End Mandatory Child Support From Fathers

Picture these two scenarios:

Jack gets Jill pregnant.

a) Jill decides that she is not yet ready for a baby. It will ruin her college/career/body. Jack says he really wants the baby and is more than happy to foot the hospital costs and raise the child without Jill. But Jill's mind is made up so, with no need to even consult Jack, much less get his consent, Jill runs off to the abortion mill and has the baby killed. Why? Because it's *her* body and no one has the right to tell her what to do with it.

b)Jack decides that he is not ready for a baby. It will ruin his college/career. He's willing to pay for an abortion. But Jill's mind is made up and she has the baby. Then she goes to court and sues Jack for child support. Now Jack has to pay a large chunk of his income for the next 18yrs for a child he never wanted. Why? Because it takes two to tango.

Why, if it takes two to tango, doesn't Jack have a say in the abortion? I say, if Jack doesn't have a say in the abortion, Jill doesn't have a right to child support.


-Kiamat Dusk
Muckraker

A) sounds about right to me.

B) should probably have some sort of 'out' for Jack. Child support payments should only be enforced if a previously agreed arrangement was set forth. For example, Jill and Jack decide to keep the baby, eyes filled with naive joy. Baby arrives - Jack finds out he likes his Mustang Cobra way more than the baby, but he already agreed to be the 'father'. In that case, he should have to pay child support.

Jack and Jill should have considered this before they had sex and either practiced abstinence, taken the pill and/or used a condom.

Agreed, Juro. BTW, we need to stop meeting like this-Neehai will get jealous! Why don't I ever see you IW?

-Kiamat Dusk

Abstaining from sex is a great idea, but not very practical. It's not just teens who get pregnant by accident.

Also, the pill and condoms are not 100% effective. You can still get pregnant even if you were on the pill AND using a condom - rare? sure, but still possible, and I have a nephew to show for it.

Agreed, Ginger. Personally, I'm very anti-abortion (cept the morning after pill), but I already know how *that* argument will go.

-Kiamat Dusk
Guns don't kill people, abortion clinics kill people.

Neehai would only get jealous if I got to spank you.

Unfortunately, I don't get to be IW as much as I like, and usually not until after 9:30 Pacific time.. so alot of the easterners are off to sleep by then.

I'd almost be willing to just to piss him off!

-Kiamat Dusk

Interesting question Kiamat, oddly I was thinking about this myself the other day.

I do believe that a man should be able to consent to whether or not he is going to be responsible for a child that he did not intend to concieve. He should have to commit one way or the other within a short period of time and if he doesn't want the child it is then the responsibility of the woman if she wants to bring it into the world and raise it herself. In the case of men who cannot be contacted I think that the woman can assume that if he doesn't want to talk to her or if she never bothered to get his number then he probably doesn't want to have a child with her. However, I do feel that the man should be liable for half the price of the abortion and the associated costs such as transportation, a reasonable amount of time off work for recovery, extra medical care in the case of complications, etc.

In the case of the man wanting the child and the woman wanting an abortion I agree with the 'it's her body' camp. Carrying a child for nine months involves (or so I'm told) a hormonal rollercoaster, much physical discomfort, and in the case of the unmarried, possible social repercussions. All of this would profoundly affect the education or work of the woman involved and she might never re-establish her course in life after such a disruption. In addition, women do still die in childbirth even in the first world so it involves a certain amount of risk as well.

Its not about Jack and Jill, its about the child...


fen-

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time

The problem is, the amount of different scenarios are as numerous as the amount of pregnancies.

Is there really a way to deal with this (new rules) when every situation has completely different dynamics and nuances than the next?

I have so many friends and relatives that have been caught up in these situations. If there is one thing I have learned, no two are alike, and they are usually no fun, even from my outsider's perspective.

Jack should have gone and played with himself then.

I mean really , why should men be able to force a woman have an abortion, that is literally insane.

And like was said earlier .. if theres no abortion, then its about the child. The child needs that money.

Jack has every right to attempt to sue for cusdody of said child, Ive seen it happen.


Child support is based on income , it wont ruin either college OR career for Jack. In fact hell probably live much better than Jill and his child.

If he stays with Jill it might ruin both, i suppose since it will certainly ruin her college and career for a time.

but if they stay together he wont be paying child support .. after all.

Ack. I certainly wouldn't advocate that!

I agree with Nolan's post, it is difficult to treat them all in the same blanket fashion, as each one has different circumstances around it. It's a sensitive and very personal issue.


Here's what I'd like to discuss:

Let's say that abortion were to become illegal in the U.S., what happens then? Will it stop abortions? No, it won't. Those who can afford to do it, will simply take a 'vacation' to countries where the procedure is still legal. Those who cannot afford it will find some other 'back alley' operation to do the procedure. Still more will place children up for adoption, what impact will this have on adoption and foster care agencies?

