End Mandatory Child Support From Fathers

Yes they can! For the last time, let me quote Chris Rock, "PUT THE DICK DOWN!"

Women have the same option, Hiro.

-Kiamat Dusk

And?

*bangs his head on the desk....

After conception, only the mother has the right to opt out of parenting. A choice she makes for BOTH parents, btw. The father should be able to opt out of parenting AFTER conception as well. Otherwise, he should have some sort of veto over abortion SO LONG AS HE IS LEGALLY BOUND TO TAKE FULL CUSTODY OF THE CHILD AFTER DELIVERY.

-Kiamat Dusk
...hears an echo

How can you say that men cannot opt out of parenthood and then follow it up with saying that they can give up all parental rights? Is that not opting out of parenthood? You then follow it with the statement that you're unsure if giving up all parental rights relieves men of their obligation to pay child support. It seems to me that that would be an important piece of information to know, as your entire argument hinges on its answer.

If men can give up all parental rights, which then relieves them of their obligation to pay child support, then this whole thread is moot. Although, to be honest, I would like to know what your definition of "legally opt out of parenthood" is.

~Ulrika~

Kiamat, there's nothing you can do about the fact that babies grow inside a woman. Yes, they have a second opt-out. (the first being both can not have sex)

If you don't want your girlfriend to have an abortion, you should consider her views on the issue before taking the risk.

I do, however, think husbands should have the right to veto an abortion unless medically necessary.

This is why I start these threads in the first place. The opting out of parenthood thing was something another poster brought up. I don't know if this also prevents the father from having to pay child support.

However, you're right, if this is the case, the whole thread becomes moot.

-Kiamat Dusk

Absolutely! I agree. Under no circumstances do I think that the choice to terminate a pregnacy be taken away from a woman.

However if she decides to bring the pregnacy to term and keep the child against the wishes of the other party then why shouldn't she be responsible for the child? I agree completely that just having a kid isnt some handicap that prevents you from being successful in life. (At 17 years old I had two to raise [my younger brothers] after my mother died and I did it.)

Having a choice in anything brings about a responsibility for that choice.

There was a time when women did not have a choice, nor did they have the opportunities that we have now to work outside of the home. Abdication of the responsibility that couples those choices will ultimately surrender the ability to make those choices.

I'm not saying that sometimes people don't need help, I am all for paying taxes that go toward college education for single mothers and for assistance while they go to school.

I am not however, in favor of paying taxes for a woman who sits on her ass all day watching soaps and pumps out 3 or 4 kids from different fathers subsisting on the child support and welfare payments. If you don't believe some women do this, then IM me and I'll introduce you to my brothers ex wife - who pisses me off so much I can barely speak with her.

.

The inequity in discomfort and inconvenience between male and female during pregnancy and childbirth normally lasts only about 7 to 8 months after its discovery.

This does not justify allowing one parent to kill the child of the other, who may be desperate to love, cherish, and support it. A parent who may even have conception difficulties, so that this is their only chance of parenthood ever.

If either parent wants it to live (and will take responsibility), it should have that right.

The brief inequity can be addressed other than by death, for instance via financial compensation.

I think its a bad road to take to argue that becuase women can have abortions that we should encourage them to.

By telling her if she has the baby but the father can choose to opt out of Child Support becuase he didnt want it,

You are putting one more reason in the NAY column for allowing the baby to be born.


If the woman is already uncertain and trying to make up her mind...

For a woman who can or thinks she can suceed this will matter less. For a woman who isnt sure how she will afford the baby. This might matter a lot.

I am trying to think in conjecture. Im not trying to say there would be any way to quantify this.

But women ARE placed in this situation now, but they at least know there would be child support. IF the state can manage to make the father pay. Im not saying the women cant suceed. Im saying that some wont. Im saying others will not want to take the risk.

When I was 19 and pregnant I chose to keep my daughter. Abortion wasnt even something I considered. But I can understand other people might have different situations in life.


----
I understand that a big part of the motivations of Kiamat in making this thread is to make us think about abortion. Basically it seems like hes saying , If you want fathers to pay for support than you shouldnt have the ability to end the pregnancy.

