Hey Teach, since you claim to “know”, tell ya what. Back on page one of this discussion, Munch provided a link to an earlier version of the essay making note of the 25th anniversary of “Roe”. That would have been in 1998.
At the bottom of the page, there is my name and e-mail address.
Send me an e-mail. In the subject line, type “Zoe”. That way, I will recognize it as you.
I will respond. In the subject line, I will type, "Hey pinhead, you don’t know as much as you think.
Just to continue the joke a little bit, we (males) should al thank out lucky starts that this is not actually possible. IF women could procreate without us we would be no better than chattel servents kept around for their amusement. I’m sure we would all…
On second thought, maybe that wouldn’t be so bad.
Agreed. It is typically accepted that once a person reaches a certain age they are wholly responsible for their actions. Before that age their parents (both of them BTW) are responsible to differing degrees. By differing degrees, I mean that the parents are not always held legally responsible for, say, a teenager’s actions. But they are certainly held morally responsible to some degree. However, I agree that as the child matures he becomes more and more responsible (both legally and morally) for his own actions.
No, this is not true. The Grandparents could easily be dead by the time conceptions takes place. I’m willing to grant them some tiny amount of responsibility if the father and mother are very very young. I’m thinking under 14 here. But if we limit the discussion to the normal situation of grown adults, then mentioning their parents has no bearing.
Agreed.
Well, not quite. As I have said, the male and female responsiblities during pregnancy are different. So in that sense there is some simililarity to the grandparent’s responsibilities. That is, the female has more power during pregnancy, so she has choices the male does not. However, her power does not negate the responsibility taken on by the male when he engaged in sex in the first place. This is true for 2 reasons.
First, the females unilateral power is only temporary. Consider if the grandparents could only allow their children to be full grown for 9 months (or really 3 months). That is
they became fully adults, but then reverted to infants in 3 months. Now, certainly they would have some responsibility for any children they created during those three months, but I think you can see that society might change its mind about complete absolution for the grandparents as well.
Secondly, the extra power is a direct result of biology. The female has different rights and responsibilities because she is the female. Its not a conspiricy to steal rights from the father. Its a direct result of her carrying the child to gestation inside her body. It is, therefore, no more unfair than gravity. The fact that thin people can move about much more easily than fat people is also unequal. But it is hardly unfair.
Dude. You keep saying stuff like this, when it is not true. There have been cases where a father sued and won custodial rights, visitation rights, and suportive rights to children that mother would have prefered they had nothing to do with. I can agree that there has never been a case where a father was able to sue for the right to gestate a fetus within his own body. So in that sense, and in that sense, only, women have more right to support offspring than men do. But seriously, this is no reason suggest that men have NO rights or responsibilities.
Look, you guys. There are a lot of inequities in the law concerning parental rights. In some respects our child welfare laws are a grotesque mess. Welfare workers take children without good reason. They leave children in bad situations without good reason. One parent is favored over another in custody disputes without good reason. There are definate prejudices against men when molestation charges are bandied about.
But let’s try to fight some of these inequities which are legally, morally, or societally real. Harping about the extra power a woman has over the child while it is inside her womb is just silly.
Given the typical human response to the other, it’s a very good thing that men and women need each other.
The rights a woman has over a fetus while pregnant, none here dispute. What we do dispute is the fact that although women have full rights/responsibilities for a fetus, she can share responsibility for the child once it is born, against the father’s will. If she has full control over it (and the father has correspondingly no control over it) than the woman should have to take full responsibility.
“Cite me some legal authority”?? You know, you really are revealing yourself to be quite the jerk.
But I will explain to you how all this came to be.
The evolution of child-support into a “right” is a fairly recent phenomenon. In years past, if a woman gave birth to a child outside of the institution of matrimony, that child was considered hers. (It was a “private” concern as echoed in Roe v Wade.) If she was independently wealthy, she may have made the “choice” to raise her child by herself. If she was indigent, she would likely resort to putting her child up for adoption so as to not to be burdened with raising a child alone. If she was a teenager, she would probably make the “choice” to put her child up for adoption so as to continue her life’s goal unencumbered with the burden of raising her child. No, the child did not have a “right” to support from it’s biological parents.
This was how society recognized illegitimacy for the first one-hundred seventy-five years of America’s history. Prior to the mid-1960’s, illegitimacy was relatively rare. Private charities, in conjunction with society’s “safety-net” programs, lent support where it was needed. Then society was delt a liberal “one-two punch” with the “sexual revolution”, which was to put women on equal footing with men with regards to sex, and President Johnson’s “Great Society” programs that had the effect of rewarding illegitimacy.
