two people involved.
Blackknight
Yes, of course she has responsibility. The man also has responsibility for the use of his body, which, unless he was possessed by some horny spirit during the sex act, plays quite a major part in conceiving a child. So yes, we do all know where babies come from, including men. You seem to be saying that men have no parental responsibilities at all, if they don’t want them. I don’t think you’ll find many people agreeing with you there.
Accidental pregnancies do happen, contraception does fail, and abortion is far from the easy option many of you seem to assume. It is emotionally, physically, mentally traumatising, even for those who have no strong moral objection to it. Yes women do have options - the option to put themselves through this invasive, dangerous, highly traumatising experience. And you seriously think that men have got the raw deal? As I said above, I do have some sympathies for men who are unwilling fathers, but really the only sure method of contraception is abstinence from heterosexual sex during fertile years.
I am in complete agreement with Jodi. The Armageddon is on it’s way. Batton down the hatches.
Let me just add further that child support payments, from what I’ve seen, are rarely enough to support the child in the way he/she would be supported if he/she had two parents cohabitating.
Do you think, then, that maybe Mom should’ve not had the kid, or put it up for adoption? It seems to me that having a child when you know you can’t afford it or emotionally handle it is the worst kind of irresponsibility. And relying on someone else, someone who doesn’t want the child in the first place, is even moreso.
Oh, I’m sorry- I didn’t know we were talking strictly about rape cases, here. That must be what you’re talking about, 'cause otherwise Mom had just as much- if not more- say on whether that “great big wad” of sperm was delivered.
Had enough hyperbole, or do you wish to rant some more?
But she can afford it when both parents pay for it. When both parents pay for its support. Nobody is asking the father to take it to baseball games or go to school assemblies or nurse it through the flu or teach it to drive, but to take the responsibility for seeing that the being created from his DNA does not have to lead a life of poverty.
Really, honestly, come on: If there is even a smidgen of doubt between the man and the woman of what’s going to happen in the event of a completely unexpected, accidental pregnancy – even the slightest hesitation – then don’t have the sex. Is that really so hard to understand? Are people really so hung up on their own orgasms that they are willing to punish a child just so they can get theirs? What kind of people would do such a thing?
If you don’t know a person well enough to think that they might keep a child from a pregnancy, but you don’t want kids at all, don’t fuck them. It really is that simple.
Men, you don’t want kids? Get a vasectomy. They’re relatively cheap. Think you might want them in the future? Then be very careful about who you have sex with and when you have it, or adopt.
I didn’t say anything about rape, and I’ll thank you not to put words in my mouth. If you’re willing to stick it in, then you better be willing to accept the consequences. That includes meeting your fiduciary duty to any children born as a result of that union.
Lightnin’, what about the innumerable situations where the woman carried a pregnancy to term based on the man’s assurances that he would bear equal support responsibility? And what if the two were married at the time, but down the road, whether in the third trimester or maybe even a number of years down the road, the dad decides he doesn’t feel like being responsible for kids anymore? Should he still be allowed off the hook?
Shouldn’t the kids, especially if they’re old enough to make intelligent choices, get a say in what happens? They had no choice about who their parents were, but why should either or both parents get to decide that they don’t feel like supporting the kid anymore? Should the kid suffer because the parents can’t relate to each other and to their offspring like responsible adults?
And as for the level of support: yes, maybe plenty of kids grow up just fine buying their clothes at Salvation Army after their parents divorce (I was one of them). And yes, child support sometimes indirectly subsidizes the lifestyle of the custodial parent, although in the amounts it’s generally granted, most custodial parents aren’t exactly living in the lap of luxury off the sweat of their exes’ brows. Besides, if they are providing the vast majority of care, why should that be with absolutely no compensation or balance from the noncustodial parent?
And yes, I have baggage in this department, but if you undertake to reproduce, I feel 100% that you undertake to support a child to the same degree you are supporting yourself, whether the reproduction was accidental or intentional. If a man feels he was “trapped,” well, then he should have kept his fly zipped to begin with. It is completely unreasonable to expect the woman to take 100% of the responsibility upon herself because she happened to be born with a uterus.