The fact is Abortion is legal. So its really seperate from how you deal with support of children that are unwanted by their fathers.

I guess you aren't addressing me, Collette, since I don't want either parent to escape from taking responsibilty for the child they have created together.

But I think the mother's responsibility includes the transitory inconvenience of carrying it to term.

And above all I find it APALLING that the law gives a mother the right to kill the fathers child against his will, even despite his desperate wish, and proven capability, to love and care for his child and give it life. Maybe in a few cases the only child he can ever have.

Please someone tell me - how can that be right ? How can 8 months inconvenience weigh that heavily in the scales? Giving the right to unilaterally deal out actual Death to a child which is part of someone else? Its an obscene travesty of justice in my opinion.

Surely it is the existence of this dreadful imbalance of power that gives fuel to the claims that fathers should be able to opt out of child support? Remove this injustice, you demolish their argument. So it does interact with what you are discussing.

Law to allow father a say would be absolutely unenforcable

The form where the fathers name for the abortion the pregnant woman would simply state "Unknown"

Wrong, sorry. If the father is aware of the pregnancy, and is present and claiming this right, a compulsory DNA test from a sample can now establish his right to be consulted, without any uncertainty.

Even if you were right, what sort of moral status would that give the woman? Post- abortion testing of the foetus could determine if she lied in denying his fatherhood, and could thus lay her open to the prosecution she would so richly deserve if the law had been changed to remove this terrible injustice.

Any one who acts illegally can lie to cover up their disobedince, but forensic science can often determine the truth, even if after the event, and expose the perpetrator to such penalties as may have been decided upon in the legislation.

You can't say "this is bad, but lets not make it a crime because people can lie and try to cover it up". Technology is making justice and retribution more possible in all sorts of ways not possible before, Colette.

Forget practicality though. What is your moral position, Collette ?

Do you think this is an injustice worth trying to correct, if possible? Or are you utterly committed to the belief that the 8 months disturbance to the woman's body gives her the absolute right to choose probably-about-90-years-sooner Death for another persons potential son or daughter ?

There are not going to be , in the near future , paternity DNA tests for children in early pregnancy.

Thats totally impractical even if the technology exists. If I remember right a DNA test For a LIVING child's paternity is over $500.

Besides the fact that the woman that will file "UNKNOWN" wont be telling the father anyway.

SO unless your going to give every potential abortion a DNA test and search in some database for likely fathers .. The mother Can and Will put Unknown.

It happenes all the time now on Birth Certificates. Its a fact, I cant change it. I know Women who have done it.

No its not Moral. You dont make laws to impose morality. You make laws to protect property, health and lives. Since Abortion is legal this makes protecting the unborn baby from it moot. Reguardless of how you or I feel about Abortion.

So is abortion is legal , it has to be the woman's right to choose what happens.

No in my earlier post I wasnt adressing you , I was adressing the topic.

No I dont think the laws should be changed from what they are. I am not going to say I agree with Compelling women to bring children to full term.

Im not in favor of allowing fathers to opt out of child support either.

Although many seem to think im misguided, and many seem to disagree.
Id like to point out that a good portion of abortions and a MAJORITY of children born to unwed mothers is in Lower Income cases.

The birth rate alone is higher for people below a certain income.

So making a system and plan in place assuming certain advantages to the parents is too idealistic.

you Have to have provisons in place for the following ---

-The mother MAY NOT even know who the father is. IF she does she certainly will attempt to say UNKNOWN if she feels she must.

-The mother may or may not want or even able to afford an abortion. Shes even less likely to be able to afford a DNA test before a child is born.

-A woman who brings a child to term may not be able to afford the baby wiothout help.

-The Father Will likely not pay child support

Beleive it or not this is kind of why the System exists the way IT ALREADY DOES.

Yes it would be nice to reduce the ammount all this is necessary. Im all for trying to reduce unwanted/unplanned pregnancies before conception.

-----------------------------------------
As far as my moral position , I made it quite clear that I didnt even consider abortion when I had to decide what to do.

I personally dont think abortion is right.

But im very much not able to say im going to force other people to believe that.

