You know what’s just a bad? The state enticing an unmarried woman into making the “choice” to bear an illegitimate child or keep, rather than make available for adoption, an illegitimate child with the promise of a cornucopia of welfare entitlements, then going after the so-called “biological father’s” income for reimbursment of those expenses.
Wait a minute. You’re not saying that my taxes don’t go to support these women and their children…are you? We all admit, that I am paying for this guy’s kids. Do we agree on that?
As far as not having to pay for them, where on my tax form do I get to “opt out”? When I do get have free health insurance or my mortgage reduced, because i have a kid and no man? I don’t? I have to pay my taxes and my health insurance too? You mean the government won’t help me, because I didn’t create a kid and run?
I love it…it’s immoral to force a man who actively created a life to take care of it, but moral to increase my taxes to pay for what he won’t do. Immoral to steal from John’s biological father, to feed John, but moral to steal from Peter’s father to feed John.
I guess, life’s not fair…
I never said they should get public assistance. I said that the person who chooses to be a solo parent and support a child on their own should do exactly that. Meaning nobody but the person who chose to have the kid pays for the kid.
You’ll probably hear me called heartless, or call me heartless yourself, because I don’t think that anyone should be forced to bear the costs of another person’s choice. That is the reality of my position on this. If you (general) choose to have a child no one else wants, you (still general) have chosen to undertake the full and total responsibility for all support of said child.
I absolutely hate hearing the things I do from people I see at work every day about child support, as in the ‘I screwed him good. I get over half of his take-home pay directly from his employer because his check is garnished.’ or ‘How dare he think he can only pay $1,500 a month in child support. I can’t live on that.’
I concur with catsix, and perhaps even Razorsharp (except for the whole liberal-bashing thing).
There are two distinct choices here: the choice to have sex, and the choice not to abort. The first decision is made by both partners, and leads to a pregnancy; the second is made only by the woman, and leads to a child which needs financial support.
Holding the man responsible for the consequences of a choice he didn’t make is, in my opinion, an inappropriate shifting of responsibility. The claim that he should be forced to support a child for 18 years because he had sex is no more valid than the “pro-life as punishment” claim that the woman should be forced to give birth because she had sex.
Both parties should be held responsible for the direct consequences of their own decisions, not the consequences of decisions made by others at a later time.
“The world ain’t fair, so suck it up” is a poor excuse. We’re talking about the law here. The law is what we make it, and if it’s unfair, we have the power and duty to improve it.
OK, Mr.2001, what law would you propose to make the situation more fair?
i can respect that. But in the real world, somebody is going to pay for that kid. That’s it. Society is not going back to the “bad” old days of workhouses. We meaning you me and everybody else on this board will be paying for that kid.
If somebody’s going to be paying, i don’t see how the father shouldn’t bear the brunt. If he didn’t want a kid, he should have his ‘tubes’ tied. He didn’t. Condoms break, girl’s lie. If he didn’t want a kid, then do whatever it takes to assure that he wouldn’t get her pregnant. He didn’t.
He willingly tied himself to her, i don’t see why I should have to pay out of my pocket to cut his chain and put one around my own neck.
She don’t want the kid, she gets rid of it, not my problem anymore…she wants it, it’s his. He should have chose a better girl.
My question to you is, who’s paying him or you? Sorry but opting out is not an opinion. Somebody is going to pay, Him or you?
A hypothetical: a woman gets pregnant and doesn’t want the child, but doesn’t want to pay for an abortion, either. She sloughs the child off on the father, who she is not married to. The court orders the mother to pay child support to the father. Is the court “stealing” from the mother?
Who made the decision to bring the child into the world? Who took on the voluntary decision to raise a child? Who has to live with the consequences of someone elses choice? The court, in the legal vernacular, doesn’t give a rat’s fat ass. Once a child is here, the court has one concern, and one concern only: the “best interest of the child.” Stop speaking in terms of “the mother’s rights” and “the father’s rights.” That’s not the law. If they can be both be ascertained, both parents have a duty to support the child. Period. Neither parent has any rights which outweigh the best interest of the child. Period. That’s the law. Don’t like it? Don’t fuck.
