Probably the same reason you would disapprove of mandating sterilization for every women that applies for child support or public assistance (Hey, if she can’t afford the child she has, she shouldn’t be allowed to create others). The truth is plenty of men are quite responsible. They use condoms, but condoms break. Condoms can also be tapered with and partners can lie and swear they have had tubal litigations. However, basic fairness (the only moral law I live by) is that is no more valid to expect a man to be sterilized before ever having sex if they don’t want a child than it would be to expect a woman to be sterilized before ever having sex if they don’t want a child. Especially in light of the fact that legal abortion is a safe, out patient medical procedures that is less dangerous than childbirth.
As long as the money is given to the mother, it is additional money to her budget and she is almost entirely free to use it as she wishes. And she is irresponsible. She failed to secure a willing partner in her reproductive experiment and has choosen to extort money from an innocent person. She should be condemned and scorned for this. I actually have no problem with public assistance being used on these women. The amount of tax money that funds such programs is rather very comparison to so many other things in the federal and state budget and indignities of applying for public assistance (and the very small amounts offered) would be a further deterrent to women considering these bad decision pregnancies.
These assumptions are not entirely accurate. It’s actually not all that difficult to defraud an unwed biological father out of his paternal rights. I can’t find anywhere that states an attorney ad litem is automatically appointed by the court to seek out the assumed biological father’s consent, besides how does the court even know the birth mother is being deceptive if the father is not located or made aware of the proceedings? Very few states, Indiana is the only one I am aware of, notify fathers of a putative father registry when they have been named on the birth certificate. The fathers who have contested adoptions have had to secure their own attorney, at their own expense, to represent their interests. I don’t think it is common for courts to appoint ad litems in these types of cases, where the adoption of a new born/infant is being contested by a biological parent asserting natural parental rights.
Unwed Fathers Fight for Babies Placed for Adoption by Mothers
The issue with* state* putative father registers is that a father can register in one state, but if the birth mother flees to give birth in another state or relinquishes the baby to adoptive parents residing in another state who then initiate adoption proceedings in a state where he is not registered, his rights are not secured nor is it clear which state has jurisdiction. In the Wyatt caseI listed earlier, he notified the adoption agency two days after the birth of his daughter he was not consenting to her adoption, filed a custody action in Virginia eight days after her birth and five days before adoption proceedings were initiated in Utah, yet four years later he is still fighting for his parental rights.
Virginia man asks U.S. high court to hear adoption case
Stopping an adoption: In Utah, unwed fathers rarely win
**emphasis mine
This post should not in anyway be misinterpreted, misconstrued or mischaracterized to absolve men of their contraceptive responsibilities or parental obligations.
Of course it’s added to the budget - and of course the custodial parent is free to use it as best fits. It would be beyond stupid to separate everyone’s living expenses - am I supposed to maintain different checking accounts and pay a little bit of each bill from each account? Am I supposed to determine how much each child “owes” for electricity, water, gas, Internet and cable? Do I do everyone’s laundry separately at the laundry mat? Am I supposed to grocery shop and prepare meals for each kid separately? Do I need to buy separate cars for the kids and myself? My kids go to schools across the street from each other - if we miss the school bus should I make two trips to take them to school?
EverwonderWhy, if I’d posted that it’s impossible to defraud a father out of his parental rights you would have a point, but I never said that. The assertion was made that a man never has any choice to be a father or not, that the woman always can prevent him from being a father, and that it was as simple as lying at the hospital or dropping the baby off at the fire station, and it’s simply not that easy. Yes, a woman can always flee the jurisdiction, or flee the country, or sell the baby for dope and tell the father that it ran away to join the circus, or do something else so unusual that it makes front page headlines and , but the vast majority of women don’t do that. The far, far more common practice is to for a woman to stay exactly where she is and simply try to shut the father out of the baby’s life, and a father can prevent that. If a mother in my jurisdiction tried to give a baby up for adoption and the biological father had filed with the state registry or filed an acknowledgement of paternity or established parental rights in district court, an adoption wouldn’t go forward over his objection.
Lynn Bodoni, I can see how it can be read that way, but the implication really wasn’t there in my head. I signed that way to make it clear that I was practicing what I was preaching, and I really was only describing myself.
And the comment “funny how that works” is there because, well, no it isn’t really. There is nothing remarkable about my result. If you take birth control correctly (not typically, but correctly), it is entirely to be expected that no pregnancy will occur. There is nothing “lucky” or “random” or “chance” about it: it is the expected result.
