End Mandatory Child Support From Fathers

Further I have the following thought on the father's rights to stop a woman from having an abortion.

I think the whole concept on abortion is that the unborn (at least to a certain age) does not have a legal status seperate from the mother.

Becuase of this, then the father does not have any claim over that unborn since it is part of the mother.

Again I say if the objection is abortion should not be allowed then address that directly.

In the situation where the father is willing to pay for everything, and take custody after the child is born. And allow her to sign away resonsibility, It would be a pretty heartless woman who would go ahead and abort the child.

Like a previous poster said. No one makes the decision to abort easily. And weighing 9 month of discomfort vs a lifetime of regrets id think would favor the child being born in the case Ellie described.

ROFL!!

[sarcasm] Harvey Danger is the first place I would look for insight and wisdom.[/sarcasm]

I do like the song though.

In other activities the consquences don't need food, love, attention, housing, eductation, recreation for 18, or more, years. The distinction is that a kid does not ask to be born, but deserves the support of both parents. Any argument that marginalizes the child in this situation is really, fundamentally absurd, in a logical and ethical sense.

I don't want to be unfriendly, Jennifer, but your post beautifully displays the sort of double standard, combined with woolly thinking, which has given rise to the injustice of fathers having their babies legally killed, despite anything they can do.

"I rather think that more often than not men want the sex and not the child."
Isn't that just as often true for the women? How apallingly prejudiced!

Anyway , we are not discussing who thought what at the time of conception. We are discussing what to do when the pregnancy is a fact, and everyone has to decide on action. This is a new, maybe unexpected situation. Suddenly both men and women see the reality of parenthood, of a little innocent life that must live or die, be loved and protected, or cast into darkness. Suddenly they grow up. See things differently. Agonise over responsibilitoes, and right and wrong. Maybe for the first time. Both of them.

Even if this wasn't the case, and men did "not want the child more often than not", what has that got to do with justice, or framing a law ?

Laws aren't framed on the basis of what happens "more often than not". You could say that when a man has intercourse with a woman, it is "more often than not" with her consent.
But the law is hugely concerned with when it isn't with her consent, even if its only once on 10000 times. Its a horrific crime with terrible penalties.

You see what a ridiculous thing you said?

Even if it were true that men happily consent to the abortion of their children "more often than not" it doesn't stop us examining whether it is unjust for the abortion to go ahead when the father is kicking and screaming and begging to be allowed to have his child and love it.

The law could decide that in these circumstances a father could at the very least be allowed to make his case to the court. At present he is told "she can kill it if she likes, get over it".

You say
"Simply put if you Fuck, then you should expect that there is a possibility of a woman getting pregnant."

You would probably agree if I added "and you should therefore accept that you committed yourself to 18 years child support, under pain of law"

I would add "and you should therefore accept that if the father wants the child, and can bring it up with love and care, you committed yourself to 8 months of completing the pregnancy you helped to start, and you must give it birth, under pain of law"

You do see, don't you, that the two are morally the same? One is more painful and physically inconvenient. The other lasts much, much longer and is more financially inconvenient. But morally they are equivalent.

Cut the woolly thinking, and look at it straight, Jennifer.

Don't tell me that if we made such a law, women would lie, or murder the children in back alleys. If this had become a crime, modern forensic techniques could deal with that, and enough women could be caught and punished to deter most of the others.

What sort of immoral argument is that to support injustice ?

And lastly, as the ultimate in woolly thinking, we have:
"I think the notion that anyone can opt out of parenting is sickening.....the law does not need to allow it as an option"

But you see, think about it. The law does allow it as an option. Right now. Exclusively to women.

Its even worse than that. It doesn't just let them opt out of responsibility and payment as the child grows up. It allows them to prevent a child, that is part of someone elses flesh, from ever cuddling the dad that wants it, or even growing up at all.

This isn't a side issue. This is what most here are talking about. What they are objecting to.

Maybe I misunderstand, and you do in fact mean this last sentence, for both sexes, and agree with me that this is apalling injustice. But from the rest of your post the opposite seems to be true. Thats why I use the word woolly. Sorry.

A murderer is pretty heartless too. We don't say so, shrug and turn away.
Laws are made by men, on the basis of what they consider just, fair and practical.

This one could be changed if enough people thought it should.

Until recently, though it might have been considered unjust and unfair, it was simply not practical. We couldn't even determine who the father was, and had to rely on what the mother wrote on the form.

Like having to take a burglars word on who owned the things in his swag bag.