Speaking of a woman’s right to an abortion at the same time you speak of the state’s interest in maintaining the well being of children is confusing two totally separate and very different areas of the law, one which leads to bizzare consequences where a woman has a duty to have an abortion if the man doesn’t want the child, and her failure to discharge this duty absolves a man of his duty to pay child support. Once the child is here, the law doesn’t care about petty domestic squabbles about who was more culpable in bringing it here. It cares about the best interest of the child, and nothing else.
You keep saying the “father” is the one that should pay. Why not the mother? Or better still a fair and equal split of the financial responsibility. And don’t even try to say that child support is based on a fair and equal split.
Er, no. The law does not let people take, for example, bone marrow from an unwilling donor, even if the donor is the father. (I think. IANAL). Now, this is a stupid analogy for child support, I know, but it does demonstrate that the law cares about more than the best interests of the child. The parents have interests, as well.
Here in Virginia, sodomy is outlawed. Would you say to the esteemed homosexual members of this board (and Esprix) that if they do not want to face fines and legal repurcussions, they should also not fuck? Laws are not just simply because they are laws.
No, not stupid. In terms of the law of child support and child custody, it’s irrelevant.
The fallacy of ignoratio elenchi is committed when an argument purporting to establish a particular conclusion, (like “Don’t fuck if you don’t want to have to pay child support for any children you might have as a result of the process, because the law will favor the best interests of the child and not you”) is instead directed to establishing a different conclusion (like “Don’t fuck if you don’t want to be jailed for sodomy”).
The fallacy is that the presumption of unfairness is unavoidable. I agree that once a baby is born it must be provided for. The question is by whom? If it is not economically feasible for a woman to support the child, isn’t she selfish and irresponsible for forcing her wishes on others, should she choose to deliver? Isn’t the justification for abortion rights, privacy and to have others not make your decisions for you? What gives her the right to make decisions for me?:smack:
Since no one else has answered this simple, yet oh so hard question, then Philly Style, what do you think the laws should be on this issue, to make things as fair as possible?
You’re assuming that after the birth of the baby the court is or should be concerned with your rights, or the mother’s rights, or what have you. It isn’t. The court is concerned with the best interest of the child and the duty of both parents to support the child as it relates to that interest, and not much else. The decision of the mother to have the child and the father’s lack of choice in the matter is irrelevant for the purposes of determining what is now in the best interest of the child.
In many cases the State will provide the birth mother’s part of the parental obligation with a cornucopia of social entitlements. Cash benefits, housing allowances, food stamps, Medicaid, etc.
This is kind of weird. Even if we let you get away with calling welfare benefits a “cornucopia” (you sound as though you think people can have lives of luxury and comfort on them, rather than just scraping along temporarily in poverty-but-at-least-not-starvation), how do you figure that that “provides the birth mother’s part of the parental obligation”? Jeepers, she’s still got to feed and dress and supervise and play with and bathe and train the child! I don’t feel anywhere near as sorry for an absent father paying child support as I do for a single mother struggling to raise a kid on a small income.
Yes, you say, but she wanted to do it, and he didn’t want to. Yup, it’s unfair that women get to decide about whether they want to bear and raise a child after the child is conceived. But that’s just the unfairness of biology: it’s her body, and (at least for the first several weeks, before the fetus is viable) she has the right to choose to end the pregnancy. The man is not pregnant, so it’s not his choice.
After the child is born, both parents have similar rights and responsibilities. (The mother is not allowed to give the child up for adoption against the father’s wishes, and she’s obligated to pay child support if the father has custody.)
That said, I agree that it’s morally despicable to use child-rearing as an excuse to extract as much money as possible for selfish reasons from a guy who didn’t want to be a father in the first place. I even think that a woman has a moral obligation not to demand child support from someone who made it clear from the beginning that he didn’t want to be responsible for a child.
