That isn’t how insurance works. The costs are shared by all people paying dues to the insurance agent. The child-support equivalent would be to force the driver to pay, and if he couldn’t, force withholding of his salary in the amount that he could, and if he couldn’t do that, well, tough shit. Insurance is actually a good case for not making individuals pay.
Because the status quo is totally unrelated to that kind of measure.
Until someone comes up with a proposal that actually bears some relationship to the events and aims in question.
You’re comparing the laws of physics, to the laws of human society. One is unchangeable (to the best of our knowledge), the other is completely in our control to change.
My suggestion is 100% possible. I believe it may even be practical. The arguments against it’s practically are just 2 in number: 1) There are not enough adoptive parents looking to adopt. 2) We don’t want the state to pay to have these rights extended to men. Both of these are somewhat reasonable arguments.
People in this thread are conflating *responsibility *with consequence.
The consequences of you driving on the road may include getting hit by a drunk driver who runs a red light. That’s a consequence that you have to bear for the risk that you are taking.
The responsibility for that accident, however, is not yours to bear, but the drunk driver’s instead. When it comes to responsibility it’s his choice that is relevant, not yours.
I want the people that wanted the brat to be born to support the brat. Cause a woman not to get an abortion when abortion is the most sensible, rational decision that should be made about an unwanted pregnancy, prepare for 18 years of paying for her offspring.
There’s a far more serious flaw in your argument. You are actually proposing that in some circumstances the government take children away from parents who want to keep them (and are not abusing them in any way). I’m not sure there’s a word to describe how I feel about such a suggestion but “ill-considered” is one of the milder ones.
Sure, infants do. But, realistically, how often are women getting pregnant on purpose, against the father’s will, having babies, and immediately coming for child support? Not all that often. In fact, that’s pretty rare. What usually happens is that the guy sticks around for the first few months, or a year or so, and then decides partying is more fun than playing house, and bails. Then, she comes after him for support (that he doesn’t want to pay). So, these “babies” who are going to be taken from their moms because their deadbeat dad doesn’t want to pay support are realistically going to range in age from several months to several years. And now, guess what? No one wants to adopt them.
That’s actually the real issue here. The situation Borzo brings up is incredibly rare. Much more common, in fact, is controling MEN sabotaging the birth control of their girlfriends in order to get them pregnant and force them into a commitment they may not want. THAT happens fairly often. But women sucking the sperm out of used condoms and using it to get pregnant so they can live off that SWEET $300 a month child support from unwilling men is pretty uncommon.
I would be willing to talk about/consider changing the laws to help men who became fathers due to REAL ACTUAL (court provable!) fraud and/or rape. I do not think that it is right for men to be forced to pay support in those instances, and I support the law being changed to reflect that. These situations are extremely rare, but they do occur.
But guys who are irresponsible sexually, have babies, and then later decide they don’t want to pay support? Sorry, no.
Ok, so maybe not the best example. But the concept behind it is still similar - the idea that there should be a mechanism in place so that society at large does not pay for the mistakes of every individual. In this case, maybe the costs get spread to the local insurance pool, which would be smaller than the pool of tax-payers but still larger than the individual.
Well, I did mention something about people living in peace and harmony and such. I’m reasonably sure that’s a societal thing, too. Impractical but not impossible.
And if a passing glint of light happens to distract you long enough to run a red light and crash into another car? Or remember when you were a teenager and not yet a good driver? What if you make stupid mistake and get into a wreck?
You’re still responsible, even if you did not deliberately cause the accident.
In the case of consensual sex, you still have to accept the responsibility for dealing with potential pregnancy, just as I have to accept that, even in the case of an unintentional accident, I might be responsible for creating a car accident.
Sure, I get to pass some of the costs onto the other people in my insurance pool, but I’m still going to personally face higher premiums and potentially civil/criminal charges. It doesn’t matter if I wanted that result or not. By choosing to get behind the wheel, I accept both the responsibility and consequences of my actions.
If the parents (or single parent) are broke, drug addicts, or negligent, etc etc… no matter how much they want to keep their children, the state should take them away regardless. The childrens’ well-being is more important than the parents desire to maintain possession of their children.
If the parents (or single parent) DO have enough resources to take care of the child, they should keep the children.
I don’t see why this is unreasonable. The state should only take children away from parents that are unfit and/or lack the resources to raise and support a child.
You could argue that unfit parents - that are unfit because they are broke - could be given child support from the state/government. If they are otherwise loving, and caring, this is an adequate solution. In fact - this is the solution that I personally support.
People however are cheap and want lower taxes. They don’t really want a tax-funded insurance policy that helps out poor parents. They say things like “If you can’t afford a child, then don’t put your penis into other people’s vaginas!”
Unfortunately, I’m not really sure how you get poor people to stop having babies. You could license parents or something… but I’m not sure how that would work since the government wouldn’t be allowed to force sterilization onto women, or force abortions, or perform infanticide. I don’t think anyone would ever suggest such solutions anyways.
The government could perhaps put in some realistic incentives to prevent poor people from having babies… but I haven’t thought much about what those realistic incentives could be. If I can think of some, I’ll post them.
Except the person behind the wheel of the other car involved in the accident has the option of hammering out the dent or suing you for damages for the next 18 years, even though you were equally at fault.
Parents who are broke are not necessarily unfit. It could just be a temporary situation. Perhaps there’s been a layoff. Yet you would take their children away permanently.