This “one-two punch” caused an explosion of illegitimate births. As state treasuries were becoming drained as a result of the sky-rocketing welfare costs, state legislators began to scramble for solutions.
Being sympathetic to the politics of feminism, and not wanting alienate the “women’s vote”, state legislatures concocted the “Deadbead Dad” villian and, through a legislative sleight-of-hand, came up with the concept of a child’s “right” to support.
One of two things. You are using “legal authority” as a smokescreen or you’re not familiar with the concept of setting a legal precedent? Either way, it does not bode well in your masquerade as some sort of “legal authority”.
I have demonstrated “why”. See, to require an individual to be financially responsible for the private concern of a second party, violates the concept of the rule of law. Furthermore, being that states sanction the abandoning of newborns through “safe haven” programs, I have also demonstrated that a child does not have a right to support from its biological parents.
There hasn’t been any mistatement nor misunderstanding. You’re shootin’ blanks.
Possibly. But the fact is that she does not have “full” control over it.
She has temporary custady. Therefore, she has exclusive power to feed and in almost every way, care for the child.
She has a right of termination only for the first trimester and a little longer in some states.
She does not have the power of fertalization seperate from cooperation with the male.
Once the child is born, however, the exclusivity ends.
Both parents have rights and responsibilities throughout the process. Sometimes these rights and responsibilities are identical. Sometimes they are different. The differences amount to extra responsibilities on one or the other parent. They in no way amount to a negation of any of the rights or responsibilities of the other parent.
You see you have to ignore the shared responsibility of sex to get to the point you want. While the born child is both parent’s responsibility, it is do because they both created the child. The necessary biological fact that the child is gestated inside the female does nothing to change the responsibilities or rights of the father toward the child.
This is exactly the case today. She takes full responsibility for her share of the child. If in fact she had created the child with no input from the male, then she would have no claim on the male. But you cannot cite a single example of such a birth. It is a biological impossibility.
Again, I don’t understand the fervor over this percieved inequality. If you were trying to argue in favor of some sort of male input into the decision to abort a fetus, then I could understand. I’d have to disagree that such input could be enforced, but that would at least be a different argument. What you seem to be saying is basically "Ha Ha you have to carry the baby, so I don’t have to help at all. Ha Ha ". It seems a uniquely irresponsible position.
Ignoring the ad hominem for the time being (gentleman that I am), I had a professor in law school who used to infuriate a student from time to time by booming “citing as authority?” whenever said student made an alleged statement of the law. The infuriating thing was that if the student didn’t have a citation, he or she was not expressing the law, just their opinion, which does not carry the force of law. Basically he was calling us out and embarassing us when we couldn’t back it up. Better there than in a courtroom. If it’s just your opinion that making fathers pay for their children regardless of marital status is unjust and unfair, fine. However, you’ve in addition to that innocuous observation made some very specific claims of the state of the law, including the rationale behind the common law exclusion of illegitimate children from child support and how a SCOTUS constitutional Due Process decision can possibly be in actual conflict with a constitutional Equal Protection decision (so egregious as to necessitate docket tampering), that require reference to authority if they are to be valid. This you’ve steadfastly refused to give in two threads on the matter, which explains why all the lawyers except me have thrown up their hands and gone home.
You mean that the people who created the child have to pay for its well being instead of me? I have very little problem with this. And regarding a legislative change of the common law by statute: so what? They do this all the time. At common law it wasn’t burglary if someone broke into your home to commit a felony unless it happened at night, and it wasn’t arson to burn down your own house (it was “houseburning”, a misdemeanor).
I’m not masquerading as a legal authority, I’m desperately trying to get you to provide me with some. There may be a few things that I’m unfamiliar with in this world, but precedent isn’t one of them. You have stated that there are some well settled rules of law that the Supreme Court disregarded, and which make Gomez and Roe in conflict. I would like to see the the source of those laws. Blackstone? Lord Coke? What?
Aaaaaand we’re back at the source of the problem. “violates the concept of the rule of law” isn’t a legal argument any more than “offends my delicate sensibilities”. If you were merely expressing your opinion there wouldn’t be a problem with this, but you’re saying that this statement carries the weight of law to such an extent that the Supreme Court had to manipulate its docket to save face. Re: safe haven laws, there has long been a rule that parental rights and obligations can be judicially terminated upon abandonment by the parents…both parents. Safe haven laws just provide a safer place for abandonment than the places previously used. If a child is left in a dumpster and no one comes to claim it, it can safely be assumed to have been abandoned by both parents and a judge will so rule. If a child is left at a hospital and no one turns up to claim it, same result.
