Men should have some obligations, and some decision-making power. As of right now they have the former but not the latter. We need a solution that give men some options, but not without letting them completely off the hook.
To be clear, the reason child support law exists in its current form has absolutely zero to do with either women's rights or men's rights. It has everything to do with children's rights. The child will get better food, clothing, education, etc., if it has two parents supporting it rather than one. From what little I remember of parent/child law (learned it for the bar and then forgot it as quickly as possible), this is how almost all decisions are made. The rights of the parents mean basically jack squat, the court will look to the best interest of the child as the overriding factor.
I'm not saying this is good or bad, but it's an idea that's very deeply entrenched in family law right now. I just want to point this out to those who have been discussing "financial abortions" and the like, since the whole discussion has centered on balancing men's rights versus women's rights. The law pretty much only cares about the child.
Right you are, bitterroot, but in the above scenario (ignoring the morality of pro-life vs. pro-choice for the purposes of this thread) this decision is being made before there is a child with rights at all. Pro-choice focuses solely on the rights of the mother.
In the mirror, pro-life scenario, the child would be the focus from the time of conception, and thus the father would be under the same restrictions as the mother. That is, absolutely no opt out clause, and the FULL parental rights that come with that responsibility.
Right you are, bitterroot, but in the above scenario (ignoring the morality of pro-life vs. pro-choice for the purposes of this thread) this decision is being made before there is a child with rights at all.
Right, but such a contract would be arbitrating the future status of an actual person. You couldn't, for instance, make a contract binding a not-yet-conceived child into slavery on the basis that there are no rights being violated, because at the time the contract takes effect, there will be and it will be violating them.
At the time the terms of the contract actually become applicable to something, that thing is a person.
(EDIT: I'm not saying a waiver of paternity obligations would actually constitute a rights violation; only that if it does, the fact that the child has not been born yet does not make it not so.)
Right you are, bitterroot, but in the above scenario (ignoring the morality of pro-life vs. pro-choice for the purposes of this thread) this decision is being made before there is a child with rights at all. Pro-choice focuses solely on the rights of the mother.
In the mirror, pro-life scenario, the child would be the focus from the time of conception, and thus the father would be under the same restrictions as the mother. That is, absolutely no opt out clause, and the FULL parental rights that come with that responsibility.
Once the child is born, it has rights; a contract between two people (mother and father) cannot bind a third party (child).
To think about this another way, if a father pays child support, that support is directed to the child, not the mother. Yes, the mother's name is on the check and she spends the money, but the beneficiary of that check is supposed to be the child. Thus, the mother and father cannot contract to take away something that belongs to the child, just like bitterroot and hypercube can't write a contract that says "bitterroot and hypercube agree that bitterroot doesn't have to pay his rent to his landlord anymore." Well, I guess we could write that contract, but it wouldn't change my landlord's entitlement to rent.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you in principle here. I'm a huge libertarian and I think more legal issues should be governed by contracts rather than statutes, but the current state of the law is not compatible with what you're proposing.
Right you are, bitterroot, but in the above scenario (ignoring the morality of pro-life vs. pro-choice for the purposes of this thread) this decision is being made before there is a child with rights at all. Pro-choice focuses solely on the rights of the mother.
In the mirror, pro-life scenario, the child would be the focus from the time of conception, and thus the father would be under the same restrictions as the mother. That is, absolutely no opt out clause, and the FULL parental rights that come with that responsibility.
Once the child is born, it has rights; a contract between two people (mother and father) cannot bind a third party (child).
I think the issue here is that it is not entirely true in all cases. It is possible to setup adoptions, sperm donations or surrogates in such a way that a biological parent has zero legal responsibility to the child. If I go donate sperm 16 years from now a teenager with my DNA cant just show up and demand their child support money.
Realistically how different is it for the child if mommy got a sample from a cup or from a drunk guy at the bar? Why does the child lose that support in one case but not the other?
Normally, I don't. I personally am totally ok with people who are against abortions but encourage the use of contraception. While I might not agree with their position, at least it makes sense. The people I tend to take issue with are those that adamantly believe life begins at conception.
