Paternal Responsibility

Great Debates
61

I don’t mean to blow your mind but this isn’t always true. Depending on the state and the individual circumstances the donor may have legal rights/obligations to the child.

In cases of true sperm donation with no rights or responsibilities for the donor, it’s legal because it provides a valuable benefit to society. Sperm banks let people who otherwise couldn’t have babies have babies.

Leaving the father’s name off the birth certificate doesn’t abrogate him from his responsibility in any meaningful way. Since the mother can pursue him in court at a later date, why would anyone waste time investigating immediately?

You seem in general to feel there’s an inequality in men and women’s rights and obligations as parents but in this example it’s literally impossible for a man to do the same to a woman. It’s not as if society has decided we won’t stand for a man gestating a woman’s baby for 9 months and giving birth without ever telling the woman. It’s biologically impossible.

It’s not acceptable to abandon children, but moms and dads have equal rights to let another person adopt a baby. Then a person who wants a baby agrees to care for the baby and its needs are met and society isn’t burdened by an unwanted infant. It’s a good thing. A parent unilaterally refusing to care for his child and forcing the other parent to shoulder all the burden isn’t a good thing for society or the child. That’s why adoption is allowed but being a deadbeat parent isn’t.

62

Ah yes, child support is not for the mother, its for the child . But abortion is for the …?

Yeah

63

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

64

Borzo, do you think that only the woman should be responsible for a child’s welfare?

65

Because if all rights were equal (as you seem to be saying) abortion or lack there of wouldn’t be a one way street

Granted, we have pretty firmly resolved that “life ain’t fair and this isn’t either” but when people come to try and defend that the man should PAY, PAY i say when it is clearly a two way street turned one way, mid stream, I get all up in arms.

66

I’m not Borzo but I think it should be handled by the parties involved (namely, not the state)

If the man doesn’t want to be a part of the child’s life then he shouldn’t be required to pay for it either. If she does, then she can.

67

No, it was a complete non-sequitur.

68

The right to abortion has nothing to do with children or having responsibility for children. It’s not about allowing women to avoid having children or about giving women extra choices in terms of their reproductive planning. The right to abortion exists simply because abortion is a medical procedures, medical procedures are under the purview of doctors and their patients, and nobody else has the right to make medical decisions for a competent adult. The fact that this gives women reproductive choices is rather irrelevant side effect.

Unwanted pregnancy does not come at random like a bolt from above. Men have it in their power to ensure that they reduce their chances of unwanted pregnancy to 100%. Sexually active men take on some risk, but if you, for example only have protected sex with women who agree to take a freshly purchased morning after pill in your presence, you can get that down to 99.9999999999%. Realistically, having protected sex with someone who shares your reproductive philosophy gets that down to 100%. So we are not talking about men’s inability to choose to reproduce, we are talking about how lazy men feel like they should be in regards to birth control. This is a lot less compelling. Society shouldn’t have to share the burden of men who don’t feel like wearing condoms.

In reality, almost everyone I know who pays child support was in a relationship, did something in that relationship that ended up making someone pregnant (I think you can guess what this is), continued the relationship for some time after the baby was born, and at some point after the birth decided to end the relationship. THEN they up and decide they don’t actually want to be a parent, and cut a check instead of actually raising the kids they brought in on to this planet. It’s the least they can do.

69

In reality, every woman I know who complains about not getting child support (and counting from just my long term client list that number runs into the lower 3 figures) was trying to force a man to marry her (and support her of course) and only had the baby because child support was the only chance she had to get any money. I have no problem with them wanting to be paid for sex. I am in favor of legal regulated prostitution. Bringing, an unwanted child into an overpopulated world ought to be a capital offense.

Any by the way even sven where are you finding these 100% reliable condoms? Every condom my husband and I have ever used had a risk of breakage or leakage.

70

I apologize for using the term “abandon” - “surrender” is an adequate replacement.

A mother can surrender her responsibilities to the state after the child is born, and the state will then take on those responsibilities. The father, however, can NOT surrender his responsibilities to the state.

It’s her body and her choice. In order to give birth, the woman has made a voluntary choice to do so. (In most civilized countries.)

This is the only semi-valid counter-argument I’ve heard, also posted by sugaree at the top of this page.

The problem is that this isn’t very practical, as pointed out by a few others. A woman can have a child without telling the father, and without putting his name on the birth certificate, and then anonymously surrender that child to the state without the father’s consent.

How could the father get the child back, and then get the mother to pay child-support, in such a case? Does the father give a DNA sample that is cross-referenced with the DNA of all children taken up by the state? How many of the of the 50 states do this? (I’ll have time later today to look for that references that suggests that the answer to that questions is FOUR.)

Those who make the choice to have a child, should be responsible for the welfare of that child. If they are incapable of maintaining that responsibility, it is in the best interests of the state/society to step in, and assist in that responsibility.