Another thought on this:
Did you at any point in your life attend a public school? Who do you think paid for it?
Every time you have characterized your personal opinion as carrying the weight of law, or restated your mistaken readings of Roe and Gomez, there has been a misstatement and misunderstanding of the law.
Razorsharp
Before you sink too deep into this quagmire of despair, you might look at what many of the higher courts, even the US Supreme Court, has said about child support. After reading just a portion of the material available here, it appears to me that your battle is an uphill one, very uphill. CS Guidelines.com
You are confusing an obligation with a right. Certainly someone can assume an obligation, but in your senerio, child support is not an issue. Custody is the issue.
I am not advocating the complete abolition of child support laws, only a modification to make the law compatible with the American system of jurisprudence. As I wrote:
Now, within the parameters I have outlined, the only time a child’s right to support from its biological father is recognized, is when the birth mother wants financial assistance with the “choice” that she unilaterally made.
I’m surprised, being the authority on the legal system that you paint yourself to be, I thought, surely, you could connect the dots. Here, I’ll make it easy for you. I’ll break it down to its lowest common denominator.
The concept of “the rule of law” is a tenet of the American system of jurispridence.
The legal standing of a fetus is arbitrary.
A child’s “right” to support from it’s biological parents is arbitrary.
Even the concept of “freedom of choice” is arbitrary. Case-in-point:
While under contract to a television studio to portray a role in a daytime television drama that involved scenes depicting partial nudity, the actress, Hunter Tylo, became pregnant. Rather than making the “choice” to terminate the pregnancy, Ms. Tylo chose to continue her pregnancy to term. As a result of the “choice” that she made, her obvious pregnancy prevented her from portraying the role in which she was under contract to fulfill and the studio properly terminated her contract.
Subsequently, Ms. Tylo sued the studio for wrongful termination and, in an act of judicial insanity, was awarded a multi-million dollar judgment.
The two definitions, one being a “choice” and the other being a “civil-right”, for the same situation, are not compatible in a society that bases it’s legal system on the “rule of law”. This is an example of arbitrary law. Arbitrary law is the antithesis of “the rule of law”.
I’m not arguing that women are having children with no input from men; I’m arguing that since the input (having sex) is not a binding contract on the woman to have a child, it shouldn’t be considered so for the men.
The abortion comment reveals our disconnect: I’m not arguing for a man’s right to meddle. I’m arguing that since he has no right to meddle, he shouldn’t have the responsibilities that go along with it. The woman is the gatekeeper with regards to the pregnancy: it is fully her choice if a fetus grows to term. Although it took two to tango, as the case may be, sexual activity is not considered a binding contract to support the fruit of the union; if it was: a woman’s right to choose wouldn’t be, and there would be no inequality. Well, women would be chained biologically and financially and men would only be chained financially, which isn’t equal, but it would suck lots for both of them, and that’s what I meant.
I could not agree more. I had given up on Razorsharp last year, and, only morbid curiosity got me to open this newly resurrected version today. I appreciate your continued efforts to make the distinction between legal authority and opinion that seems to elude Razorsharp, and your remaining calm in the face of it is to be applauded.
Now, I must point out that there are more problems with the things Razorsharp is stating that others need to view skeptically. For example:
and this gem
This assertion ignores the history of child support in 17th century England as well as it’s early treatment in America. As far as America goes, way back in 1816, the New York Supreme Court stated: “infant children; and if the parent neglect that duty, any other person who supplies such necessaries is deemed to have conferred a benefit on the delinquent parent, for which the law raises an implied promise to pay on the part of the parent.” For a actual citation (gasp!), one can look at the Yale Law Review article by Drew Hanson, which can be found here. The article describes how early American courts ruled and viewed the concept of child support.
Another example:
As I explained earlier, the concept that the father of a child has a moral duty to provide for the children has been around for just about ever. That moral duty was extended to a legal duty in America when it was founded. And, hold onto your seats, here’s another cite for my proposition: Go figure, an actual citation. While I do not disagree with Razorsharp that the prime motivation for the enacting of child support laws has always been to put the burden on the parents rather than the state or the church, it is factually wrong to assert that it only started happening in the mid-60’s and that it was the product of the “politics of feminism” or “the woman’s vote”, or that it was legislative “sleight of hand.”