I believe that life begins at conception, and am in favor of allowing contraceptives that don't include an abortificient effect. Because contraceptives prevent conception.
My position is not hypocritical like you assume. Nor is it fair for you to impute the specifically Catholic belief that contraceptives are wrong to all individuals who think that life begins at conception.
Once the child is born, it has rights; a contract between two people (mother and father) cannot bind a third party (child).
To think about this another way, if a father pays child support, that support is directed to the child, not the mother. Yes, the mother's name is on the check and she spends the money, but the beneficiary of that check is supposed to be the child. Thus, the mother and father cannot contract to take away something that belongs to the child, just like bitterroot and hypercube can't write a contract that says "bitterroot and hypercube agree that bitterroot doesn't have to pay his rent to his landlord anymore." Well, I guess we could write that contract, but it wouldn't change my landlord's entitlement to rent.
.
I would accept this IF their was accountability, each month provide reciptys of the items bought FOR THE CHILD. up to the allotted total amount mandated. Or if the money was put in a RESP (regestared education savings plan) for the child, than the CHILD is the beneficiary not someone else.
I just want to point this out to those who have been discussing "financial abortions" and the like, since the whole discussion has centered on balancing men's rights versus women's rights. The law pretty much only cares about the child.
I'd be totally okay with the idiot idea of the "financial abortion" (my eyes are rolling so hard it hurts) if those advocating for it would also advocate for government subsidized general childcare, everything from babysitting to doctor visits. If you agree to subsidize with your tax dollars the children you're allowing to essentially be abandoned, I am okay with your abandonment.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“A man's at odds to know his mind cause his mind is aught he has to know it with. He can know his heart, but he dont want to. Rightly so. Best not to look in there. It aint the heart of a creature that is bound in the way that God has set for it. You can find meanness in the least of creatures, but when God made man the devil was at his elbow. A creature that can do anything. Make a machine. And a machine to make the machine. And evil that can run itself a thousand years, no need to tend it.”
― Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West
I just want to point this out to those who have been discussing "financial abortions" and the like, since the whole discussion has centered on balancing men's rights versus women's rights. The law pretty much only cares about the child.
I'd be totally okay with the idiot idea of the "financial abortion" (my eyes are rolling so hard it hurts) if those advocating for it would also advocate for government subsidized general childcare, everything from babysitting to doctor visits. If you agree to subsidize with your tax dollars the children you're allowing to essentially be abandoned, I am okay with your abandonment.
Why? The entire point is that, in a situation where a mother would be given absolute power to decide she doesn't want a child, why shouldn't the father? Why should the government pay for ANYTHING. If the mother wants the freedom of choice, she has to accept all the responsibility that comes with it.
Again I feel I need to clarify that I'm not advocating for this scenario. I'm trying to put focus on the fact that we're all too willing to force a man to "take responsibility" as punishment for his "sinful hedonistic lifestyle" but it's sexist if the shoe is on the other foot. It feels like an episode of Maury, where the potential father is boo'd no matter what the outcome.
I believe that life begins at conception, and am in favor of allowing contraceptives that don't include an abortificient effect. Because contraceptives prevent conception.
My position is not hypocritical like you assume. Nor is it fair for you to impute the specifically Catholic belief that contraceptives are wrong to all individuals who think that life begins at conception.
At this point it depends on what you mean by "abortificient effect". From what I understand, contraceptives don't actually prevent conception; the prevent implantation. As such the woman's body is never able to distinguish a fertilized egg from an unfertilized one, and both are washed away during her menstrual cycle. Now, that being said, I will assume there are in fact means of birth control for both genders that don't offend your moral sensibilities in some way. I would highly recommend you encourage the use of said contraception, and NOT loudly demand that abortion laws all be change to suit your particular morality. This is why I fundamentally prefer pro-choice: if you don't believe in abortions, you don't have to get one. The answer is not to unilaterally deny abortions to all women who disagree with you; the answer is to persuade them to choose not to have one. I personally believe abortion is better saved as a means of last resort. I would like it to still be an option for when a woman wants one, but we should still encourage a culture shift that minimizes the number of abortions that end up being needed (ie, use other means of birth control first).
