End Mandatory Child Support From Fathers

Ellie,


You raise some interesting points. I think the biggest issue I have with the current abortion laws and the current thoughts on abortion are that they are completely outdated. Medical Science, while still barbaric in many respects, has made many leaps and bounds since Roe V. Wade. The current ultrasound technology gives a view into the womb that was not possible 30 years ago. It is clear that even at 8 weeks a fetus is in a humanoid shape and not the ball of cells we once believed. We can see more about the fetus and its abilities and "intelligence" in the womb. This means we need to take a new look at some laws.


I think that unless there is some clear cut way for people to be completely free of all responsibility people will still want fetuses terminated, even if they can be removed at 8 weeks (and I choose 8 weeks beause you must be 8 weeks since last menstural cycle for a surgical abortion) and grow to maturity elsewhere outside the mother. I choose to believe this because late term abortions still exist. I will use the example of "a fetus so deformed it would have no quality of life and die shortly after birth" since that is semi-socially acceptable justification for a late term abortion. That being the case, the realities of an abortion 2nd or 3rd semester abortion is that the mother’s labor is induced. It is the only way to dilate the cervix enough to remove a fetus that size. In partial birth abortions (rare but not illegal) the infant (I will use infant because it is infanticide, the former fetus is at an age that is would be an infant is the head was maybe 3-6 inches lower than it is at the time of the procedure, ahh the different a few inches make as most men know) head is puncture and the tissue inside removed, then the child is delivered. Why is this necessary? You are not saving the mother from childbirth nor labor. If the infant is removed via c-section, the mother is saved labor, but not delivery. If the infant is so deformed, why not let the infant be delivered and offered no life support and let it die naturally? Well, you can’t because that is against the law in most states, because well its infanticide. That would also make the parents responsible for said child, and the parents may be unlucky enough that the infant may live longer than expected.


I used that rather graphic example to make a point. Even if it was possible to remove a fetus early in pregnancy with little discomfort to the mother, many people would still not choose it. You don't want to move on with your life only to have some stranger with your DNA knock at your door, to satisfy their need for closure.


The greater issue is that, life only has the value that others can place on it if they are in a position of power. The life of a fetus is only worthy of saving if the parents want to save it. We are all forced to pay for people who decide they want to be a German Shepard and give birth to litters of 4-8 babies at once and for the million dollar each Dr bills for said children. Yet, another premature baby of the same age is not worth saving and its life has no value unless the parents (in the USA, Mother) says it has value. We learned this lesson with Terri Schiavo. Her life only had value if certain Drs and her husband said it had value, when they decided it do not, she was no longer human and was just property to be destroyed. Its nice to see than some ideals of slavery (being less than human 3/5ths) have still survived history and liberals are keeping them alive and well. Lets say a big “hooray!”for the latest historical twist on oppression.

Well if that is the case, then such technology might eliminate the need for abortion. A woman could have the child removed and place it in an appropriate surrogate.

This is a hard question because it gets inot the point of when deos a life become a life? Technicaslly bateria are livig beings, but I don't feel like I commit genocide everytime I clean my bathroom. The law, as it is, is the product of debate on this point. In making the rulings the courts have made about when abortion is legal, the courts have considered this very issue. As does the legistalture in making laws.

In general I agree with the science that suggests that a foetus is not truly living until about the third trimester. I suppose that other theories or facts could alter this by a few weeks, but I do not know enough about the scientific debate.

As it happens, I am a Buhddist and think abortion is morally wrong. However a moral choice is one that can only be made by the individual in question. As a legal choice, society has to honor the woman's right to self determination over her body, only superceded by the childs right. If the court says that a child has rights at conception, that may end abortion, but it will never increase the father's rights. Prior to the child being legally a child, it is simply part of the mothers body.

I suppose ultimately, If I have sex with a woman who would not consider my wishes with respect to aboritions, then I have made a mistake in who I am sleeping with and the shame is on me, not on her.

I think you are right, Eboni. But the big question is, when this happens, and there is disagreement, how should the law resolve it ? Would there be any reason to allow one parent to overrule the other, as now ? If the physical inconvenience and danger to the mother could be reduced to zero, is there any reason her wishes and emotions should let her choose death for the child, ignoring the desperate protests of the other parent ? I think not. Shouldn't we lean towards life and love, not death and non-existence ?