------------------------------------
The best current way to reduce problems related to unintended pregnancies is to increase Education and to teach people not to take risks when having sex.

Hmmm .. so .. wed need the following

the early term baby test that is-

-Cheap, less then $50
-Easy, since to be that cheap would have to be a nurse to do it.
-Fast, since this is a pre abortion test after all.
-Safe, can not harm either the developing unborn, nor the mother in any way.

Ohh and when you extract the childs DNA since this mother claimed unkown -
-The ability to compare the childs DNA against all potential fathers, so basically any male over the age of 18? 16? 13? So all men will have to compulsory register their DNA. ((Thanks guys for helping out. Big Brother has a lollypop for you.))
<- the woman giving a list of possibles wont work since if the father doesnt show up, youll have to ask her if there were others?? lol >

No of course its not moral .. so what? Women will do it. They do now. Is no way you can prove she KNEW , even if you can prove who the father was.

-----------------------------------------------------
my moral position is Abortion is wrong, But im not going to impose my morality on others.

No im not in favor of changing the laws as far as whether a woman decides.

If theres problems due to the fact women have the right to chose then =
Address abortion directly as an issue. Or Educate people so theres less unwanted pregnancies.

Sadly, I guess you-re right in a good proportion of what you just said, Collette.

But I still think there are particular cases (and they exist) wher the father knows, turns up, places an injunction, offers and proves he can provide a home, pays for any neccessary test to prove his involvement, and supports the mother through the pregnancy (just financially if that is all she will accept). In those particular cases it cannot be right for the law to support the mother in her choice to kill.

I know this looks like goodies for the richest fathers only, but it can be amazing what near penniless parents can do in emergency, like finding funds for a surgical operation. You might be surprised how many fathers would try, perhaps with financial help from their own parents, who are blood relations too. This may be their last chance of a grandchild of their own blood.

I think that if the law took this position, even in the face of substantial practical hurdles, and high profile cases were publicised, and the fairness issue discussed, even in the households you describe, opinion might swing round to letting dad have it if he really cares that much.

Like you say - the value of education.

You don't think just establishing the principle, and having it debated and argued about on talk shows, might slowly have a good effect ?

At the moment just about every channel of communication tells the pregnant lady you describe that she is queen, her word is law, and any dissenter is either a criminal bully, or a religious freak..

I did a paper on gender and the poverty gap for a college so I did remember reading an article stating men with children had more income than women with children. This was the only online article I could find. I know there are more in journals.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3770/is_199701/ai_n8737123

In general, divorce results in serious financial conditions for most children. However, those living with custodial fathers are less likely to be in poverty than those residing with mothers. Data collected by CPS (Scoon-Rodgers & Lester, 1995) reflect that mothers with children from an absent father have a poverty rate two-and-a-half times that of their male counterparts and four times that of all married-couple families with children. In Spring 1992,13% of custodial fathers, 35% of custodial mothers, and 8% of married-couple families lived in poverty (Scoon-Rodgers & Lester). However, Shapiro, Schrof, Tharp, and Friedman reported in 1995 that "some 46% of families with children headed by single mothers live below the poverty line" (p. 39).

I am finding this discussion interesting. Hope it is still going when I am done with work.

Hold on - what happened ?

A whole long post of yours Colette, dealing with likely lower socio-economic scenarios and their impact on what would in practice happen in such families - the post I was replying to at 9:02 - has now disappeared.

This makes discussion very difficult. I've not encountered this before. Must be a bug in the software. Or else I'm going gaga.

The missing one is your reply to mine of 6:43 my time (no86). The one to which I was typing my reply (of 9:02 no8 when yours of 9:00 (now no87) arrived. We must have been typing at the same time. So there is no missing sequence number. Very odd. How can a whole long post, with its sequence number (shall we call it 86a?), just disappear ?


Hmmm.

Unless someone has it via email, and could repost it for us ?

In case (a), Jack would also be able to go after Jill for child suport. This is the year 2005 and plenty of moms are paying support to the dad. It's the custody part that is still hard to accomplish for the dads still.