I'm trying to put focus on the fact that we're all too willing to force a man to "take responsibility" as punishment for his "sinful hedonistic lifestyle" but it's sexist if the shoe is on the other foot. It feels like an episode of Maury, where the potential father is boo'd no matter what the outcome.
Ok in all fairness I don't feel like that is the purpose of child support at all. In the abstract, it would be wrong for two people to conceive a child, with the impression that they would share the costs, and then have one unilaterally back out on that implicit agreement with no strings attached. The only reason we end up going after men is that it's biologically easier for them to pull this maneuver; a man can just up and run off while the woman is still pregnant, at which point she has to the burden of either caring for the child or disposing of it in some way (abortion, adoption, dumpster in the street...) That's why I propose that we simply make the father assist in the process. I also think it would be productive to encourage further R&D on better male birth control methods - I believe more choice/options for everyone would be a good thing.
I believe that life begins at conception, and am in favor of allowing contraceptives that don't include an abortificient effect. Because contraceptives prevent conception.
My position is not hypocritical like you assume. Nor is it fair for you to impute the specifically Catholic belief that contraceptives are wrong to all individuals who think that life begins at conception.
At this point it depends on what you mean by "abortificient effect". From what I understand, contraceptives don't actually prevent conception; the prevent implantation. As such the woman's body is never able to distinguish a fertilized egg from an unfertilized one, and both are washed away during her menstrual cycle. Now, that being said, I will assume there are in fact means of birth control for both genders that don't offend your moral sensibilities in some way. I would highly recommend you encourage the use of said contraception, and NOT loudly demand that abortion laws all be change to suit your particular morality. This is why I fundamentally prefer pro-choice: if you don't believe in abortions, you don't have to get one. The answer is not to unilaterally deny abortions to all women who disagree with you; the answer is to persuade them to choose not to have one. I personally believe abortion is better saved as a means of last resort. I would like it to still be an option for when a woman wants one, but we should still encourage a culture shift that minimizes the number of abortions that end up being needed (ie, use other means of birth control first).
I'm trying to put focus on the fact that we're all too willing to force a man to "take responsibility" as punishment for his "sinful hedonistic lifestyle" but it's sexist if the shoe is on the other foot. It feels like an episode of Maury, where the potential father is boo'd no matter what the outcome.
Ok in all fairness I don't feel like that is the purpose of child support at all. In the abstract, it would be wrong for two people to conceive a child, with the impression that they would share the costs, and then have one unilaterally back out on that implicit agreement with no strings attached. The only reason we end up going after men is that it's biologically easier for them to pull this maneuver; a man can just up and run off while the woman is still pregnant, at which point she has to the burden of either caring for the child or disposing of it in some way (abortion, adoption, dumpster in the street...) That's why I propose that we simply make the father assist in the process. I also think it would be productive to encourage further R&D on better male birth control methods - I believe more choice/options for everyone would be a good thing.
I am worried about the natural progression this line of argument is taking. I would rather we not allow discussion of the pros/cons of abortion to distract from the topic. Especially the alleged hypocrisy of one's deeply held beliefs on the matter, for or against. I foresee walking on dangerous ground...
...yet I would like to address one aspect of your reasoning, and hope it does not stray too close to sensitive subject matter. Please direct me to private message if it does: If personal freedom is so very important, and our society can't push moral sensibilities onto someone, why shouldn't a man be allowed the freedom to be a complete dirtbag (my opinion) and "abandon" a possible future offspring he never wanted nor asked for?
The reason for such a thing is that it would inevitably result in a large number of single mothers on welfare. Technically speaking a complete D-bag IS free to "abandon" their offspring, they just don't get out of paying for it, since otherwise the government would have to in many cases. Personal freedom is about being allowed to make choices about things you are responsible for. It is NOT about being able to dump your responsibilities whenever you want without consequence.
When a man and a woman conceive a fetus, they implicitly become responsible for the child that fetus will eventually develop into. This responsibility only ends if
1. The pregnancy is not carried to term.
2. The child dies.
3. The child is put into the care of someone else under some other arrangement, with the mutual consent of all involved parties.