The same could be said with having sex with minors.

I think America is unwilling to look its core beliefs in the eye and challenge them. The bottom line with abortion is, "Where does human life begin?" If you can come up with a non-religious way that shows it's before birth, you might have a decent argument with which the US Constitution could be altered to change the definition of a citizen to something more basic than someone born in the US.

You're absolutely right, Hiro. Those sorts of scenarios *do* happen right now.


Even that doesn't solve the problem Hiro. Let's say, for example, that 'life' is defined as the moment of conception, the next question that will come up is whose rights trump whose?

Should one person be able to force another to go through an unwanted pregnancy? Will the rights of the mother be put aside to protect the rights of the unborn child?

That would certainly make for an interesting court argument, but it's one that some folks will not be pleased with the outcome, whatever it is.

As for the first part of this, it's not about "defining" when something happens. It's about scientifically discovering.

As for the latter part, at least in respects to life-saving operations, that's one for the doctors to decide with the mother.


If, and I stress if, an unborn child is decided to be a human life, then what's the difference between that and having a child? Can you kill a 1-year old baby because the mother can't afford to take care of them, and that it'd cause a financial, physical, and emotional burden? Of course not.

What's sad is how I see so many parents not taking care of their children as previous generations have.


Ha, for sure.

I think the real problem is that no one seems to agree on what defines a human life, or even that what defines a human life should be used as a standard at which to protect it.

Personally, i think simply saying being born is a good measure is short-sighted. How does a baby seconds from being born differ from a baby seconds after being born? Especially considering how good modern medicine is, and the availability of safe child-birthing methods.

Of course, I think religious right-wingers have a hard time arguing that a cluster of a couple dozen cells is very human.

*puts on his asbestos suit*

Y'all are missing the real point by a kilometer.

The issue is not the rights of the man or the woman, father or mother. In the real scheme of things, those rights are comparatively unimportant. The issue is the State, and the child - as in, who is going to support the child and raise it, so the State doesn't have to, or have to expend resources to clean up the mess if the child goes bad.

The State mandates minimal care for the child as a way of protecting the child, the public, and the State. The rights of the parents are distinctly secondary. The way in which such an approach is justified to parents and the public is in appealing for the welfare of the child. But the State maintains that the interests of the child and the State are the same, and in many ways they are.

The State's interests in parents who consider aborting a fetus are therefore minimal, so long as the law is followed. If the fetus is legally aborted, no problem. If one or either parent can afford to provide minimal care for the child if the fetus is not aborted, no problem, he or she will be compelled to, in nearly any circumstance.

Understand what I'm saying here - I'm not arguing that this situation is moral, or just, or even efficient. I'm saying, this is the State's agenda, and the State's agenda controls the law involving parents and children.

Since after 32 years in this life alone I have never accidentally had sex, I'm still baffled by how many people seem to manage it! Come on, folks! There are plenty of ways to get each other off that don't require running the risk of pregnancy.

Requiring a father to pay child support is a perfectly reasonable thing for society to demand. Maybe it would make more sense if it was called an Irresponsible Idiot Tax?

And this is a problem why? I had this happen to me. I am not for abortions. I am Pro-choice but do not agree with them. I do not think it is KILLING. I just don’t agree with it in most cases. Abortions is not a form of birth control and that is what my ex-girlfriend did use it as. She had that right and I supported her. I also dropped her a month later over it. It was her right and it was my right not to stay with her.




In most states the Father can relinquish his rights and not have to pay any thing.



It takes two to tango and we all know this. To many people leave it to some one else to take care of birth control. Don’t trust any one. My ex was on the pill. It didn’t work. Well guess what? I then had a rule. No sex unless she was on the pill. No sex with out a condom. ALWAYS pull out. Pills are not 100%. Condoms are not 100%. Pulling out is not even 50%. All three is allot safer. Men have one chance to prevent a birth of a child. A woman has two. Sorry it’s the way it works and we have to live with it. Stop thinking with the little head and start thinking with the big one.

So do I, basically for the reason that "abortion" is a natural occurance in many instances (just ask any woman who has had a miscarriage). Roughly 20% of pegnancies are miscarried naturally (the number is higher in some age groups and lower in others but on average, it's 20%).

Unfortunately, so many people want to take the decision away from the one person who actually has the best ability to judge at what point a glob of cells move from being a glob of cells into becoming a human being. The best judge of that, in my opinion, being the woman herself.

Has it never occured to anyone that perhaps each individual conception might be different? That in reality, no two lives actually develop in exactly the same manner?

It is not always religion that drives a woman to carry an unwanted child to term and it is not always hedonism that compells a woman to have an abortion.

No matter what the circumstances, carrying an unwanted child or having an abortion, the decision is an angonizing one that affects the woman for the remainder of her life. As such, I whole heartedly believe it should be a womans decision and hers alone.

