My vote: Ideally either party should be able to walk away from a pregnancy without doing themselves, the other party, or the pending child any harm. But of course this isn’t possible. Since children always need support they are not able to generate for themselves, they are entitled to have it from their parents, which would have to include the father. Talking about guilt is not really very productive. This typically begins as a sexual relationship, not a parenting one, because we are programmed to want sex. The transition from sexual to parenting is outside everybody’s control. So is the issue of pregnancy, at least sometimes, because there is no approach to living that 100% guarantees not becoming a parent. Even people that avoid sex do, on rare occasion, create offspring.
I think it is barely plausible that a very treacherous woman could trick a man into becoming a father, while not needing or deserving any help from him, and while having the economic resources and willingness that eliminate any need of the child for paternal financial support. But this is a pretty fantastic and pathalogical situation, perhaps enough so that a legal approach that absolutely ignores the slight possibility is a perfectly sound one. Certainly, the other polar opposite, in which the man tricks the woman, has historically been more common.
I haven’t seen anyone remotely suggest this. Women have an equal responsibility for what they choose to do with their bodies and the consequences of their choices, but it normally takes two genders to make a baby. Two parents, with equal responsibility for the child. How is that a double standard?
By compelling men to bear some of the financial burden, we are imposing a cost on supporting a baby because of the cost of compelling payment (it’s free to say men should share in the burden; it is expensive to make them share the burden).
I agree that men should be responsible. It doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to force them. If a man resists enforcement, we’ve actually increased the cost of childbirth on the woman. She has to pay 1) for the child, 2) taxes to support the system, and 3) the cost of seeking payment (time, money for a lawyer, etc). This is far more expensive than just making her support the child.
Forcing men to pay to support their children will help most women, but it will also hurt some women. At best, they would only pay (1) and (2) when dad skips and can’t be found easily, (3) simply being too expensive.
Anyone who thinks this is optimal needs to step off the soapbox. It may be optimal, but it isn’t an obvious conclusion.
I really think a lot of non-custodial parents and friends of non-custodial parents really underestimate the cost of having a child in the house: they think the sum they send each month entirely covers the cost of the child’s expenses + a little mad money for the mother. The way a kid just nickels and dimes money away is hard to comprehend if you don’t live with them (not to mention the huge expenses like childcare).
But she can place the kid for adoption to avoid that 18 years of financial obligation. The man certainly can’t insist on the kid being placed for adoption just because he doesn’t want to pay for the kid.
Personally, I do think that anyone who chooses to have heterosexual intercourse is accepting the chance of being responsible for a resulting child, so I don’t have a problem with men paying child support. But then again, I also am opposed to abortion, so it’s not like I have a double standard: I think everyone needs to make their decision prior to conceiving a child. I do think it is inconsistent to say women are entitled to abortion but to tell a man who doesn’t want a child, “Tough shit! You shouldn’t have had sex!”
(Unless, of course, you feel women are too weak and stupid to be as responsible for their sexual choices as we expect men to be).
If one really does believe in the right of someone to not have to be responsible for an unwanted child, then it does make sense that men as well as women should have that right, and I do think levdrakon’s “trimester” to decide would be the most fair way to apply it.
Hypothetically, the way I could see it working would be this:
During the timeframe that abortion can be obtained, the woman would have the right to make a child support claim against any man or men who she believes might be the father.
If one of those men chooses to accept the child support claim, then all is well (perhaps then paternity testing by amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling could be done to avoid situations where the guy is duped into paying for a kid who isn’t really his). If he rejects the claim, then he is released of responsibility for the kid and then the mother could still choose to have an abortion if she can’t afford to take care of the child herself (this would also address the concern of taxpayers ending up supporting the child in the father’s place, if we then decided that, having chosen not to abort, she has accepted financial responsibility for the kid and can’t expect financial support for it - just as we don’t allow people to demand welfare payments to help them take care of pets, yet still prosecute people who neglect or abuse their pets because they chose to take on the responsibility).
I think that such an approach would be fair and consistent.
Of course, the real world is not fair, and in reality such a plan would never actually be implemented. Emotions often trump logic in public policy, and as a society we have an emotional reaction to the idea that children’s quality of life might suffer because of their parents’ rights and freedom to make decisions like this.
Men get one chance to decide whether they want to father a child - the decision to have sex.