We're obviously not going to ever plan for #2 to happen. I think we need to make some kind of legal recourse for anyone of either gender to end their responsibility via a good-faith effort towards #1 or #3. Women already can do #1, by getting an abortion themselves, and both should already have some ability to do #3. This is why I suggest having men contribute to the cost of an abortion financially, as that would represent a good-faith effort toward #1, and potentially #3 also. But allowing a person to unilaterally their kid doesn't fit into any of these categories, since the kid's still there and the spouse who now has to care for the kid did not consent to doing so on their own.
Going back to your original question, "Why shouldn't dirtbags be allowed to run off?", its because allowing them to do so would infringe on their spouse's freedom at the same time. You would be forcing them to raise a child on terms they never consented to, just as the opposite would force them to pay for the child without their consent. Hence why we need to compromise between the two to some degree.
As a sidenote though...I'm not very hip on "moral sensibilities" being forced on people, but let's be honest, our laws do it anyway as a matter of course. You can honestly believe that killing your neighbor is morally right, but that's not going to change the fact that its murder in the eyes of the law. I think that limiting "personal choice" is necessary to maintaining an orderly society to some degree, but we should endeavor to do so as little as possible. Ergo whenever we do try to impose such limits, we should think VERY long and hard about whether it's actually worth it (hint: in most cases its not)
In all honesty, the most effective solution to problems like this would be to simply assert that a person does not default to being the guardian of the children they conceive. You cannot gain parental rights/responsibilities by having a kid; such rights must be explicitly granted through some other means. This would also probably solve a lot of problems with regards to unequal opportunity in our society - since a child won't default to being raised by their biological parents, a lot of nurture type stuff ceases to be strictly hereditary. Unfortunately virtually no one would consent to such a system, it does open some cans of worms of its own, and there are some obvious logistical problems. But I'm not gonna lie, the idea that being able to **** gives you the resources and the ability to raise a kid to be a functioning member of society is illogical and stupid beyond belief, and is the fundamental source of a lot of our society's problems there days...
I would highly recommend you encourage the use of said contraception, and NOT loudly demand that abortion laws all be change to suit your particular morality.
In that case, I highly suggest you encourage people not murder, and NOT loudly demand that murder laws all be formed to suit your particular morality.
(Yes, that *is* effectively what you just said to me.)
You are utterly ignoring the fact that there are people out there, like me, who literally believe that abortion is on the same moral level as cold blooded, pre-meditated murder. You don't say "If you think murder is wrong, don't murder people!", so why, in all that is holy, would you ever think that line would be convincing to someone who thinks that abortion is on the same moral level as murder?
The reason for such a thing is that it would inevitably result in a large number of single mothers on welfare. Technically speaking a complete D-bag IS free to "abandon" their offspring, they just don't get out of paying for it, since otherwise the government would have to in many cases. Personal freedom is about being allowed to make choices about things you are responsible for. It is NOT about being able to dump your responsibilities whenever you want without consequence.
When a man and a woman conceive a fetus, they implicitly become responsible for the child that fetus will eventually develop into. This responsibility only ends if
1. The pregnancy is not carried to term.
2. The child dies.
3. The child is put into the care of someone else under some other arrangement, with the mutual consent of all involved parties.
We're obviously not going to ever plan for #2 to happen. I think we need to make some kind of legal recourse for anyone of either gender to end their responsibility via a good-faith effort towards #1 or #3. Women already can do #1, by getting an abortion themselves, and both should already have some ability to do #3. This is why I suggest having men contribute to the cost of an abortion financially, as that would represent a good-faith effort toward #1, and potentially #3 also. But allowing a person to unilaterally their kid doesn't fit into any of these categories, since the kid's still there and the spouse who now has to care for the kid did not consent to doing so on their own.
Going back to your original question, "Why shouldn't dirtbags be allowed to run off?", its because allowing them to do so would infringe on their spouse's freedom at the same time. You would be forcing them to raise a child on terms they never consented to, just as the opposite would force them to pay for the child without their consent. Hence why we need to compromise between the two to some degree.