Heck there was a period in my life when my dad’s business went bankrupt. We were broke. Thank goodness I was allowed to stay with my parents while we recovered.
I 100% agree that once a man says “Okay, I’ll be a father” - that’s it, they are committed for life (or at least 18 years). And that’s the way it should be. Once a man says “Okay, I’ll help support the child”, the woman then starts making decisions based on the man’s decision. Once that snowball has started rolling, that’s it. If a woman gives birth - instead of terminating the pregnancy - based on the man’s statement the he will help with the child, he’s should be bound to that. It should be a legally binding contract.
So can we all agree that men have the right to have an abortion just like women do? That solves the discussion neatly, I think. Any man is perfectly welcome to have an abortion.
Only newborns born to unfit parent(s) would be given up for adoption. PERSONALLY, I’d prefer the state to support the family and newborn instead (if their only issue is lack of money, but are otherwise fit to parent)… But I used the adoption option to appease those that insist on lower taxes and no insurance for poor parents: If there’s no money for poor families with newborns, there’s always the option of adoption. Their response is that “nobody wants to adopt newborns, especially black and latino newborns”… but I have yet to confirm/refute that claim.
Once a child is older, the only option would be state support. No one will adopt a 7-year old, and even if they did, it wouldn’t be good for the child. I’d never suggest such a thing. Once a child is born, or even once a fetus passes 3 months, the father should be bound to financial and other support for the child. There is no way a father should be able to abandon a 7-year old merely because he doesn’t want it anymore - that would make no sense, and isn’t at all what I’m advocating.
It is possible! That has already been established! If you use a condom, plus the woman is on birth control, plus you use good judgment in choosing a partner, you have virtually eliminated the potential to have a “potential future child.” Add in a vasectomy, and you’re even closer!
What you are asking for is to be able to have RISKY consensual sex, and still be shielded from those consequences. Just as you cannon be protected from STDs in that situation, neither can you be protected from the possibility of pregnancy. But, it is certainly possible to have sex with women and not worry about paying child support later. The VAST majority of men manage it.
Once a child is born, the parents are equal in their ability to discharge their parental duties. When a fetus is gestating, anyone who is the host of said fetus may choose to no longer carry that pregnancy. The fact that only women are capable of gestation is the fault of biology, and an inherent unfairness in our species. Most often, this unfairness falls on the female, but occasionally the males get the short end of the stick. Life isn’t fair.
Really? You honestly believe there are a lot of men in “loving long term marriages” who’s wives are having kids against their will and then, what, divorcing them and suing for child support? Really? Because I’ve never heard of this phenomenon.
The only woman who had a baby without a man’s help was The Virgin Mary. And she didn’t exist. So… it seems you are are the one in need of remedial biology lessons.
Yep! And then, because of their planning, they don’t have any children! It’s like magic! Take precautions and you won’t have unplanned children. Oh, wait, no that’s the opposite of magic.
This is a poor analogy in many respects, but where it works is this: The man in this crash is still injured.
So, the lesson here is- Don’t hop into a car (or a bed) with a woman you don’t know and haven’t judged carefully. The consequences of such an action could be huge.
The law absolutely allows you to get out. GET OUT OF THAT CAR/BED SIR! YOU ARE RIDING WITH/FUCKING A CRAZY PERSON!! Do not ejaculate! Stop now!!
What you want is for the law to magically heal your wounds after the crash. And, no, the law cannot/should not/will not do that. Once the crash has occurred, no law can fix your broken leg or whatever. Just as, once you have irresponsibly deposited your genetic material into someone, no law can take it back. The time for good judgment is BEFORE the crash, BEFORE your orgasm. Getting into cars or beds indiscriminately may result in unwanted consequences.
EVERYONE wants to adopt newborns, especially white ones. Unfortunately, there is no epidemic of women giving birth to babies the father immediately rejects. The abandonment comes months or years later. This is because women aren’t stupid, and they know child support is a very small sum, so if they are certain the fathers aren’t interested they either don’t have the baby, don’t keep the baby, or decide to truly raise it alone, and do not ask for support.
Look, the question of abortion has no relation to the question of whether noncustodial parents should be required to support their children.
We can criminalize abortion, or make it legal, that’s a choice we can make as a society. But the fact that a woman can sometimes legally kill her unborn baby rather than carry it to term doesn’t let you off the hook for supporting your kids.
Say it with me. The legality or illegality of abortion is a separate issue from whether you should be required to take care of your kids.
Don’t want abortion to be legal? Fine. Want abortion to be legal? Fine. You still have to take care of your kids, and if you don’t want to, the rest of us taxpayers are going to ask the cops and the courts to seize the money from you, because otherwise we’d have to pay for it ourselves. And you’re the father.
Don’t want to be a father? Don’t inject your sperm into the vaginas of random strangers. Get a vasectomy. Wear a condom. Don’t sleep with women who aren’t on birth control. Don’t sleep with women unless you’ve had a discussion with them about what would happen if there was an accidental pregnancy. The more of these things that you do, the less likely it is that you’ll become a father when you don’t want to.
I can say that if you explain clearly to a woman that if she accidentally gets pregnant you’ll have nothing to do with any resulting kids, and would refuse to support any such kids without a court order, and her choices were either abortion or single motherhood, the likelihood of that woman getting pregnant by you will be drastically lowered.