Of course some people net the unexpected result, but that is the remarkable case. Getting pregnant while correctly using BC is indeed a random freak occurrence. An random chance which sexually active adults should bear in mind, but still just random chance, and not something one is to be blamed or shamed for.
I see it like I see wearing seat belts and bike helmets. Wearing them is mandatory if you want to be considered responsible. That doesn’t mean you won’t get hurt if the random chance flips your way, but not wearing them makes you automatically an irresponsible dumbass. Same with condoms/pills/whatever.
We cool?
Seems like a lot of the posters here in favor of parental exemption can only identify with themselves in this scenario. An educated semi-responsible man might only make such a mistake once. But consider how many unplanned children would be dumped into taxpayers laps if poor, uneducated, unscrupulous men and teenagers if they could breed all they like with no repercussions or responsiblities. Guys complain a lot about condoms anyway, do you really expect that guys from lower socioeconomic groups would bother with the expense and discomfort of a condom if they could get away with breeding like stray dogs?
I don’t know how it works in your neck of the woods, but in the US there are few , if any tax credits, exemptions or deductions that are only available for actual children. They are almost always available to dependents under specified circumstances and dependents aren’t limited to children under 18. It generally comes to less than than 300/month. For example, I think the current federal exemption amount is around 3800 for each dependent. That means I don’t pay tax on 3800 of income for each dependent. It doesn’t mean my taxes go down 3800 for each dependent. Depending on my particular circumstances, my taxes may not go down at all. If a single parent filing as Head of Household earns less than about $16,000, (standard deduction of $8700 and two exemptions of 3800 each) there will be no taxes due whether that parent has one child or three. But the parent with three children doesn’t get a little extra back for the two extra dependents.
I think for the most part in the US, the custodial parent can get government assistance- but then the government pursues reimbursement from the other parent. Which is apparently what happens in your country as well, according to your OP.
There’s a difference between 1)“We’ll let the kids starve” , 2) “We’ll provide for the kids and seek reimbursement from the other parent” and 3) " The non-custodial parent need’t worry , the taxpayers will take care of the kids and never look for a dime from him or her" . Option two seems to be what happens both in the US and the Netherlands , but I cannot imagine option three being policy anywhere
We’re cool. This is a very sore spot for me, especially today. I accept that you didn’t mean to hurt me, it’s just that you touched on an old scar that is still painful, and I snapped at you. I’m sorry.
That brings up an interesting point.
If we allowed people an option to become immune to child support by using strict, responsible precautions, it would cost some money when those precautions failed, one parent wanted the kid but didn’t have the money, and the other parent wanted nothing to do with the kid.
But it would also save us money by providing an added incentive to use responsible precautions, because we are already paying a lot.
I get that. And I’m sorry you had to go through all that, no one should have. I’m truly sorry I hurt you, and I will take greater care in my choice of words in the future.
Guys may complain about condoms, but I have never heard of one that perferred not having sex to wearing a condom during sex. As far as the number of unplanned children dumped into the taxpayers laps, there would be a lot less of them if unscrupulous women knew there would be no chance of getting anything other than public assistance for having a child.
In other words, the money can easily be used for the benefit of the custodial parent.
Unscrupulous women can have at most: one baby per year. How many babies could unscrupulous men have?
Well, if women are as concerned as you say they are with only having babies with men who would be good fathers, the unscrupulous men would not be having the opportunity create any babies. Seriously, what is your problem with women, gasp, being expected to act like responsible adults? Sometimes sex is just fcuking. It doesn’t imply a committment or an agreement. We have the resources and the technology to insure that no one who doesn’t want a baby has to be a parent. What’s wrong with expecting people to use it.
Furthermore, if a man doesn’t want to use a condom (and please try to remember that is not the only form of birth control that exists), well, there is nothing that requires the woman to have sex with them, is there?
I never said anything about women having babies with good fathers, did I? I said if we make it easy for men to walk away from unplanned children they would have zero incentive to prevent unwanted children. And since I feel pretty strongly that each partner should be fully responsible for preventing unwanting children, I think it’s pretty important that men do everything in their power to prevent sperm from reaching fertile eggs. (Just as I think women should employ whatever method of birth control prevents unplanned pregnancy as well.) I don’t think men should get a free pass because abortion! Besides, the way things are going, that option may soon be unattainable. Then what will your rally cry for responsibility free sex for men be?