There are a lot of ways to flip this.... you say "the spouse who now has to care for the kid did not consent to doing so on their own" I will assume you mean "the random woman the guy hooked up with" instead of spouse... This changes greatly if the woman is responsible for informing the father within abortion limits and gives the father the opportunity to "financially abort" at that time. Once the biological abortion limit is passed so to would the "financial" abortion limit; however, if the father is not informed of his possible responsibility before hand he would have the opportunity to choose whether he wants to opt in or out of his child's life. Now the woman would have full knowledge of the father's responsibilities before having to decide whether or not to abort or adopt.
How is it that a man "consents" to financial responsibility for offspring every time he has sex? What if the female says she is going to take Plan B the next morning so dont worry?
Lets imagine a wild scenario.... lets say a man and woman are married. The woman does not want children at all. The man desperately wants to have children. The man decides to harvest an egg from his wife and create a test tube baby. He is successful and suddenly brings a baby home with 50% his DNA and 50% his wife's DNA.... Should the wife have any responsibility to the child that is hers but she had no idea was created?
The reason for such a thing is that it would inevitably result in a large number of single mothers on welfare. Technically speaking a complete D-bag IS free to "abandon" their offspring, they just don't get out of paying for it, since otherwise the government would have to in many cases. Personal freedom is about being allowed to make choices about things you are responsible for. It is NOT about being able to dump your responsibilities whenever you want without consequence.
THIS right here, was what was fishing for. The complete lack of accountability on a woman's part. If a woman is free to remove her offspring, WITHOUT her partner's consent, because it's her body, then she should take responsibility when she decides not to do so without the partner's consent, too. Why are you having a child when you're on welfare? Why are you even having a child without a spouse?
You don't get to have it both ways. You can't decide "it's my body" when it's convenient for you, then turn around and tell a man "well you should be responsible if you're going to have sex, D-bag!"
Abortion is about a woman's right to her own body.
Child support is about the child's well being. This debate was hashed out pretty thoroughly well earlier in this thread.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
Abortion is about a woman's right to her own body.
Child support is about the child's well being. This debate was hashed out pretty thoroughly well earlier in this thread.
As I mentioned a little earlier... there already exist mechanisms where a child loses rights to resources from his/her parents... for example in the case of a sperm donor.
What is the huge difference between a single female going to a sperm donor versus a single female going to a drunk guy at a bar? Why does the child have rights to the father's resources in 1 case but not the other?
Abortion is about a woman's right to her own body.
Child support is about the child's well being. This debate was hashed out pretty thoroughly well earlier in this thread.
As I mentioned a little earlier... there already exist mechanisms where a child loses rights to resources from his/her parents... for example in the case of a sperm donor.
What is the huge difference between a single female going to a sperm donor versus a single female going to a drunk guy at a bar? Why does the child have rights to the father's resources in 1 case but not the other?
If you find a drunk guy at the bar how did you find him a second time to demand child support?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
Abortion is about a woman's right to her own body.
Agreed.
Child support is about the child's well being. This debate was hashed out pretty thoroughly well earlier in this thread.
Disagree. Women have the right to put their own well being over the child's after they have given birth to it. They can legally abdicate responsibility after the child is born, putting the child in a much worse position than if they had the support of the mother. Men cannot do this.
Why are you having a child when you're on welfare? Why are you even having a child without a spouse?
Well, I'm not a fan of those situations either. Hence my earlier tirade about how I'd rather not default to parents being in charge of their biological offspring. I actually would support the idea of sterilization being a condition of receiving welfare, but I'd also guess that's not going to have much popular support.
In that case, I highly suggest you encourage people not murder, and NOT loudly demand that murder laws all be formed to suit your particular morality.
Yes, that's what I essentially said - because as of right now, most people don't see it the way you do. Simply demanding that laws be shaped around your views, when they're in the minority, is not going to produce the results you want (less babies being "murdered") Encouraging people to not exercise the choice you view as morally bad has much better odds of achieving that result.
If you find a drunk guy at the bar how did you find him a second time to demand child support?
Do you really think that objection is relevant? If you find him, you do legally have the right to make the demand.