Women get two chances - the decision to have sex and the decision to carry a pregnancy to term or to abort.
Even if there were some miracle of medicine that allowed men to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth, it would still be unfair, because you can’t force a person to undergo a medical procedure, even one that would transfer an embryo from a person that didn’t want it to one that did.
And the reason no one’s telling women to keep their legs closed if they don’t want to get pregnant is because none of the women here are whining about making responsible choices about sex and procreation.
Yes, enforcing the law costs money. That’s why in another post I mentioned enforcing visitation isn’t simple or easy. You might find that enforcing laws that compel men to pay support is a lesser burden on tax dollars than 18 years of supporting the child.
I think you’re mistaken. Yes in some cases the woman must pay to pursue support. She can decide if it’s cost effective. In many cases a single mom is receiving support from the system, which in turn seeks money from the legally responsible father.
Often men do skip and don’t pay for years. Sometimes they’re found and sometimes they’re not. In one case a man avoided paying for decades but when he got older and returned to his home state , thinking they had forgotten, he discovered they hadn’t. The financial obligation doesn’t go away. If a man wants to build a real life he eventually has too pay up. It also costs something of a more personal nature when the people you have close relationships with find out you’re a dead beat Dad.
It sure isn’t a perfect scenario by any means but there may be a good reason those laws are in place.
Nobody is saying women should be less responsible. We’re saying when pregnancy occurs both are responsible. Isn’t that so?
AS several have already pointed out, Since the biology is unequal the choices won’t be equal. There are already plenty of men who father children and avoid their parental responsibility. Imagine how that number would increase if men could father as many children as they like and just make a declaration of, “Don’t want it”
The comparison of infants to pets is nice.
It hardly seems like a fair and consistent approach.
You might find that discouraging reproduction by only focusing on moral responsibility is more expensive than just supporting the kids for 18 years, who would then go on to pay taxes for another 50.
She can’t decide to not pay the tax, which, point of fact, increases the cost of having a child. This is true whether or not it is successful in achieving the ends. To me, there aren’t enough children. Imposing more costs on having them is dumb.
If the cost of having a real life is too high because of this, then, whoops, we’ve hurt ourselves a third time. First, by taxing a mother to raise child support for her we can’t deliver. Second, by taxing the man we’re after. Third, by discouraging this cheapskate from contributing to society in other ways that we might, after all, find beneficial.
I’m sure there are reasons, and that the reasons we have are better than no reason at all, but to my mind we’re not quite at “good” yet.
That’s the thing. It’s not equal, and even if we gave men a trimester’s worth of time to decide, it still wouldn’t be equal or fair, because once a woman has a man’s sperm, she can do what she wants with it. The least we can do is be a little more fair to men, even though it wont be equal.
The argument “there are already plenty of men who … avoid their parental responsibility,” isn’t fair either. I don’t have the numbers, but how many women opt to terminate or otherwise give up their kids vs. the number of men who “avoid their parental responsibility”?
This isn’t quite true. If the father refuses to sign away his parental rights, the baby cannot be placed for adoption without his consent, even if he doesn’t have custody of the child.
In other words, both parents have to agree to the adoption. The only reason we have the idea that it’s always the mother who makes the choice for adoption is that typically the father in these situations is already long gone.
So if the mother wants to place the baby for adoption or doesn’t want to raise the baby and the father doesn’t, then the father can get full custody of the baby and force the mother to pay child support. Just because the mother gestated the baby it doesn’t mean that the father can’t get custody of the child…it’s just that in the vast majority of cases the father is only too happy to allow the mother to have custody. If the father doesn’t want to pay child support he can try to get custody of the child himself, and then find out which is more difficult: having custody or paying child support. The only right the father doesn’t have is the right to decide on abortion.
I think society, through the law and court system have tried to consider the rights of the people involved and considering the reality of how biology works. The care and needs of the child and the rights of the two parents who usually bare equal responsibility in the conception.
I don’t have the stats either and I’m not sure how that relates. If a woman decides to abort the man has no legal say. It’s her body. If she decides to give the baby up he does have a choice. He can petition the court for custody. Note that in an attempt at equality the father bares no responsibility if then child is given up for adoption.