I would rather people lean towards life and love but I feel that people will think their right over their genetic material more important. If someone does not want a child of theirs on this planet, is ti fair to force them to hand thier DNA over to another? What if their DNA is more valuable than another persons DNA (that day is coming)? Will this person be compensated for the use of their DNA? Will an agreement be available that the giver of said DNA's identity never be reaveled to the offspring? I think peoples personal and privacy rights will win out in this battle.

Yes, but its not merely a question of what she could do. Nor even of what she should do. We are discussing what, if anything, the law should prevent her from doing, or force her to do. If there should be a law which says what should happen, with criminal penalties, if the parents are in dispute. You clearly think not. I think maybe so, if technology meant that the saving of the baby could cost her not much more inconvenience than a visit to the dentist..


As I have said before, I personally think the law is utterly wrong to take this into account. If the child, uninterfered with, could then live a healthy life, then I think that is enough to create some rights, even if not for it. This is all you need in order to know beyond doubt that its destruction is a wrong to every one of its family circle who may wish to love and cherish it. Only if no-one wants it do you come down to thephilosophical question of whether it wants a life itself. Which I guess is what you are considering with this point. Personally I'm pretty damn sure, if it could express a view, what it would say. You doubt it?


But why? If there were only the merest 5 minute inconvenience incurred by allowing the child to live? Why this "has to" ? Where does this come from ? Certainly not God. Or evolution. You seem to be stuck, Jake, if you don't mind me saying so, with some sort of excessive faith in, and belief in the rightness of, the authoritarian institutions around you. They were all made, and are staffed by, mere men and women like ourselves, Jake. Not infallible. Revisable any time the majority so wishes. Look how suddenly we lost our rights to "no imprisonment without being told the evidence against us", and "having a fair and open trial by our peers". Rights fought for by our ancestors over centuries. Gone in a flash. Don't tell me our laws are right, sacred, and can't be changed. I fear your posts seem to show excessive and inappropriate respect for authority, Jake.


"never increase the father's rights." ?? Where on earth do you get this conclusion from, Jake? Is this a personal prediction ? And how about "Prior to the child being legally a child, it is simply part of the mothers body". Are you stating what you see to be the current legal position ? We all know it. So what ? We are discussing whether it is just, and what affects when the foetus does legally become a child. If technology were to make it viable almost from day 1, should it then legally become a child straight away, and get the full protection of the law? Is that your position? It's all totally dependent on the moment when it is viable, able to survive outside the mother? This huge moral question totally dependent on advances in technology ?

If that is your position, then you would give it rights from the word go, and presumably would be happy to inflict penalties on the mother if she refused this simple life-saving procedure, and had it killed? Seems right if you agree that it is (in these circumstances) legally a child, doesn't it?Killing it should be an offence. Yes?



Can't you see jake, that this is an apallingly sexist and unjust viewpoint ?

If you wanted to be fair, you would have to say to the woman:
" If you have sex with a man who would not consider your wish to have an abortion but would want to bring up the child rather than have it aborted, then you have made a mistake in who you are sleeping with and the shame is on you, not on him."

Why are you so totally unable to comprehend the concept of treating the genders equally, Jake? I just don't get it. Again and again you come up with totally gender-biassed sentences, and you don't even seem to notice.

Just like men were so totally blind to their own exploitation of women before feminism and the gender war. So many of them just couldn't see it when it was in front of their nose. You seem the same the other way round.

Treat the genders equally as far as it is possible, unless there are OVERWHELMING and UNARGUABLE reasons why you cannot.. Every sentence you write involving gender, try swapping the genders round and see if you support that too. If you don't but could - Alarm Bells !

Gee, Eboni, I dont know what to say to that. You introduced a whole bunch of totally new factors it never even occurred to me could be relevant. What a way to look at it ! Child as technical and copyright property. I'm struck dumb.

Are you serious you'd like us to consider this viewpoint ? Or are you teasing ?