But I think the law is quite right to focus on what’s best for the child instead of what’s morally fairest for the father. In practical terms, a guy’s only real protection against unwilling fatherhood is a) good birth control and b) not sleeping with women who are morally despicable or who don’t agree with you about what their moral obligations are.
(Speaking of moral obligations, I don’t much care for the “well I shouldn’t have to pay taxes for other people’s kids” selfishness either. Even if you don’t agree that it’s worth spending some of your money to help provide a decent life for all children, in purely practical terms, today’s babies are going to be working-age when you retire, and wouldn’t you rather have them helping pay for your Medicare than uselessly consuming your tax dollars in prison?)
I think you mis read what was said. The “cornucopia” was referring the the amount of entitlements (4 were listed, but there are many more as well), not how much money she gets from them. I don’t think he meant she would get rich from them.
- Woman realizes she is pregnant and tells man.
- Man informs her, and the state, of his desire not to be a father, and pays the reasonable cost of an abortion.
- Woman decides whether to A) use the money to pay for an abortion, B) pocket the money, give birth, and put the child up for adoption, or C) pocket the money, give birth, and raise the child on her own.
(BTW, there’s no dot in my name. I’d appreciate it if you left it out, to make my vanity searches easier. 
)
Actually, Mr2001, I don’t quite see why you consider it “fair” for the man to provide the entire cost of an abortion. Surely in fairness, both partners ought to split the cost?
While I think your scenario is reasonably in line with the “moral obligation” I outlined above, I wouldn’t support making it law. Until and unless we set up a society where everybody shares the financial costs of a basic decent life for everybody’s kids, the law should retain the power to compel a child’s parents to pay for its support, willing or not.
How about the person who wanted to have the kid pay for the kid?
Nobody should be forced to shoulder more than half the cost of a kid and often half or more of their take home pay so that they can financially support someone else’s decision to be a single parent.
Did these people never learn the premise of ‘If you wanted it, you take care of it.’? Someone who has made it crystal clear that they don’t want a kid shouldn’t be forced to pay the way for someone who did want a kid and either can’t afford it or just feels entitled to get free money from someone else.
Requiring the man to pay the entire cost gives him an incentive to avoid the situation in the first place, partially compensates the woman for her biological misfortune, and makes abortion less of an undesirable solution.
I’ll concede that it would be more “fair” for both parties to pay the same, since they’re equally responsible for the pregnancy. But that opens the door to other problems: Suppose the man put a condom on the wrong way, causing it to break. Should he pay more since he’s more responsible for the pregnancy? Ah, he says, but the broken condom wouldn’t have mattered if the woman had remembered to take her pills; are they back to equal responsibility, or is missing a pill worse than misusing a condom?
Better to just avoid that kind of judgment, IMO. The man is already much better off than if he had to support the kid for 18 years.
This is the real issue. The reason women have options and men do not, is not because women have the moral right to choice, and men don’t. The reason is that there is not yet a good option for men.
So what can be done? I am not in the camp of those who say all men should be able to opt out of child support, because if they could I believe there would be more children depending on the state.
However, how about this for a law: If a man has a vasectomy, then he can tell a woman up front that he does not want a child, and if despite the vasectomy a child is born, then he does not have to pay. The reason this would work is that vasectomy babies are rare, and it would not be too much of a burden on the state. Especially since it would cause more men to have vasectomies, which might actually save money for the state in the end.
Idealistically, a man who used a condom would have this same choice. However, in that case you have problems because condoms fail more often and it could turn into a he-said, she-said, about whether or not a condom was actually used.
So what is needed is another form of birth control for men, perhaps a pill for men, that a man can prove he is taking, and then in the rare cases that it fails, the man has the choice to raise the child or not.
So women would always have a choice, and men would have a choice if they were responsible in the first place (using birth control). This is the most fair solution I can think of, and I don’t think it is unworkable.