In the sticky, NO DIRECT PERSONAL INSULTS OR “FLAMING” IN GREAT DEBATES it’s mentioned that, should you find an post which you believe violates the rules…
It also instructs you to send an e-mail to the Moderator or open a Pit thread if you disagree with his/her personal insult ruling. Just an FYI.
I did not disagree with the ruling, did I? All I did was point out another double-standard.
BTW: Pravnik, I do extend my apologies to you for my remark. It was uncalled for.
Zoe, on the otherhand…
It looks as if you are questioning the lack of a ruling on a Moderator’s part for a particular post. As a regular poster who is implying no special understanding of the rules, it seems to me that this also belongs in the Pit. What I wrote was just a neutral “FYI” for a relatively newish poster.
But hey, sink or swim on your own. The quicksand is that way ---->.
[Moderator Hat ON]
Discussion of a ruling or lack thereof belongs in the Pit or in email. It is acceptable to call someone a plagarist in GD, whether you think it insulting or no. If someone is suspected of plagarism posters are entitled are entitled to say so; many people have plagarized and been called on it. Whether or not your post was plagarized is a question of fact, and that you did not plagarize the post has been established in this thread. When your posts have been reported as examples of plagarism, I have checked them out and confimed that I did not believe they were plagarized, so I did not delete them or warn you for plagarism.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
Apology accepted.
Common law marriage is state sanctioned marriage. Nobody questioned that the common law rule was that child support was only available to children born within a marriage. That’s obvious. The questionable part is the assertion that the reasoning behind the rule is that the man has entered into a contract with the woman that is absent outside marriage, and that making child support available to children born outside marriage somehow violates the “rule of law”. Although courts sometimes refer to it as quasi-contractrual or analogize it to an implied contract, child support is not contractual in nature. For example, a prenuptual contract that limits or cuts out child support in the event of divorce will be void as a matter of public policy. Child support is not a contract with the other parent; it is an obligation imposed by the state and a duty owed to the child.
Yes there is. “infant children; and if the parent neglect that duty…”. Duty to the child. If a duty imposed by law is owed by one to another, the obligee has a right and the obligor has a duty.
A much more likely reason for the common law exclusion of children born out of wedlock (other than a strong bias against so-called “bastard children” common to the era) is that accurate determination of paternity was simply impossible, and marriage offered a “bright line” rule. What do you do if a prostitute from the local brothel says the mayor is the father of her child? There was simply no way to determine who a father was with any accuracy outside marriage. Even with the advent of modern paternity testing the rationale was that judicial resources were too scarce to extend paternity hearing to children born outside the marriage. The state didn’t make any argument involving “marriage contracts” in Gomez, and it certainly couldn’t argue that children born out of wedlock weren’t entitled to the equal protetction of the law. Instead it argued that enforcment difficulties should excuse them from doing so, and that conservation of judicial resources made limiting paternity adjudication necessary. The Court said it recognized the “lurking problems with respect to proof of paternity”, but that it couldn’t act as a barrier to equal protection.
Now, we’re into semantics. Is it an obligation or a right? While it may be acceptable parlance for a merchant to speak of his “right” to be paid, it is the customer that has the “duty” or the “obligation” to pay for services rendered. It is the duty or obligation that a court requires to be fulfilled.
In the true sense of the word, a “right” is something that is inherent and doesn’t rely on the actions of a second party.This is why child support is not a “right” of the child, but an obligation of a parent, hence the demarcation of legitimate and illegitimate.
Legal adoption further belies the notion of a child’s “right” to support. A right is not transferable. In cases of adoption, the adoptive parents are taking on a judicially enforced obligation to support a child.
Since it was lacking an accurate means to determine paternity that was the reason to draw the lines of support between legitimate and illegitimate children, explain this to me.
Now that DNA testing has made the determining of paternity a certainty, why is it that courts require men to continue supporting children that have been proven to be the product of a wife’s infidelity?
That’s right. And if the contract contains a clause that one of the parties has complete control over the physical object which is the primacy of the contract, then the contract is still valid. Further, if that power is simply a logical, natural and necessary extension of the characteristics of the physical object iteslf, then the contract is still valid.
Can you name a single contract where such power exists, is invested in one party only, and is agreed to in advance of the contract where the contract was held invalid because of it? I didn’t think so.
Of course it is a contract. As you said yourself, a contract is an agreement between two people. If that agreement contains a clause that is later considered unfair by the man, he has no right to cancel it afterward. This is what you are arguing for.