That said, Kiamat makes a very good point about how much legal/financial responsibility should be extended to an unwilling participant in the parenting process. There are not many truly effective methods that men can use to assure prevention of conception (outside of a visectomy) and even visectomies have been proven to not prevent conception 100% of the time.

I think that men who truly are not ready for the financial responsibility of a child need to assume some responsibility for birth control and not to depend alone on the fact that their partner has done this.

I think that both sexes need to be truly educated about reproduction and not just receive mamby pamby booklets about abstension.

I think that birth control should be available over the counter and easy for both sexes to obtain.

If these factors were a reality (which in the U.S. they are not), then there would be a lot less unwanted births and a lot less abortions.

In cases where a woman has done something like deliberately tricked a man into believing that she was taking all possible measures to prevent conception when she really wasn't and the man can prove this, then he should not be held financially responsible. In that case, the decision to have sex on behalf of the man, was made under false pretenses.

Some accountability must be assumed on behalf of the woman when she assumes responsibility for the ultimate decision on whether to carry the child to term or not.



edited to say that I agree with this but probably not in the manner that you intend. In other words, if he offers to pay for an abortion and she still intends to have the child then he should not be held financially responsible. However, her decision to have an abortion cannot be prevented by him.

.

Yup..sounds right. I would hope she would discuss it and take jack's views into consideration, but when all is said and done, it's her decision.




Jack needs to keep his dick in his pants, or wear a condom, if he doesn't want to deal with consequenses. Folks are constantly seeking to avoid responsibility. It does take two to tango, and jack was apparently one of those two.

I do believe, in many cases, child support payments are exhorbitant and sometimes ridiculous. Personally, as one going through a divorce, I want to play a huge part in my son's life and upbringing, and thus am going for shared custody. I have remained on friendly and reaasonable terms with his mother just so things will be easier on him. I will pay more than my share of the cost of his upbringing and education. He IS my son! Any father that tries to get out of the responibility of helping to raise their offspring is pretty low in my opinion.

Dont think this is workable. What if she wants to keep the baby, but hes an abusive bastard and she would be stupid to live with him. He should be able to skate on his financial responsiblities becuase he filed some paper saying he was willign to pay for an abortion?

That is tantamount to coercing abortions.

Theres many other possibilites that would make this unworkable.

The topic of what will happen if she becomes pregnant ideally belongs before sex.

I can think of a lot more "crazy" ideas that would help more than lettign Jack skate.

Maybe instead of seeign Jill, Jack could go see Paula, the governement licenced Prostitute whose pregnancy insurance makes Jake not responsible for any potential offspring.

Maybe Jack could use an addition birth control pill desined for men to reduce the likelyhood of pregnacy shoudl Jill's Birth control and the condom fail.

Maybe Jack and Jill could visit a Sex lawyer prior to dating and both agree to what birth control will be used and what will happen if it fails. Pre Sexual Agreement

=p

Your right, there are no easily workable solutions for something that tends to be a spontaneous human response that arouses chemical changes in the human brain tending to cloud better judgement.

I think that men have three main responsibilities to consider before hormones get the better of them:

1. What is my responsibility for birth control?

2. Do I know this woman well enough to believe that she is really on birth control?

3. What is my responsibility if conception occurs?

A woman should consider the following:

1. What is my responsibility for birth control?

2. Do I know this man well enough to believe that he will help me financially if conception occurs?

3. What will I do if conception does occur?

Realistically, if more couples considered that, there would probably be a lot less unprotected sex. (Probably a lot less sex all together).

Unfortunately, passionate moments seem to preclude a persons ability to think through the consequences of the act. Combine that with each individuals emotional view of sex, lack of general knowledge about body functions and the inconvenience of obtaining and using reliable birth control for both sexes and you have the perfect recipe for a red faced screaming curtain climber and 18 years of child support.

I don't avocate allowing anyone to cast off their responsibility to the curtain climber, but I don't think that just because the woman is the one to give birth, she should abdicate complete financial responsibility for the child to the man. Women, even those that have given birth, are perfectly capable of working.

Share the sex, share the responsibility. A decision to have sex with someone that you would not marry or that you don't know well enough to marry where a conception and ultimately a birth result means that a life style changes needs to be made and it may not necessarily be ideal.

Marriage is irrelevant to the responsibility. A man can be financially responsible without being married and a woman can care for a child while working without a spouse. Is it ideal for the parent or the child? No. But it might be better for both than being chained to a bad or abusive relationship.

I think that it's different though if one of the two parties has been misled. If a man promises marriage (that he does not intend) so that he can consumate the sex act, conception results and she decides to keep the baby then I think he bears more responsibility than if both people have been completely honest with each other.

OTOH - I think that if a woman lies to a man and tells him she is using birth control but is in fact not, then she should bear more of the responsibility than him.

.

So I guess I can expect an absence of checks in the mail from you, you deadbeat!!!