Men, what *would* be a fair solution for unwanted child support?

[ZPG_Zealot]

@Troppus

Either has equal opportunity to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, yes? You’re recommending expensive, painful surgery for women in order to make fucking worry free for men. If you want an abortion, you have one. Most women would prefer to have help preventing the unwanted pregnancy beforehand.

But in the event that both his and her birth control measures fail, what do you propose we do in locations where abortions are not available, for women past the legal window, or for women who cannot afford the procedure? Still want to dump all those unwanted kids onto the welfare roles and set up a power dynamic where hot, appealing rogues get all the pussy while more careful, choosy, or celibate men and women pick up the tab for irresponsible, promiscuous sex?

I have had abortions. They’re not that painful compared to the possibility of childbirth or compared to other surgeries. And women who have done both (including illegal abortions without painkillers) have concurred with me. Actually dumping the expense of all those unwanted kids onto the welfare roles (which really don’t consume that much of your tax dollars in comparision to other government expenditures) would force the anti-abortion movement to put it’s money where it’s mouth is. It will lead to greater acceptance (and what I really want to see happen) encouragement of women to have abortions rather than continue pregnancies they can’t afford. In fact, it would be the one thing that gets us low cost abortions. The hot, appealing rogues will always be able to get pussy, but it’s the woman how owns the pussy that determines 1.) if a penis will go into that pussy without a condom, and 2.) if a baby will come out of that pussy. Women have the ultimate responsibility, it’s time they accepted it.

[nearwildheaven]

@Troppus

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?

PBS recently aired a show called “The House I Live In”, which is about the disproportionate number of blacks and Hispanics amongst prisoners. One police officer says, “I’d pay these guys $5,000 each to have vasectomies, out of my own pocket” and the other cop in the car laughs at him.

[nearwildheaven]

@ZPG_Zealot

That handful of attractive, promiscuous men with a really good game would not be able to spread unwanted babies like wildlife, if women would not be so stupid as to continue gestating babies with no support system. As an aside, do you actually think the possiblity of paying child support is inhibits the behavior of men like that?

I’ve been told more than once by people who work with this population that the guys who do this are almost always butt-ugly. One person in particular added, “I don’t mean just physically unattractive; I mean morbid obesity, missing teeth, eyes that don’t point in the same direction, and hair resembling Sideshow Bob on the Simpsons”.

[nearwildheaven]

@ZPG_Zealot

It’s safer than childbirth and less life changing than raising a child or having to come up with an extra $300 dollars a month for 18 years on a very limited budget.

And what if she just plain old doesn’t want to do that? There do exist women who regret it, and the one thing they all have in common is that they were coerced into it by someone else, or they were afraid of what other people would think about them being pregnant at this time in their life.

[nearwildheaven]

@ZPG_Zealot

I have had abortions. They’re not that painful compared to the possibility of childbirth or compared to other surgeries. And women who have done both (including illegal abortions without painkillers) have concurred with me. Actually dumping the expense of all those unwanted kids onto the welfare roles (which really don’t consume that much of your tax dollars in comparision to other government expenditures) would force the anti-abortion movement to put it’s money where it’s mouth is. It will lead to greater acceptance (and what I really want to see happen) encouragement of women to have abortions rather than continue pregnancies they can’t afford. In fact, it would be the one thing that gets us low cost abortions. The hot, appealing rogues will always be able to get pussy, but it’s the woman how owns the pussy that determines 1.) if a penis will go into that pussy without a condom, and 2.) if a baby will come out of that pussy. Women have the ultimate responsibility, it’s time they accepted it.

You’re a WOMAN? :eek: That’s quite surprising to me.

[EverwonderWhy]

@SciFiSam

An aside: in the UK you have to have the father there with you when you register the birth if you’re unmarried. Seems odd to me that in at least some US states you can just name someone the legal father without their consent. Are there hundreds of kids with, say, Elvis listed as their father on their birth certificate?