If a woman independently chooses to have a child, without the consent of the biological father, then that child should be her responsibility. Remember, it’s her body, and her choice. She made that choice when she gave birth, and chose to keep the baby. All of these choices are hers - and therefore the responsibility should likewise be hers. If a woman independently decides to have a child, but cannot independently support that child, then she shouldn’t have it in the first place. If she has that child anyways, then the state should step in and give it to an adoptive family that is capable of supporting that child.

I will cite the first video of the series that I linked previously, as doing a good job explaining why the responsibility is not equal between the man and the woman. Not saying I agree 100%, but this video is fairly interesting to consider: http://youtu.be/JRdq2zqGxgY

71

I have to disagree, sven. I think if women wish abortion to be the ultimate trump card in their hand, they have already decided that men have no particular say on that matter. All obligation would be severed. I don’t know how that could lead to a good society—and I’ve actually considered the matter in some detail—so I have few qualms about child support. But logically the current situation fails to appeal to me at all.

If no one has the right to cross the line but the woman, the woman bears all responsibility for that decision. This is not an incoherent position or a quirky side-effect, IMO. It is the most understandable course. Unfortunately it seems totally untenable, and we have to tolerate some inconsistency in the matter, until someone suggests something better.

72

Condoms are not 100% effective, but condoms plus another form of birth control is pretty much 100% effective. It is possible to choose a partner who is using reliable birth control.

73

The issue I have is when women want child support yet do not let the child have a relationship with its father. In the case of a friend of mine, she kidnapped the child to the US and then told him that he did not have a father. Then she sued him (my friend) for child support. That to me is ridiculous and wrong. You cannot expect the father to be financially responsible for a child he has absolutely no access to and no say in his upbringing.

74

Oh for Pete’s sake.

This is really not that hard.

Someone has to support the child. This agent of last resort are the taxpayers/government.

The taxpayers/government don’t really want to pay for this. They WILL but will try not to.

Therefore they will look at whoever is involved and try to make them responsible.

The best person to look for this is the mother and genetic father. It’s logical, makes sense, seems right etc etc etc.

Force them to make sure the child is taken care of and that the taxpayers/govt is not on the hook.

Fairness? Sure, it can be very unfair in certain circumstances…but every other option IS MORE UNFAIR because someone other than the biological parents are asked to foot the bill.

It’s your goddamn kid. Face up to it.

75

If they are smart enough to lawyer up it is rare for a man to be denied visitation, there is a bias on custody but “not let the child have a relationship with it’s father” is not the norm as far as the law goes.

76

Do you think that in other instances where the claimant is defrauded they should have to pay costs for 18 years, or would it be fairer for the people to shoulder that burden?

77

I read the SD article someone posted above, and yes, my mind is a bit blown. Apparently there is very little legal protection for the donor from being pursued for support. The protection that does exist isn’t so much legal, as it is based on the fact that the donation is anonymous. It’s not the law that protects the donor, but his anonymity.

Because the father might be looking for his child.

This is an interesting argument.

Giving up a child for adoption does not significantly burden society. (Unless it remains in a foster-home for an extended period of time, where the state has to provide financial support to the foster-parents, for example.)

But if one of the biological parents steps up and requests custody of their child (parent #1)… then we generally do not refuse it. (We’re under the assumption that parent #2 does not want the responsibility & obligation for the child.)

But if parent #1 alone does NOT have the resources to take care of the child, then they should not be allowed to have it - it should be given to an adoptive family. But instead we let them have the child anyways, and then get parent #2 to subsidize parent #1 and their child. I’m not sure this is really the best solution, however.

But if parent #1 DOES have enough resources to take care of the child, then they usually get custody (and they should). However - oddly - we still coerce parent #2 to subsidize parent #1 and their child - even if they do not need the assistance.

If parent #2 never consented to having this child, and does not want the responsibilities associated with it, then I do not understand why they are obligated in any way.

If parent #1 cannot take care of the child alone - and the state/society decides that it doesn’t want to support & subsidize single-parenthood - then that child should be put up for adoption.

78

When they’re in a different country it can be. Basically my friend has been declared a deadbeat dad in the US (where she has sued him) but in Antigua, where he sued her (where he is from, where they were married and where the child was born), they are supposed to have joint custody. It’s a messy situation and makes me really angry.

79

The problem with this is that you view the child as a battleground between two parents, and that the system should be designed to favour the parent you consider morally right.

It’s not. It’s designed to favour THE CHILD. It’s about what’s best for the innocent baby brought into the world by the actions of two adults. It’s nothing to do with what’s “fair” for those two adults. Only what benefits the child.

The adults lost their rights to fairness between each other when they brought a new life into the world. Who gives a crap how wronged they feel? You made a baby, you owe it a decent life. Your feelings are irrelevant at this point.

80

You seem to think if a woman finds herself pregnant the man should have the right to demand she abort or accept all responsibility for the child.

I doesn’t work that way because it takes two to make a baby. You don’t want to parent, fine, you’re still kicking in for the cost.

Don’t like it, don’t lie with women who see things differently, only those who agree with your view point. Problem solved.