Yes, because a drunk guy you hooked up with at a bar, who you then found a second time is going to have sex. An accepted consequence of sex is that it can lead to children. When a woman gets a sperm doner she accepts the responsibility of single-handedly raising the child. As opposed to the fantasy sperm-jacking situation that's being illustrated.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
As a sidenote, I have to ask... how often does this scenario actually happen? How often is it does a woman get pregnant, and the father doesn't want to pay child support, while simultaneously the woman is able to get an abortion/adoption but refuses to? This thread is quite literally the only place I've seen it seriously brought up and subsequently given much credibility. I'm also confused about the idea of women supposedly keeping the child just to get money from the father. The costs of caring for a child clearly outstrip whatever the father would have to pay in child support; the proposition is obviously still a net negative for the woman. Why would a woman take on a financial burden just to hurt some man she's slept with once? There's already incentive for women not to do this, so when it does happen, do you ever wonder if there's something else going on that you don't know about?
As a sidenote, I have to ask... how often does this scenario actually happen? How often is it does a woman get pregnant, and the father doesn't want to pay child support, while simultaneously the woman is able to get an abortion/adoption but refuses to?
Pretty much every time the man walks out on her when she tells him she's keeping the baby?
And if you don't think that ever happens, you need to to move out of that cave.
Knew of a guy who told his one night stand that he had some incurable disease when she was pregnant and told him he was dying and it was a genetic condition rather than cancer. She got an abortion, he's still alive, she's pissed. So yea, watch out who you sleep with, especially because of bad genetics. You get someone pregnant, you're rolling the dice.
This is why I often am against abortion in most cases, because I believe that having children makes people fess up to reality that they aren't children and their anatomy isn't a "play thing" but it may feel very good but it's primary focus is to make babies.
But I will say this, my biggest problem isn't anti-abortion it's the way that marriage has worked out in this country. Premarital sex has always existed, the Puritans had a high amount of premarital sex and if you look at the birth records versus the marriage records you find a high enough incident to see that these women were knocked up before the altar. So I'm done pretending by religious conservatives about a "city on a hill" regarding Victorian sensibilities about sex.
People have sex, people make babies. Deal with it.
The question is how to "bring" good out of these accidents. Some of these accidents you end up having a Steve Jobs, while a genius he was also a prick.. so yea.
We have to remind ourselves about the nature of humanity to screw up, and look at the larger picture about upward mobility. We've decimated tribes, destroyed clans, so the "nuclear family" isn't that strong to stand up against economic turmoil as a clan or tribe would do related by blood. Instead we have replaced the tribe and the clan with the government. And the welfare system under the tribe has been over time replaced by new systems to deal with the young.
I am not positive about what new systems will exist in the future, but we will have government for sometime or have an emergence of neo-tribes such as gangs or something that looks like the ancient Medici with regards to family dynasties.
I'm far more concerned about some minorities making babies and having third and fourth generation gangs and perpetuating that disrupting by undermining the social fabric in the United States. All the while, people in middle and upper America build fences and new forms of alienation to help create socially unstable microcultures that only the violent reap the best of the best from.
In short, the final remainder of the chosen few who get out of that life style and move onward and upward are few and cannot be nothing more than comparing your normal man to Conan or Neo or some random Horatio Alger personality.
As a sidenote, I have to ask... how often does this scenario actually happen? How often is it does a woman get pregnant, and the father doesn't want to pay child support, while simultaneously the woman is able to get an abortion/adoption but refuses to?
Pretty much every time the man walks out on her when she tells him she's keeping the baby?
And if you don't think that ever happens, you need to to move out of that cave.
And this instance has enabled for many lawyers to put their children through Harvard and Yale for generations. Which is why I'm sort of sad that we can't "sea horse" as humans.
"Oh don't worry I'll take any potential fertilized egg!"
":( Heya, we're pregnant"
"Uh, sure I'll be the mom"
Three weeks later, the woman is nowhere to be seen and is living somewhere five states away under an assumed name.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Right you are, bitterroot, but in the above scenario (ignoring the morality of pro-life vs. pro-choice for the purposes of this thread) this decision is being made before there is a child with rights at all. Pro-choice focuses solely on the rights of the mother.
In the mirror, pro-life scenario, the child would be the focus from the time of conception, and thus the father would be under the same restrictions as the mother. That is, absolutely no opt out clause, and the FULL parental rights that come with that responsibility.