Now, giving Razorsharp the benefit of the doubt, which I’m not sure he’s earned, perhaps he should limit his assertions regarding the legal authority etc. to only “illegitimate” children, for the statutory right to child support at issue in Gomez was only for legitimate children. However, taking that fact and stating that child support was grounded in the contract of marriage or that the right somehow only goes to the woman is a misstatement that should be rectified.
Now, in an effort to avoid this thread being submitted next year at this time, I would suggest that Razorsharp put aside making conspiracy accusations that have no basis in fact, put aside the misstatements of the law, and put aside the misstatements as to the history of child support. He may have an argument about the “unfairness” of child support obligations put on fathers when the mother has a choice to terminate the pregnancy, Og knows we’ve heard it all before on this board, but to support that argument with misstatements and fanciful readings of law needs to be corrected.
By your rationale, your birth was. I have no children, but my property taxes go directly to fund public education for children whose birth was the “private concern” of others. Why should I, a second party, be forced to be financially responsible for the private concerns of others? I have even less choice about the matter than the father did. Does the public school system violate “the American system of jurisprudence and the concept rule of law?” Why aren’t you railing against it?
Here:
This is an opinion presented as law. Every time you refuse to provide a cite for a assertion of law you are presenting your opinion as the law.
On preview: thank you, Hamlet, I appreciate that. Well written post, too.
But the extra rights and responsibilities are a biological necessity. That is, they are a known, required, and therefore agreed to necessary condition imposed on both parties to the sex in the first place. IOW, having sex is a binding contract on BOTH participants, it simply binds them to different rights and responsibilities.
I was going to compose another example, but then decided not to. I remember hearing last time this went around and around and around that you guys (sorry if it was not you robert, I don’t remember exactly who said it) suggested that he could think of no other situation where one party can impose responsibilities on another. After considering this again and again and again in this thread, I have to turn this around. I can think of no situation where temporary custoday of a mutually created “thing” divorces responsibility for that creation from either party. That is just because the female has custody of the fetus, and even if she has unilateral power to terminate it, this does **NOTHING ** to the rights or responsibilities the father took on when he helped create it in the first place.
But he doesn’t have the responsibility to go along with meddling. There is no movement I am aware of to force fathers to pay half the costs of abortions. There is no movement I am aware of which wants to force fathers to provide support of any kind towards making this decision. The only responsibilities the father has legally are to the child once it is born. The fact that it might not have been born even after conception does NOTHING to reduce or change in any way this fact.
I’m not sure this is the case. It may not be considered a binding contract not to have an abortion, but it certainly is a binding contract on both parties to support a possible issue from the union. The femal is bound to gestate the fetus baring certain abnormal incidents (abortion is only one of them). The male is bound to support his offspring in different ways. But he is bound to the child none the less.
Again, you are using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. While I agree that the rights and responsibilities of parents are not identical especially during pregnancy, that does not mean that there is some sort of inequity. It certainly does not mean that the responsibilities of the father have been rendered moot or inapplicable.
Last year, a Pennsylvania man, John Stachokus, petitioned the court to prevent his fiance, Tanya Meyers, from aborting the child that they both planned to raise. A name and god-parents had even been selected. Suddenly, John’s fiance decided that she didn’t want to be burdened with the responsibilities of parenthood and sought an abortion.
At first, a judge, sympathetic to Mr. Stachokus, assigned an injunction to Ms. Meyers, preventing her from having an abortion, but then reversed himself and lifted the injunction because of the privacy issue established in Roe v Wade.
A contract is an agreement between at least two parties working in conjunction. If one party can terminate the agreement at will, then there is no contract under any legal definition.
Oh, there most certainly is an inequity. The man is totally beholden to the “choice” of the woman, whereas, the woman has no obligation to the man. And you call that a “contract”?
Hamlet is referring to my contention that child support is not a right.
Hmmm… no mention of a “right” to support there.
Okay, let’s examine what Hanson writes"
Oh my, could it be that child support does have it’s origins in divorce law afterall?
Yep, divorce.
There’s that word again.
Okay, enough of that. It is obvious that the duty of child support stems from marriage. Texas state law was in line with historical precedent. The Court, in “Gomez” overturned that historical precedent.
Okay, for argument’s sake, let’s assume that I am wrong on that count.(Note that I am really only concerned with the American law.) How does that change the inequity of the law that exists within the status quo?
That’s basically what I was doing. Did you not pick up on that in the original OP?
I believe that is what I said.
But the links you provided only confirm my contention that child support has it’s roots in marriage, either state sanctioned marriage or common-law marriage. Oh, I never stated that “the right somehow only goes to the woman”. That is your mistatement. Consider it rectified.