But no more. Forensic science can give us all the answers we need, very soon if not now.

So for the first time, we have the possibility of deciding it solely on morality and fairness.

To many of us that answer seems obvious.

I hadn't spotted this incredible thing in this quote.

You know, I think this is all a bit like the early days of feminism. When the men were so indoctrinated in the belief of their own superiority that even the ones who thought of themselves as most enlightened just couldn't see the injustices which were right in front of their noses.

Collette, you very nobly concede it might be ok if certain conditions are met. First two are fine and fair.
But your last condition And allow her to sign away resonsibility, ?????

Do you include financial responsibility ? Why, in heavens name ?? Half the thread has been people pointing out how disgraceful it would be for any father to expect this.

So your willing to maybe concede a huge injustice, and let the child live, so long as you can keep a smaller injustice, and not make the mother pay child support?

You see the parallel with what early feminism struggled against? Has it got to come to a "masculist" movement, and 20 years of gender war before men get equal treatment?

Will it similarly take the first 10 years of the fighting before women can even see clearly that injustices actually exist ?

Was my take of your own scenario , i thought thats what you meant.

Look I made it clear .. Child support difficulties are not a "slick" way of trying to get people to say abortion is wrong or right.

If you want to outlaw Abortion .. FINE just say that.

The man in your situation if he wants the woman to pay child support is yes , of course doing the same thing a woman would be doing. The big difference I already stated

Abortion assumes that the unborn is not a viable child seperate form the mother. Thats the whole basis whereby they can get people to accept to do abortions anyway.

You make it clear with using the work kill rather than end or abort you dont agree.

Well fine, then rally to outlaw abortion.

As it stands now the reason a woman has the right to chose is its her body. The unborn is part of her body, and she can choose to abort.

TAKING this into account .. It would be a heartless woman who would abort seeing as the father basically agrees to adopt out his own child.

Notice i didnt say change the law.

It would .. laws being as they are now .. be less reasonble for a mother to abort the child if the man agreed to take custody and pay her child support. It would be a good reason to bring the baby to term.

Again i didnt say to change the law.

Now then ... assuming you get abortion changed, this is a whole different discussion.

Abortion as i understand it legally does not call the unborn below a certain age a baby .. thus you arent killing it.

You may not like it , I dont like it actually. But thats how things are.

I think the problem is this .. Im arguing from the frame of refernce of how things are and whats reasonable with the current system as a frame of reference.

Many are arguing based on the idealist notion of "how it ought to be"

so of course im going to seem not to be playing by the rules or whatever, were not talking about the same thing.

I'm very pleased to see the civil, intelligent discourse going on in this thread.
As someone pointed out, my intent was to get this kind of conversation going-not to be inflammatory. I wanted people to start looking at this issue in a broader view.
Yes, ultimately, I would like to see abortion outlawed (except in the case of medical neccessity) but if I simply started a thread that said "Abortion is Murder" the outcome would be predictable. Everyone would retreat to their party lines and we'd have a shouting match.

Again, kudos to you all (or kit kats if you prefer).


-Kiamat Dusk

Interestingly enough the Supreme Court will be revisiting the abortion laws this fall.. High Court to Take Up Abortion Case in the Fall

You all are looking at this from the WRONG perspective. I was married and my wife was pregnant. I came home from work one day and I got a simple "Hi Honey, How was your day? Had a nice trip? Oh BTW I got an abortion today." You tell me that has to do with DICK CONTROL? that was MY BABY TOO! Why couldnt I have had a say in the decision process involved here? All your opinions on this are so damn biased, try living it. Fact here is that i now dont have a 10yo child next to me. I just have a bad memory of what happened. The next day was alot better though. I got home from work and gave her a simple "Hi Honey, How was your day? Nice time at home? BTW I went to the lawyer today during lunch, can you sign these divorce papers please?"


EDIT:
Honestly I dont think ANY member of the couple should have the right to force an abortion under any circumstances. I DO however think that either father/mother should have the legal right to BLOCK the abortion. For instance If my evil X wife didn't want the baby I should have at least been able to say well, YOU spread your legs now you will at least carry the child until birth and then I AND the child will be out of your hair for life.

Well Frankly I think this post is turned into a should the father have the right to block the abortion thread? I had thought the thread was about child support.

Look people Abortion is not illegal. It is currently allowed under law. It is is currently the woman's decision. Men simply don't have any legal right to a say, because it is still the woman's body.

I suppose if you have sex with someone and get her pregnant and she does not want the child and you do, then maybe you should have talked about these things prior to conceiving, or prior to having sex. Relationships are all about communication and sharing common goals.