Pervert, the crux of this issue is that no one signed a friggin’ contract. In fact, my entire position is based on the fact that there should be no implied consent to take care of the fruit of sexual union if it is not the expected result of said union.
Perhaps you would like to make a case that consentual intercourse does imply consent to financially care for any children that result from it?
You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about. The mother has control of the child after birth, not the father. The mother can leave that hospital with the kid leaving the father in the dust. The father cannot do the same.
Boy, you’re willfully obtuse. Of course he knows it’s been taken away. But if the couple are not married, good luck forcing the woman into court and finding out where the kid is within 30 days. It isn’t going to happen.
You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about. The mother has physical, de facto control of the child after birth, not the father. The mother can leave that hospital with the kid when the father’s in the can. The father cannot do the same. Security would forceably restrain him. Can it be done? Sure. But not nearly as easily as the mother can walk out. Hell, women can and do walk out of hospitals with other people’s babies.
Boy, you’re willfully obtuse. Of course he knows it’s been taken away. But if the couple are not married, good luck forcing the woman into court and finding out where the kid is within 30 days. It isn’t going to happen.
Pervert, I think you’re missing the point a bit. There’s a context here. The argument is that there is a double standard. This double standard is not the one you’re arguing against, however. You’ve identified it this way and then argued against it:
It is a double standard that a woman can abrogate responsibility for a child, but a man cannot.
Your point seems to be that it’s not really a “double standard” to force a man to pay child support on a child he didn’t want, because the choice to have the child is a mutual one at conception, and the mother’s temporary custody is just a biological fact. Am I right so far?
And I’d agree. The problem is, the statement that you’re rebutting isn’t really the one at issue. There’s a legal nuance here: abortion-rights activists (and though not an activist, I’m certainly pro-choice) have to make one key statement, which is accepted by law, in order to make abortion legal, rather than a murder. That statement is:
A fetus in the first trimester is not a person.
It then follows, as has already been stated, that the choice of intercourse is a choice to create (or risk creating) a fetus, which is by law and our moral opinion as pro-choice people something distinct from a person.
The real issue is that, whether it’s a biological fluke or whatever, the legal choice for a child to be born (rather than a fetus, which is not a person, be removed) is solely that of the mother. You may scoff, but legally (and for any of us pro-choicers to be intellectually honest and consistent) this is the inevitable conclusion. The choice of intercourse is a choice to fertilize. The choice for a child to be born is only the woman’s choice. Hence, it should be her responsibility. If she is incapable financially of raising that child, that’s too bad. It happens all the time. She can give it up for adoption with a contract for visitation, or give it to a foster family while she tries to work something out, call on friends or family for help if possible, any number of things. The fact is, raising a child isn’t as expensive as most patrimony awards would have you think. It’s expensive, yes, but a kid doesn’t need a playstation and a stereo and a TV either.
If anything at all, the man should only be required by law to pay 50% of documented essentials. Nothing else makes sense.
Correct. And you have shown no authority for your proposition. But here, since one of us seems interested in supporting our positions with citations and authority (guess which one of us?) I’ll give you a couple of other quotes:
Supcoe v. Shearer.
Or here’s another one, this one from 1917, which speaks directly to your “misleading” statement that child support has some sort of basis in the marital contract:
Ruge v. Ruge, 97 Wash. 51, 55, 165 P. 1063 (1917). If you actually took the time to do a bit of research, or actually seek authority for your legal propositions, you could find in an overwhelming number of cases that refer to the “child’s right to support.” And you know how many cases I found that refer to that right arising out of the marital contract? I’ll give you 2 guesses and the first one doesn’t count.
You do so love the word game. Wait a minute, you’re the one who accuses **pravik
[/quote]
of playing semantics, yet you won’t accept an authoritative case because it doesn’t use the precise word you want? Gotcha!
Ummmm, nope it can’t be.
This is what passes for critical thinking in your book? The fact that the word divorce was used alot when describing social changes in the 19th century establishs that child support has it’s basis in the marriage contract? Hey, they used the word wage-earner too, maybe that means child support has it’s basis in the worker/employer relationship!
Did you just gloss over these statements?
and
and
and
I am simply astounded by your ability to make this claim without one shred of evidence and in the face of the numerous citations to the opposite. OK, I lied. I’m not really astounded. It’s par for the course with you.
For argument’s sake? For arguments sake?
As I said before, feel free to debate the issue of the fairness of child support laws when the mother can obtain an abortion. You won’t be the first, nor the last. But please refrain from creating imaginary conspiracies, giving misinformation about the law, and misstating facts. That’s what I’m concerned about.