This is not my viewpoint. This viewpoint already exists and has for a very long time. Hitler wasn't trying to create the perfect race for nothing. With more and more genetic engineering (there are companies the help you test tube conceive the child of the sex of your choice), people with good genes will be more valued over people with poor genes (that already happens, its called sexism, racism, ageism, homophobia, etc). White Americans will travel around the world and spend tens of thousands of dollar to adopt a foreign child before they would consider an African American child in the USA. Some babies are worth more than others, because remember value of life is just a perception and all life in this world is not equal. People will good genes will want to protect their genes and the gene pool (Jim Crow laws).


Same trick, different bag.

Well, I guess its certainly interesting.
The question of a mothers right to abort against the will of the father was clearly very relevant to whether a father could withdraw from child support (the thread topic).
Do you think perhaps if we pursue your latest posting maybe it would take us too far off topic ?

Why not start a new thread on genetic engineering of human offspring and its potential to introduce whole new vistas of discrimination and segregation?

I think you may well have something there.

Wow. I don't know what planet you live on, but I want to move there. In South Carolina child support is an extra paycheck that women spend on themselves and themselves alone. They expect the ex-husband to pay for medical insurance, and anything else that the child support supposedly goes to.

I know plenty of guys who have been dumped in favor of a man with fresher credit cards, and nobody down here seems upset when she starts teaching the children to call the new guy "daddy". (Except for the real daddy, of course, but he doesn't matter down here because he's evil until proven otherwise.)

People give lip service to "it's for the child", or "based on income", etc. But for some reason the same paycheck which used to support a family of four in a big house won't support a single man alone after he's paid the child support. In South Carolina, if you're a man, then you can get a second job to eat and a third job to avoid living in your car. Meanwhile, your ex-wife is going to Myrtle Beach, Florida, and anywhere else she wants to go with her money, her new husband's money, and YOUR money. Oh, and she leaves the children at home with their (maternal) grandmother if possible.

There's nothing wrong with the concept of child support, but the system is really messed up in many places. After seeing this happen to other guys over and over, there's no way I'd marry a woman in my home state. Maybe some other place, where the laws are less insane, but not here.

Eboni: On your point about people traveling around the world to buy babies rather than adopting here in the US. I don't think it's so much about racism as it is about the prevailing view in US law that says it's best for a child to be with the biological parents. That means frightening uncertainty for adoptive parents who may go years loving and raising a child just to have that child snatched out from under them because the biological parent/s had a change of heart. Watch "Losing Isaiah" for a dramatic look at this situation which occurs far too frequently in the States. In the end that money they are spending in other countries is buying peace of mind that they will be able to keep that child.

On the abortion counseling thing-I'd like to see more *pre* op counseling. I think if the women really knew the grim reality of what they were about to undergo a great many of them would choose life.

Neehai: I agree that your partner should be able to put whomever he pleases on his insurance. On the other hand-are you honestly blaming pro-lifers for your inability to provide health insurance for your child? Aren't you a government employee?

-Kiamat Dusk

Um wow ellie, you slam me pretty hard as sexist. The basis of my comment was not in gender equality is was putting me in an example. I personally am a guy, and for me to have a child it would necessarily invovlve her being a woman. If she would not take my views inot account then I would say we have a fundamental miscommunication, and that maybe i am in a relationship that does not share a mustual respect and understanding of life goals. the point of my example was that two people in a relationship need tocommunicate with each other about important issues, like each otehr s feelings on abortion. This is not a gender sensitive statement, if I were in a relationship and did not take the feelings and wishes of my partner into account then I would say she is in a bad relationship. I fail to see how insisting that a realtionship that lack communication is a problematic realtions is a sexist position.

If you ask me what the law should do, personally I think it is a good law now. ther ea re many laws I challenge and fight on an every day basis, so you assertion that I cling to this position because I am excessively attached to the institutions is a bit over the top. I simply disagree with you that the law needs changing. I don't think we need to expand the law to include the vague interests of "the family circle." Presumably it is in the best interest of the child to have as complete a family as possible. The law accounts for this already. So if we are talking about a viable child, then the family interests coincide with the legal interests of the child.

So my point about the father's right not increasing is related. If the foetus is a child then the father has all the rights and responsibilities of fatherhood already. If the foetus is a body part, then the father has no rights.