The time honored and applicable legal theory here for fathers is the doctorine of "tough shit." Since abortion is a medical procedure prior to the third trimester, it fall squarely under the "things done to a person's body" category. A husband cannot prevent a wife from having a kidney removed, or a tumor, and thus a husband cannot prevent a wife from having an abortion. All arguments about a foetus not being a kidney are really irrelevant at the moment, because in the eyes of the law, these are still procedures done to the woman's body.

This is the crux of the debate about when the foetus becomes viable. Noone wants to protect the fathers interest in having a child, the rights in question are the mothers interst in her body, and the childs. Period. Double standard? Maybe. Overwhelming social policy in favor of mothers and children? yes.

Once the child is in fact concieved and born a father has only two things he can be certain of: he will have to support the child, and absent extraordinary circumstances, he will be afforded reasonable visitation. Once the child is born, then the law's interest lies in seeing that the child is adequately supported and cared for. The mothers rights and the fathers rights are secondary.

It is true that either parent can terminated thier parental rights and, if both do, the child can be up for adoption. The law strongly discourages fathers (or mothers) from unilaterally gving up parental rights to avoid support. Once this is done, it is impossible to undo (or may as well be).

Another aspect that was not really touched upon here is the fact that an overwhelming number of welfare recipients in america are single mothers. When a father pays child support to a woman on welfare, this money is paid to the state to partly reimburse taxpayers for the welfare expended. Mandatory child support ensures that at least some money will go back to the state instead of requiring the state to take more from the tax payers.


I noticed that in savaging another poster. Ellie made a remark about not discussing what should be expected as a consequence of sex, but rather what to do after the child is conceived. I think this position is worng. the time to discuss family planning issues is before you have sex, before you get married, before you have kids, before you get pregnant. Once the child becomes an issue, then you can no longer avail yourself of the law, because the law is going to protect the child. Communication and understanding will eliminate unexpected suprises (like radically differening views on abortion), and who knows, it might make the sex better too.

Oh dear, Jake,

Hadn't you noticed that a lot of discussion here is about whether the current law is unjust, based on unfair assumptions, and whether it should be changed.

To post saying "This is how the law is, so shut up" is ridiculous in the context of such a discussion. We know how the law is. Thats what and why some of us want it changed. Thats what we're talking about.

Where do you think these laws came from? On high ? They were made by people, after thinking about issues of morality, justice and practicality. They could be changed totally any time the majority felt strongly enough.

I think they need review, simply because something has changed. Justice need no longer be overruled by impracticality. In the past the father (unless he was the husband) was left out of these decisions because until about 15yrs ago there was no certain way of knowing he WAS the father. Thats why the law became the way it is.

But now its all changed. If there were enough DNA paternity tests being done (like every baby, for instance) a test would probably cost $5. Right now the price is falling.

Well actually, you are wrong there, Colette.

When I talk of what happens to animals in slaughterhouses, I use the word "kill". That doesn't mean I am a vegetarian.

It means that I want us to face up to the reality of our decisions, not avoid their full implications by hiding behind euphemisms.

I agree that, with a very small foetus, if you put aside religious belief, you could argue that its level of self awareness is such that no-one could claim it will know that it is being killed, and that a whole long life it could have had is being taken from it.

But its relatives (eg father, grandparents, sisters, brothers, uncles) - they may know it.
As one grieving father just pointed out, for them the decision to abort or not to abort has no philosophical subtlety.

Decide one way, they have a flesh and blood child to love, care for, interact with, have fun and laughs with, watch grow up, have children of its own. Filling their life with joy and companionship.

Decide the other way. Silence. Emptiness. No little person to love and have love back. To teach. To protect. Just an overwhelming feeling of loss that somehow you failed to protect that which it was your duty to protect.

Maybe the child doesn't know what has been lost, but those who wanted it sure as hell do, and may be psychologically damaged for life.

Yes, the mother feeds it in her womb, like a vegetable plot, but its flesh is half its father's from the beginning, and that doesnt change.

But no. I am not seeking to ban abortion. Only abortion of children wanted by their very close relatives. If a child has the misfortune that none of its close relatives want to love it and give it life, and since the overall society cares not to reach out a protective hand, if thats what everybody close to it wants, and what the majority of the rest of society wants - then OK, kill it.

But realise that that is what you are doing. You are taking from it and those around it, the whole long life which without intervention, naturally, it would have had. Thats the only definition of killing I know. If you have to know you are being killed for that word to apply, think of so many adults who wouldn't know. Can we kill them ?