@Blackberry

What? Did someone say you could do that? Because I don’t think that’s true. In my state the father has to sign an affidavit of paternity in the hospital, or it can be done through the courts later. If you’re not married I think the only way to do it without the father’s consent is with a DNA test (or if he refuses to take the test, he’ll be declared the father by default).

I am sorry, the misunderstanding is perhaps my fault. I posted:

@EverwonderWhy

[ul]
[li]Only one state notifies unwed fathers that they need to register when they have been named on the birth certificate. Indiana.[/ul][/li]

What I meant (and quoted upthread from the NYT article) is that only one state, Indiana, notifies men of the registry when a birth mother names them as the father.

From theNYT article:

In many states, fewer than 100 men register each year — not surprising, adoption experts say, because most young men have never heard of the registries. One exception is Indiana, where men are notified of the registry when a birth mother names them as the father, and 50 men register a week.

Yeah, I don’t think an unwed birth mother can just name anyone on the birth certificate. The named father has to agree by signing in front of a notary or like Blackberry said.

@pravnik

Yes! Yes! A thousand times yes! It notifies the person who has alleged that they are the father of the proceedings! It does not confer parental rights! Only the court confers parental rights! You can’t make yourself a father just by filing a form with the state! You have to prove it! He still has to show up and contest it!

Then we are in agreeance

I would like to see a National Putative Father Registry established that would behave much like The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJEA) to prevent people from ‘forum shopping’ for jurisdictions that would favor their interests, while also more clearly establishing a ‘home state’ jurisdiction recognized by other states.

Without knowing more about the specifics of how it actually works in Indiana, I think a system that notifies named fathers of a putative father registry would ensure more unwed men were notified of adoption proceedings and allow them the opportunity to affirm their intentions. Within a reasonable deadline (~30 days), of course, so that permanent placement of the child can be determined quickly, while best balancing the interests of the involved parties.

I don’t like to see men who learned of the pregnancy from the bio-mom and have taken steps to support her during the pregnancy, lose their right to contest an adoption on a legal technicality (some designed in many ways) to shut them out.

[Blackberry]

@EverwonderWhy

What I meant (and quoted upthread from the NYT article) is that only one state, Indiana, notifies men of the registry when a birth mother names them as the father.

I just don’t understand the point of this. It’s not like the mother has to name a father at all, so if she wanted to hide it from the father, she would just claim she didn’t know who the father was, right? What am I missing here?

[Troppus]

@Blackberry

I just don’t understand the point of this. It’s not like the mother has to name a father at all, so if she wanted to hide it from the father, she would just claim she didn’t know who the father was, right? What am I missing here?

If she seeks government aid in the form of SSI, food stamps, Medicare, or any other public assistance the state will require her to name a father in order to seek support from him first.

[EverwonderWhy]

@Blackberry

I just don’t understand the point of this. It’s not like the mother has to name a father at all, so if she wanted to hide it from the father, she would just claim she didn’t know who the father was, right? What am I missing here?

Yeah, that’s the tricky issue. In many states, naming a ‘known father’ as ‘unknown’ in order to adopt out the child without his knowledge/interference, is considered fraud and unethical. If the woman doesn’t wish to parent the child some think the bio-dad should have the opportunity to step up if he wishes and is capable, but how can he if doesn’t know?

Women don’t have to inform men when they seek abortions or have and raise children on their own, but when it comes to adoption things get murky. Ethical adoption agencies will seek out consent or notification of bio-fathers, but many states will dismiss his claim to contest unless the man has registered on a ‘putative father registry’, a registry many people don’t even know exist. And like you said, it is quite easy for birth mothers to simply list the birth father as ‘unknown.’

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20091222.html

“Unwed fathers in most states do not have the same rights as unwed mothers vis-à-vis their children. Their parental rights turn not just on biology, but also on whether they have carried out the obligations of fatherhood and, in some situations, whether they have complied with technical legal requirements necessary to establish their status.”