I think anyone who beleives that women casually have aboritions is serioulsy misguided. I think anyone who beleives that abortions should be relegated to the back alley is hopelessly without compassion. If a woman makes the choice to have an abortion, she must live with the consquences, but for gods sakes don't send her back to the alley with a coathanger where she can die with the kids. I don't think I could ever have an abortion, but I think if people make that choice, they should be allowed to do so safely. Certainly a woman who is raped should not be required to bear the child of the rapist?

I think that its foolish to think that every woman who gets pregnant and requests child support is simply out to trap a man. I rather think that more often than not men want the sex and not the child. I would even say that its maybe 1 in 10,000 of women collecting child support who has a kid just to trap a man. Simply put if you Fuck, then you should expect that there is a possibility of a woman getting pregnant. Thus if you don't want the kids, go online and have avi sex, or buy a playboy.

I think the notion that anyone can opt out of parenting is sickening. Its bad enough that people do it anyway, but the law does not need to allow it as an option.

...and so on.


I'm truely surprised at the number of people recommending abstinence in this thread, not because it isn't a fine method of birth control, but because of the implication in these posts that if Jack and Jill have sex and Jill gets pregnant then it's their own damn fault and they should have thought of that beforehand. While this is certainly true if neither of them is using any means of contraception it's my understanding that we're generally talking about cases where pregnancy occurs DESPITE the use of contraceptives. Birth control is a numbers game, most people are aware that no matter whether they are using condoms/the pill/ an IUD or a combination of methods that there is a slight statistical chance that pregnancy will occur. Driving is a numbers game too, everytime you get in a car there is a slight statistical chance that you will be injured or killed as a result, yet if Jack and Jill went for a Sunday drive and ended up in a fiery crash I cannot imagine that anyone would say they should have thought of that beforehand and abstained from driving if they didn't want to end up maimed or dead. Indeed most every activity in life carries some risk or other.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into these abstinence advocating posts, but it seems to me that the only reason for such an attitude towards what is only one slightly risky activity amoung a myriad of everyday risks is that sex still carries with it puritanical moral baggage when indulged in for pleasure rather than for procreation and so some people feel it is appropriate to place more blame on those who are unlucky enough to have to deal with the consequences of erotic hedonism than they would those who indulge in more morally acceptable recreation with a statistically similar risk of unwanted - but forseeable - consequences.

I think you're reading too much into the abstinence advocacy posts.

I think your analogy to driving is not applicable because reproduction involves an potential baby. If I was driving a baby around, my driving behavior would be altered - I would drive slower, take greater precaution, etc.

"Been around the world and found that only stupid people are breeding. The cretons cloning and feeding, and I don't even own a TV" - Harvey Danger, "Flagpole Sitta"

Mmm, drive it slowly baby..

I wasn't talking about driving with babies, I was saying that having (protected) sex and driving are both activities that involve the risk of unwanted consequences but most people consider the level of risk to be acceptable enough that they will do them anyway.

Right but my thought is from the moral argument "since sex could in fact involve a (potential) child, it ought to have greater care taken and more responsibility with it than an activity where a child is not involved"

That post you refer to was only up for 2 minutes.

After reading it I decided it was a bit inflamatory and not so much what i wanted to say. I didnt feel 2 minutes was significant in a non Real time discusion so i changed it considerably.

The Gist of the post you are refering to Ill outline below
----------------------------------

By allowing fathers to opt out of child support, It will add one more in the NAY column when a woman decides whether to carry a child to term.

Considering the majority of women in this situation will be from lower income situations. Just looking at the Birth Rate alone will show that births are more common in lower to middle incomes.

Therefore many of the women making this decision already have a hard enough choice. And it will make it harder for them if they know they will not get child support.

Additionally laws should not be made to impose Morality. Laws are to protect property, privacy, health and life. And reguardless how anyone may feel about it, becuase Abortion is legal , the health and life of the unborn in the case of abortion are therefore moot.

I feel the best way to address the situation of unwanted pregnacies and their consequences is through Education and access to birth control.

--------------------------------------------

As best I can remember thats the main points. It really was a coincidence you managed to read a post with such short a life , sorry about that.