My point was, that even now while men have legal obligations, far to many avoid them. If we gave them a legal out to easily avoid any financial responsibility my guess is even more would father children they didn’t want because they could simply say “No thanks, that’s your problem” I doubt that a good thing for society in some attempt to be “fair” to the male population. We can say that the mom is responsible for the child but are we as a society willing to let these children suffer hunger and sickness in order to teach the mom responsibility? If not then who pays the bills Mom can’t afford. Once the children are born society has to decide what kind of support we’re willing to offer. It might be interesting to research the history of child support law and find out the legal reasoning behind the laws.
Perhaps we can have an income level that single women have to meet before we allow them to keep their children. If you don’t make at least 20 grand a year the child is put into the system for adoption. Maybe we could legally force people to adopt only from the US. That would help.
Are you talking about when the woman wants to abort and the man wants to keep and raise the child? Assuming artificial wombs were available and the transfer procedure wasn’t riskier than an abortion I would have no problem with forcing transfer on her. Of course then we’d have to decide if a she should be forced to pay child support.
What are peoples opinions of safe haven laws like Nevada has, for dropping off unwanted children to be raised in foster homes?
Or a single mom(or dad… i suppose its happened) putting a child up for adoption.
A single mother has ample opportunity to absolve herself of responsibility… She can, at any point, decide that she no longer wants to have it. She can keep her legs shut. Use birth control. Get an abortion. Place the child up for adoption at any point after its born.
The guys only choice is keeping his dick in his pants. I would add use protection, but even if he takes every reasonable precaution, and it fails, he’s still on the hook despite the fact that his use of a condom means he didn’t want a kid.
The disparity of choice strikes me as completely unfair, with the woman calling all the shots, and the man having absolutely zero choice, once the act has been completed.
As I understand the laws of California, a woman can name the father of her child, and if this record isn’t challenged in court within a certain length of time, the named individual is the father of record. He owes child support, etc, even if he’s not the actual biological father of the child.
At least one CA legislator has proposed a mandatory DNA test as part of the birth registration process. If you wanted to name a man as the father, you would have to prove that he was the father. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be any legal obligation on the man’s part.
As to the question in the OP, someone has to pay to raise the child, and if it’s not the man who provided the sperm, it ends up being the tax payers.
You fcked her, you pay. Don’t wanna pay? Don’t fck her.
What I find objectionable is the strategy, which seems to be all too common, of letting the bad boy father your kid, and letting the nice guy pay the bill.
The only men I’ve known who paid child support were fathers who wanted custody of their kids but were denied. These aren’t deadbeat dads, they’re good fathers who just split up with Mom and lost custody of their children.
Real deadbeat dads simply don’t pay child support, court order or not. I agree that it is a waste of time and money for our legal system to try and fail miserably to force losers to financially support their kids. Social pressure seems to do the trick just as well. In other words, as far as I know, the only guys who pay court-ordered child support are guys that would pay anyway.
I’m not quite sure what this means. Of course we want both genders to be morally responsible, and it’s good to teach that but history shows us that children will be born out of wedlock and have needs. That costs us. If we raise another generation of boys who avoid their parental duties and another generation of girls who keep having babies society must support then it’s an issue we must address.
What tax are you talking about and exactly how does it increase her cost of having the child?
Please clarify. Aren’t enough children,…in the world, or what?
A child being born into the world has needs and that imposes a cost on someone. The question is who will be responsible and what do we as a society do about it?
I’m having a hard time following your train of thought.
My “real life” comment was about men who avoid child support by skipping the state or working under the table, but then want to settle down and live a more traditional life. They may well eventually have to pay for the support they owe. I’ve also seen at least one case where a married man didn’t bother to tell his wife about the son he avoided supporting, so it hurt when the lawyers came knocking and she found out he was a dead beat dad.
Society is asking fathers to contribute by paying their share of the financial burden of having a child. If they actively avoid paying it is they who are placing an additional burden on society not the child or the Mom. If they want to contribute they can do so by being a responsible adult.
Perhaps not, but let’s not forget it is irresponsible people who place the extra burdens on society. These laws are needed because people are imperfect and it’s imperfect people writing and trying to enforce the laws. I’m waiting in these threads for good alternatives. Got any?
Assuming artificial wombs were available and the transfer procedure wasn’t riskier than an abortion I would have no problem with forcing transfer on her. Of course then we’d have to decide if a she should be forced to pay child support.