Personally I would like to see adopters given a chance more often, but I can't really argue for forcing two reluctant parents to give their child to a stranger. The loss of your own flesh is quite different from not getting your hands on someone elses. That would be dubious in itself.

As a final point. Many people in our cultures believe that abortion is intrinsically wrong, and that to collude in it or cause it would be a very serious sin. A mother who feels this can avoid having that sin on her conscience for life. But a father ?

My point is that its no good being wise after the event, and discussing what should have been done. And that the very act of discovering the pregnancy will usually have a profound effect on both parents, often (particularly if its their first child) causing a radical rethink of all relevant attitudes and beliefs. These shifted responses should be respected, not dismissed. Both. Not one overriding the other, but a rational, just compromise.

Well ellie, you may be right, it is no good being wise after the event. People should be wise before the event. Afterwards it is too late to fix it.

As I said I operated under the assumption that this thread was about mandatory child support. Of course laws can be changed, not always with respect to what the majority want, thats why we have a constitution..presumably to keep the majority from electing a hitler or some other such nonsense.

It is a mistaken assumption to beleive the child support laws evolved the way they did because of the role of the man and woman in society. Most of Title IV (the federal act that mandates child suport was rewritten in 1994, at a time when cheap DNA tests were available. Child support is not defined as mother and father, rather it is defined as cutodual parent and non-custodial parent. The non-custodial parent pays the custodial parent child support. It doesn't matter what the respective genders of the parents are under the law. If dad has the kids, mom pays child support. If custody is split asolutely equally between the parents, no child support is paid, unless the custodail parent is on welfare.

Overwhelmingly, meanining something like 98% of the time, the custodial parent is the mother. I don't know why, but it is the case. There are groups advocating father's rights out there, who wish to reverse the prejudice of the courts against the father having custody. In my own expereince this prejudice is not the result of the law, but rather the result of prejudices inherent in the Judges and Social workers involved in custody determination. However, in terms of child support the eyes of the law are gender neutral.


We turn now to abortion. My point in outlining the position of the law with abortion was to make the laws position clear, so if you wished to change the law you could argue at least the points on which the law is based, and not the reasoning behind saw Judaic Law stating Judism passes through the mother. In point of fact the current laws regarding abortion have very little to do with it being easier to determine the childs mother than the childs father.

The law, as I said looks at it this way: Until the foetus is legally viable, it is basically classified as a body part of the mother. Once the foetus is viable, then it is its own being and the courts will always look to its best interest and not either parents.

You can alter the timeline as to when the court call the foetus viable, but that will not give either parent a greater voice. If the foetus is not viable then the law considers it a part of the womans body, and the law will not, nor should it, give any person authority over what a spouse can or can't do with the other spouse's body. If a child is dying from kidney failure, neither parent can force the other parent to donate a kidney.

I am not dense. I know you advocate that a father should have some day. I disagree. To me there is no in between ground to maneuver in. You obviously cannot affect anything after the foetus is viable, because then the child's interest is controlling. Prior to viability I don't see how you could create some narrowly tailored exception to the right of the individual for self determination. To give the husband authority would be something like, in my opinion, making a pregnant woman chattel-a breeding cow for the whim of her husband (yeah there is some prejudice in using the terms husband when in acutality the father of the child could be a man she does not know). We hold and individulas right to self determination sacred. In this case the fathers wish to have a child does not outweigh the womans right to self determination.

Which brings us back to the core point upon which we disagree. You seem to think the law should accomodate poor family planning after the fact, and I think there is no excuse for poor family planning prior to the fact. You see the law as insensitive and in need of change and I see our hypothical couple as irresponsible.

There we go again Jake. Don't you see that the law does "accomodate poor family planning after the fact". It does exactly that right now. But only for the mother.

Yes, you are right, the "viability" thing is where we differ. For me the test is not whether it is viable yet, but whether, if not interfered with, it would grow to be a full and beautiful human being. And whether a close relative wants to give it life.

So may I ask you one thing, Jake ? Since viabiliity seems the critical point for you (and the present law).

If in a few years time it becomes perfectly possible to remove the foetus almost as soon as its presence is detected, and for it to then thrive, either in glass or in a more willing surrogate, would that make abortion unacceptable? If it could be viably removed almost from day 1 ? Say at three weeks, when its presence is only just being suspected. Seems impossible, but so did heart surgery not long ago.