Which you proved so successfully by showing that in a multi-page law review article about the history of child support law, the author referred to divorce. Wow. Color me convinced. It sure rebutted my assertions, which I supported with citations and legal authority.
Ah yes, but the father “can” strangle the child and bury its body in the woods, thus leaving the mother in the dust. So it all works out in the end, yes? :rolleyes:
We’re discussing the law here, little man, not what people can do in evasion of the law.
Boy, you’re . . . um, I was going to say one thing, and then I was going to soften it to a forum-acceptable “annoying,” and then I realized that you’re not even that. Shoo! Shoo! Away with you now.
Actually, no I’m not. I understand the argument you are proposing quite well.
Quite correct. But neither is it an acorn. The fact that a mother can withdraw her biological support from the zygote is not grounds for the father to withdraw his financial support from the child.
Again, yes, but not the way you think. The fetus is not a person. Similarly, nine months later, the infant is not a voter. Because the zygote, fetus, or infant is not a voter does not mean that it is an inanimate object. If its very early stages the child is not granted the protection of the state to life BECAUSE IT IS BIOLOGICALLY INSEPERABLE FROM THE MOTHER. That is, the mother is allowed to stop feeding the child during the very early development period. I think I can say without much fear of contradiction, that most people would heartily support a new law allowing a father to withdraw any biological sustenance he is feeding to his child during this period as well. And for the record, I have not heard a single one of you guys suggest that the father should be responsible for paying for an abortion. Not even for half of one.
No, not true. IF you can tell me of a single birth where the entire decision is that of the mother then I will bow out of this debate. But there never has been one, there never will be one, there cannot be one. It is like complaining that a circle does not have any sides. It makes not sense at all.
No, it is not. This conclusion is only possible if you forget the last several hundred million years of evolutionary history. It is only possible if you ignore the biological and societal facts of procreation which have been producing humans for all of recorded history. In short, it is so far from inevitability and intellectual honesty as to be fraudulently devoid of both.
Fertilize what? So that it might turn into what? You see, you come so close to recognizing your mistake here that I am almost tempted to help you again.
And then…
I’m going to try one last time, and then you guys can rail against the inequities of mother nature as much as you want.
The female of many species have more power over the life and death of the young from a particular coupling. This is not a conspiricy to deprive you of enjoyable sex. It is simply the fact of life. Think of it this way. There is a period of development through which we must all pass during which we are not people. During which, in fact, we are not people to the extent that we are not worthy of the protections of the state, and during which we have not right to life liberty or happiness. If it so happens that during this period no one wishes to succor us, then we will die. It just so happens, that during this period, we are also exclusively inside the body of our mothers. Any inequity is merely an accident of biology. There is and cannot be any legal remedy for it.
When engaging in sex, you engage in an activity which might eventually result in a child. The fact that something might happen to prevent the child being born does not change in any way this fact.
One last thought and I’m done with this foolishness. Remember gentlemen. If you really don’t want to have children you can always learn to swallow swords.
Strawman. Nobody said it was an inanimate object. Moving on…
Here is the disconnect in your argument. The “that is” which starts the final sentence is trying to link two unrelated elements. Yes, the fetus is biologically inseparable from the mother. That is a fact of life. But that has nothing to do with her having the right to “stop feeding” the child, which is a matter of law. Again: that is not a matter of nature. If the mother does nothing but carry on as always, nature, left to its own devices, will “keep feeding” the child. There is nothing biologically inevitable about
You’re simply not making any sense. This is very simple:
By legal definition insemination creates a fetus, which is not a person. The mother makes a choice to end this fetus, or not. Hence, any child born is born at the sole pleasure of its mother.
It is not conceived at her pleasure (shush :)), but it is born at her pleasure. Intercourse may or may not result in a child being born; this is immaterial to the legal fact that the mother has sole discretion over whether a fetus becomes a child.
You surround this with all sorts of assertions about my alleged gross ignorance of biology to try to cloud this very simple logic. If you can address the three sentences above, I’d be more than happy to get shot down–I’m trying to understand how your argument might be sensical. I just want to know what your response to that logic (or non, as you may think) is, without any dressing-up.
I’m still struggling to see how this is relevant. Yes, it is a result of evolution and biology that the woman, not the man, has that choice over the fate of the fetus… But she does have that choice, so what is your point? The origin of the choice is immaterial.