Before the foetus is a child, it is legally a body part, and it is treated as such. I am fine with this. If you ask me when a foetus does in fact become a life well that is simple, from the moment of birth. But what I beleive and what the law should account for are two different things. I do not beleive we should legislate morality. The current argument is that, based on a variety of reasons viability begins after the second trimester. I think part of this involved cognition or the potential for cognition, but I do not know. At the moment I am comfortable with this defintion from a legal grounds (though as I said personally I do not belive in aborition). So in a very real sense yes, I can for see that technology might very well indeed deepen our understanding on this point. As you noted the law should be dynamic and changeable. If we develop a different understanding of when viabiltuy occurs, then the law should adjust.

I think the right of the woman to choose what is done with her body is sacrosanct. As I stated earlier, we would not force her to give up a kidney, or prohibit a doctor from removing a tumor. It is her body and the choice of what medical procedures she undergoes are hers alone to make. This is hardly a reactionary position, or a thoughtless one. It certainly is not a sexist one.

Neither her kidney nor her tumor are self aware, sentient individuals. What you're saying is, that right up until that umbilical cord is cut, that baby's life is still at the mother's whim. Sounds like a typical guy cop out. I bet the ladies fawn all over you when you hit them with that sacrosanct line.

-Kiamat Dusk

Um Kiamat, I don't think your thinly veiled personal attack is at all justified here. Uncalled for sniping is not a subsitute for reasoned debate. Ellie and I may disagree, but she has not, at least attacked me (well maybe by callig me sexist, but I think that my remark, could have been read as sexist, though that was not my intent).

I never argued that until the baby's ubillical cord is cut it is at the mother's whim. That is not the case unde rthe the current law. As it happens, the foetus legally becomes a child before self awareness, at least thats how I understand it. I simply take the position that the law is fine as it is. Obviously I am pro-choice on this issue, as I place a premium on individual freedom and responsibility.

My position is well reasoned and hardly a cop out. I at least of thought about this issue and am not relying upon a knee-jerk prolife response and latent hostility to define my legal stance.

( Hasn't read any other post but the first one)

Overall you make a good point, but then again I am a male and I know the view is gonig to come way differently from a female.

Then why was Scott Peterson tried for double murder?


Why do we have to pay to save the lives of 2nd and 3rd trimester fetuses? The difference between and 2nd and 3rd trimester fetus having the rights of an infant (human) is only a few inches. Viability occurs during the 2nd trimester at 23 weeks, the 2nd Semester ends at 26 weeks. Also, still even with ultrasounds and all of "modern" medicine, it is still difficult to predict accurate gestational age in fetuses. The law is greatly outdated to reflect current medical advances.



And for the record I am not pro-life, I am pro-choice with the sound scientific and moral limits. There is no reason for late term abortions since the woman is still induced into labor and is still giving birth. I see the great need for early abortions to remain legal. Once in my dorm this girl threw herself down the stairs to try and induce a miscarriage.

Eboni,

As I noted in my post, if scientific evidence alters the acceptance of when viability occurs I would think the law could be changed. You do point out that the distinction is narrow, brightlines are hard to draw. But altering the point of legal viability (the child is legally a child well before birth as you implicity state) does not alter the rights afforded under the law, it simply changes the point at which the transition is triggered. Persubaly before viability it is still the mother's interest in her body and after it is still the child's best interests that are controlling. This is the part of the law I was referring to when I say I am comfortable with the law as it is. I see no need, or basis to introduce a third set of considerations into the equation.

I don't know enough about the science to debate at what week the transition occurs. I have said as much.

Well damn SL ae my edit.

the gist of it was:

Criminal statues, particularly murder statues have very different interests incorporated into them than the abortion laws. Scot Petersen was tried under a statue designed to make a death penalty charge stick.

I don't know if there is a viability compnonet to the statue petersen was tried under.
I think petersen's child was close to term.
the law may well creat a presumption that a murdered pregnant woman would carry the child to term, since we will not know her choice.

Abortion is a medical procedure, and is not, under law, murder, so really we are comparing apples and oranges. (yes I know the pro-life position is contray to this point, we will have to agree to disagree. I don't need ten million posts telling me I am wrong on this point.

In essence Eboni you and I are are on the same page in terms of early or late term abortions. This is not inconsistent with my position as a buddhist that abortion is morally wrong. This is an issue, in my mind of legal necessity and practicality. The moral aspect is bet left to the individual.