What do people think ? When (if) this happens, would abortion become unacceptable ? Or would we find other reasons (for the mother to want it dead) rearing their ugly head.

Like "I want it dead because otherwise I might be burdened by feeling love for it". Or "the dad might run out of money and try to make me support it" . Or "I dont want it but I'm gonna make damn sure he cant have it".

You think human hearts are so perfect that none of this ever enters in at all ?

We would see, wouldn't we, if technology gave us week 3 viability. Find what the real factors were in these particular types of decision, which one of you has so aptly defined as "heartless".

*stands up and cheers for Ellie....

Thank you for your eloquence and unflinching conviction.


-Kiamat Dusk

For that matter, why don't we put money into a "Sperminator" that detects the presence of unfertilized eggs and sperm and eliminates them, and circumvent the moral debate altogether? (unless you are into believing that every sperm is sacred...)

Speaking of sperm....

Given the position that it takes two to tango, can a sperm donor be held liable for child support? Is there something in the contract that prevents this, or is it simply that no one has thought to try?

-Kiamat Dusk
Asker of weird questions...

I am fairly certain both sperm and egg banks guarantee:
- Anonymoty of the donors
- All clients sign legal waivers of support rights

Of the government just nullified my relationship with my partner, thus denying my child the healthcare benefits previously available in my relationship. Now I can't afford medication and proper medical care for my child.

If the pro-life crowd cared as much for children after they leave the womb as they do for them while they are in the womb, I might consider their arguments valid. As it stands now, I don't.

If the Pro-Choice crowd cared for women as much as they claim to care for women, then abortion might not be the horrible life scarring event that it is.



Shouldn't a good pro-choice campaign offer some post counseling? How many Pro-Choice women’s groups are there that actively campaigns for post abortion stress counseling? How many truly campaign for choice? How many campaigns for birth control methods that aren't gross synthetic hormones, or body mutilation? When will the pro-choice movement ever campaign for class and racial equality in birth control choices and facilities? Currently as it is stand in my opinion the pro-choice movement at best is guilt of gross neglect, misconduct, and short sighted view when it comes to women’s fertility and at worse, passive genocide.



So if we are talking about groups that don't care about people. Pot. Kettle. Black.



And to be fair....

I find it interesting that so many people will claim pro life, and they are willing to adopt "any child", but they will travel around the world and buy a baby in china for $20,000 USD, before they will adopt a black child in the US that the government will pay them for until he child reaches maturity.


Most people don't give a rat’s ass about other people, they do whatever is comfortable and easy for them. I don't think anyone deserves to be on some ethical high horse in these matters.

Ebony and Neehai

Whilst I really do empathise with the situations you both describe, we are talking about justice and legislation here. Tales of bad behaviour by individuals or groups, unless they are supported by laws we could change, are not too relevant.

You cannot deny justice to everyone in a group because some members or supporters of that group behave badly, unfairly, or irrationally to others.

Think where that would lead. Where it did lead in the past. Justice cannot judge your case on how some other people (which someone thinks are like you) have behaved. Thats mob justice. Used to lead to lynchings.

Even if the entire "pro-life crowd" were a bunch of monsters, it wouldn't affect the underlying moral issues at all. Or my own independently formed opinions.

Interestingly, as a result of huge pressure from children who have grown up to feel their fundamental rights have been violated, some European countries have reversed the anonymity thing for new donors. There is even some talk of retrospective release of information, where records exist to make this possible, on the basis that the rights of the child overrule even a prior contract to the contrary.

Can the state contract to deny such a right to an innocent (who has no say in the matter at the time) ? Could be argued either way.

Just watch Oprah or other similar programs to be amazed how deep this need to know your biological parent can go. I even cry myself sometimes when I see such meetings, though I cant really say exactly why.

Anyway - of course numbers of willing donors dramatically reduced in these countries. Women now just hop across a border to get their sperm.

Much more importantly than all this, I would like peoples response to my question, because I think it lets us get at the fundamental issues and sort out clearly the things we each believe. And because I don't think it is just hypothetical, because I consider that in 10, 15, 20 years time we may be in this situation for real. This revealing question is:

If technology made every foetus viable from the time it was discovered, under what circumstance would you consider it acceptable to terminate its life ? ie what should the law on this be at that future time?

By viable I mean it could be removed from its mothers womb without damaging her, as soon as she is certain it is there, and then grow healthily elsewhere and live.

Its a hard one, but it really forces you to clarify the issues in your head. Even the issues that are live right now in the present.

Anybody brave enough to answer ?

I gotta think hard about it myself first.