Nobody is asking for a legal remedy for the biological fact that the mother has the choice. They’re asking that she not be allowed to hold another person responsible for the choice she alone makes, the choice to allow the fetus to become a child.
Again, addressing things that are not at issue. Obviously, the fact that the fetus may not survive doesn’t change the fact that intercourse may eventually result in a child. That’s completely immaterial to the fact that at a particular legally defined time the mother makes a legal choice whether there will be a child or not.
I’m honestly trying to understand here. I appreciated your reply.
Boy, an absurd and irrelevant rebuttal and an ad hominem in three little sentences! Brilliant display.
If you choose, in a general discussion rather than a legal proceeding, not to acknowledge the interplay between the law and reality, you’re obviously more worried about compensating for your ahem equipment than engaging in meaningful debate.
But then, that’s obvious from the above quote as well.
Rights and duties are concomitant. The creation of a right generally creates a duty in anoher, and vice versa. The vesting of one party’s right in a contract creates a corresponding duty in the other party. The passage of the Freedom of Information Act in 1966 created a right to certain information for citizens, and a duty to disclose that information in the government
A right always depends on at least two parties! I have a duty of care not to negligently injure other people and a right to expect the same from them. If I’m the only person on Earth it doesn’t make sense to speak of duties to others and rights expected. If there isn’t a second party there’s nobody to infringe on my rights in the first place.
Lots of rights are transferrable. A person with rights in a contract can transfer those rights to a third party through assignation. I wouldn’t say that’s what’s happening inadoption; the adoptive parent is assuming the rights and duties of parentage on his own, not having them transferred from the biological parent, more like the creation of a new contract than the assignation of an existing one to analogize, but there’s no general rule stating that no right is transferrable.
Like pretty much everything else in the law, there are time limits one has to challenge things. If you want to allege that a child born into someone else’s marriage is biologically yours, you must do so within a ceratin time or you lose that right. If you want to contest that a child born within you own marriage is not your biological child, you must do so within a ceratin time or you lose that right as well.
I’ll give it a shot. The basic assumption behind it is that the law cares more about assigning culpability for the pregnancy than it does the best interest of the child. There just aren’t two people whose interests have to be considered, there are three, and in fact many more than three.
Lets say the mother completely lies to the father and says not only has she had her tubes tied and gone through menopause, but she has no uterus and used to be a man. She gives the father a condom which she has secretly perforated. The pregnancy is a much her “fault” as it can be.
The judge he tells this sad story to will sympathize, but will assign the same rights and duties to him he would to a father who wanted a child. He may not have had as much of a say in whether the child was born than the mother did, but the child had no say at all. Since the child is the most vulnerable and helpless of the three, the law favors what is in the best interest of the child over equity to the parents. It will try to do what is fair for the parents, but the best interest of the child is paramount.
Moreover, there are more than these three to consider, there is everyone else, meaning you and me. What is not paid for by the parents is paid for by the state or by charity, meaning the rest of us would have to pay for a child we didn’t have a hand in conceiving. We have to put food in the mouths of a lot of children whose mothers and fathers can’t or won’t.
You may say “Well, why should should we feed anyone at all? Other people shouldn’t have to be concerned with it”, but that’s not a viable option. One, it’s just not going to happen. Society doesn’t like having starving people in its midst, and will always provide some measure of relief if possible. Secondly, even if it didn’t provide the relief, extreme poverty and starvation is more of a societal and economic drain than helping would be. Imposing a duty of support on the biological parents is the most equitable solution to all parties concerned.
Ok.
The legal fact of a mother’s sole power to abort is not related to the fact that both parents are required for fertilization. Your problem, is that you refuse to see that this power does not affect the father’s responsibilities. Specifically, the last sentence (of the 2 you asked me to respond to) does not follow from your evidence. You see, the mother has sole descrition over whether or not to abort. She does not have sole descrition over whether or not to birth. Does that make it clear?
You see, you set up a false dichotomy by trying to make the decision to abort or not look like the decision to procreate or not. They are not the same decision, because the context is different. The decision to procreate can be made prior to conception. The decision to abort is only made during pregnancy. That is, the decision not to abort is not the same as the decision to procreate without the father. Thus, the decision not to abort is not the same as imposing procreation on the father.
Yes the author did refer to divorce. In fact, divorce was mentioned so many times, it is obvious that the obligation being referred to was a man’s legal (not moral) obligation to provide support for his “legitimate” children. That is the historical basis of child-support.
The defense rests. Thank you for making my case.