If by resources you mean welfare and food stamps, I and millions others beg to differ. If by technology you mean abortion, millions of others beg to differ, though I’m all for it if the pregnancy is caught in time, if the mother has the ability to reach a clinic and afford the procedure, and if she has no fears of surgery or moral qualms about abortion. Abortion is not a free walk in the park, but you can’t know that, can you?
And the title of the thread is “Men, what would…” so if you want to start a thread about what to do about welfare queens, have at it.
And what the hell is this? Is there some reason that both men and women can’t be expected to act like responsible adults whatever the degree of relationship?
I’ll pay it through state funded orphanages or foster homes. And since the right to have a kid, despite how I’ve railed against it sometimes, trumps taxes, I think we should pay it no matter how many times a child is born.
Remember, what you are afraid of can happen right now legally if both parents give up their child to the state. We have safe drop zones in cities and people do take advantage of that
Life isn’t fair, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to make it fair. People are born rich and poor, healthy, or disabled, and we don’t simply say to the poor and disabled “sorry, life’s not fair, you don’t get an education and can never go into a building that has stairs”. We make sure that as much as possible, we try to make life fair, because that is just and moral on a society. So in this case, we should try to make it fair. Women biologically have to birth the child, we cannot change that, nor should we try with seahorse DNA spliced into half-seahorse, half-human hybrids. But for the parts we cannot make fair, we can make up for it in other ways. Allowing men an “out” like women do. Women always have the option of abortion, it is their right to their body, and up until a certain number of weeks, there is nothing the man can do about it. So we should try to do it with men. If a man in good conscience tries to stop pregnancy on his part, we should allow him only to have to pay through the birth.
I’ve said it before, I am completely okay with people making a legally binding agreement before sex that they do not intend to support any children created out of the act.
Still never gets any takers.
And as I pointed out, there are limits to how many unwanted children careless women can create. There are no such limits for men who are free to forgo birth control since you’ll allow (encourage?) them to dump sperm in any willing vagina with no repercussions or responsibilities. So a handful of attractive, promiscuous men with really good game can spread unwanted babies like wildfire, and you’ll just keep paying for it, huh?
You are right, you didn’t post that it was impossible, you posted it was not that easy to defraud an unwed father of his rights. Which I responded with a slew of evidence that illustrates just how easy it is. Illustrated not by one or two headline cases, but a string of them – indicative of systemic issue – that is making headlines about the flaws in laws that allow this to happen.
Except that is not what happens, nor are court appointed ad litems used when these types of adoptions are contested. An unwed father saying to the court (assuming he has even been notified) “I do not consent to this adoption,” does NOT stop the proceedings. Unwed fathers do not have the right to simply withhold consent to adoption. They must take action which means they must be aware of the pregnancy and be informed/advised of what actions they must take in order to guarantee they will even be notified of adoption proceedings.
From theNYT article:
[ul]
[li]Women have the right to get an abortion or have and raise a child without informing the biological father. (which, I absolutely agree with)[/li][li]The majority of contested adoptions are by unwed biological fathers. (hardly a rare outlier)[/li][li]An unwed father, simply saying “NO” to the adoption, does not stop the proceedings.[/li][li]Most unwed fathers (and people in general) are not even aware that putative father registries exist or the requirements to register. [/li][li]Only one state notifies unwed fathers that they need to register when they have been named on the birth certificate. Indiana.[/li][li]Putative father registry requirements vary widely by state and only 33 states have them. Some states require a simple form to be filled out online and/or mailed in. Other states require paperwork to be filed in person and the initiation of a court action. [/li][li]Adoption agencies ‘forum shop’ and set themselves up in states that have the most conservative adoption laws in order to thwart possible adoption contesting. [/ul][/li]
Totally sounds fair, but in practicality most people don’t know that these registries even exist or that (in the 33 states that have them) it is only by this mechanism an unwed father asserts his right to notification of adoption and the ability to contest it. There is no law that compels the adoption agency or the court handling the adoption proceeding to notify the father.
Ultimately, I trust women to make their own decisions about their pregnancies, abortions or intentions to raise a child they gave birth to, conferred by their fundamental right to privacy. Adoption is tricky, particularly when it conflicts with the woman’s fundamental right to privacy, thus the ethics involved are not always so cut and and dry. IMHO, how the adoption system is set up in the US is very flawed, adoption agencies are generally not out to serve the biological parents interests, including the birth mother.
Some posters seem determined to interpret any assertion or correction of the facts as an attempt to absolve men of their child support obligations. This is not the case. I think facts are important. Hand waving them away is not useful and detracts from the credibility of the argument.