[SUB]Let’s see if I can get the coding right, this time… grumble, mutter, gripe.[/SUB]
Ah, but Mom’s making that decision for Dad, isn’t she? If Dad doesn’t want to have a child, but Mom does- she can, and he’s obligated to help pay for it- even though he doesn’t want it. Yeah, he was there at conception- but if Mom knows that he doesn’t want to contribute to the child’s welfare for the next 18-plus years, then SHE’S the one deciding to take the financial risk.
Ah, but you DID effectively say that, when you implied that the conception was strictly Dad’s fault. Mom is just as culpable for the conception as he is, except in cases of rape.
How’s this- let’s turn the tables. Give fathers the right to demand that the child be put up for adoption, if the mother wishes to carry it to term. If Mom has complete control over whether the child is born, give Dads complete control over whether the child is put up for adoption, or not, once it’s born. It’s only fair. If you don’t like that idea, then women shouldn’t be able to have an optional abortion. (note I said “optional”- exemptions should always be made for medical reasons)
Don’t get me wrong- I think that the “male abortion” IS rather irresponsible. You must admit, though, that the current situation isn’t fair to men- it gives all of the choices, after conception, to the mother.
I, personally, like the solution presented above- a mandatory, reversible vasectomy for all boys, and the equivant process for all girls. Make pregnancy something you have to PLAN, rather than letting it happen all nilly-willy. Just gotta get cracking on the technical issues…
Perhaps we should go back to outlawing abortion? Then men and women have equal choices again and life is fair.
But wait, it is the women’s body. The Supreme Court says it isn’t right to force her to carry a child she doesn’t want. So lets make it legal for her to have an abortion.
But wait, then the man doesn’t get any choices between conception and birth. Lets let him “abort” the child and not have to support it. All fair right?
But, then there is a child who needs to be supported. Mother can’t always do it by herself. If the father doesn’t have to pay then we can make society pay for it right? Lets make the taxpayers pay. Fair???
Damn it is hard to make life fair.
In order:
Excellent post, TENAR.
BLACKKNIGHT –
It’s his choice to have sex, and his responsibility for that choice. If he chooses to have sex and a child results, then he should be responsible for it. I’m amazed by this thinking: All the fun and none of the responsibility for men, because they do not have to bear children. Oh, you’re all for making sure people meet their responsibilities – so long as the people we’re talking about are women. I’m actually not going to argue this point any further, because I think the relative worth (and defensibility) of your position is very evident from your posts alone. People can judge for themselves whether what you are saying is fair, or even makes sense.
LIGHTNIN –
Yep. It’s one of the few perquesites of being the gender that has to have the babies – we get to decide whether we have them or not. That is the obvious necessary conclusion from the fact that (a) women have babies and (b) women alone have the right to decide whether or not they do, because of (a). You can’t make a woman have an abortion. And you can’t make a woman put up a child for adoption. She decides whether the child is born or not. That’s a biologically-driven fact that is no more “unfairn” that is a greater risk of heart disease in men or breast cancer in women.
I think it’s very amusing to hear guys complaining how “unfair” it is that women get to decide whether to have a baby or not. I don’t hear any of you crying about how “unfair” it is that women have to have all the babies. No, you’re willing to recognize a biological imperative when you see one – so long as it doesn’t hit you in the wallet.
Like BLACKKNIGHT’s arguments, I think the value of this argument speaks for itself, but just to inject a little reality into the situation:
You cannot compel a willing and able parent, male or female, to put his or her child up for adoption. That is because each of has a fundamental constitutional right (and an attendant duty) to parent our children. You cannot compel a woman to have an abortion because you cannot do any elective medical procedure to a competent woman without her consent – or any man, for that matter – and because you cannot take away from any competent person the right to have children, should he or she elect to do so.
I’m amazed anyone would post that it is better to take children away from parents who want them, or compel women to undergo involuntary medical procedures, rather than simply expecting a person of either gender to pony up to support his or her child. Frankly, it makes me wonder if the people complaining that the existing system is “unfair” would even recognize “fair” if they tripped over it. Based on some of these posts, I’m guessing not.