Right, but such a contract would be arbitrating the future status of an actual person. You couldn't, for instance, make a contract binding a not-yet-conceived child into slavery on the basis that there are no rights being violated, because at the time the contract takes effect, there will be and it will be violating them.
At the time the terms of the contract actually become applicable to something, that thing is a person.
(EDIT: I'm not saying a waiver of paternity obligations would actually constitute a rights violation; only that if it does, the fact that the child has not been born yet does not make it not so.)
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Once the child is born, it has rights; a contract between two people (mother and father) cannot bind a third party (child).
To think about this another way, if a father pays child support, that support is directed to the child, not the mother. Yes, the mother's name is on the check and she spends the money, but the beneficiary of that check is supposed to be the child. Thus, the mother and father cannot contract to take away something that belongs to the child, just like bitterroot and hypercube can't write a contract that says "bitterroot and hypercube agree that bitterroot doesn't have to pay his rent to his landlord anymore." Well, I guess we could write that contract, but it wouldn't change my landlord's entitlement to rent.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you in principle here. I'm a huge libertarian and I think more legal issues should be governed by contracts rather than statutes, but the current state of the law is not compatible with what you're proposing.
I think the issue here is that it is not entirely true in all cases. It is possible to setup adoptions, sperm donations or surrogates in such a way that a biological parent has zero legal responsibility to the child. If I go donate sperm 16 years from now a teenager with my DNA cant just show up and demand their child support money.
Realistically how different is it for the child if mommy got a sample from a cup or from a drunk guy at the bar? Why does the child lose that support in one case but not the other?
I believe that life begins at conception, and am in favor of allowing contraceptives that don't include an abortificient effect. Because contraceptives prevent conception.
My position is not hypocritical like you assume. Nor is it fair for you to impute the specifically Catholic belief that contraceptives are wrong to all individuals who think that life begins at conception.
I would accept this IF their was accountability, each month provide reciptys of the items bought FOR THE CHILD. up to the allotted total amount mandated. Or if the money was put in a RESP (regestared education savings plan) for the child, than the CHILD is the beneficiary not someone else.
I'd be totally okay with the idiot idea of the "financial abortion" (my eyes are rolling so hard it hurts) if those advocating for it would also advocate for government subsidized general childcare, everything from babysitting to doctor visits. If you agree to subsidize with your tax dollars the children you're allowing to essentially be abandoned, I am okay with your abandonment.
― Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West
Why? The entire point is that, in a situation where a mother would be given absolute power to decide she doesn't want a child, why shouldn't the father? Why should the government pay for ANYTHING. If the mother wants the freedom of choice, she has to accept all the responsibility that comes with it.
Again I feel I need to clarify that I'm not advocating for this scenario. I'm trying to put focus on the fact that we're all too willing to force a man to "take responsibility" as punishment for his "sinful hedonistic lifestyle" but it's sexist if the shoe is on the other foot. It feels like an episode of Maury, where the potential father is boo'd no matter what the outcome.
At this point it depends on what you mean by "abortificient effect". From what I understand, contraceptives don't actually prevent conception; the prevent implantation. As such the woman's body is never able to distinguish a fertilized egg from an unfertilized one, and both are washed away during her menstrual cycle. Now, that being said, I will assume there are in fact means of birth control for both genders that don't offend your moral sensibilities in some way. I would highly recommend you encourage the use of said contraception, and NOT loudly demand that abortion laws all be change to suit your particular morality. This is why I fundamentally prefer pro-choice: if you don't believe in abortions, you don't have to get one. The answer is not to unilaterally deny abortions to all women who disagree with you; the answer is to persuade them to choose not to have one. I personally believe abortion is better saved as a means of last resort. I would like it to still be an option for when a woman wants one, but we should still encourage a culture shift that minimizes the number of abortions that end up being needed (ie, use other means of birth control first).
Ok in all fairness I don't feel like that is the purpose of child support at all. In the abstract, it would be wrong for two people to conceive a child, with the impression that they would share the costs, and then have one unilaterally back out on that implicit agreement with no strings attached. The only reason we end up going after men is that it's biologically easier for them to pull this maneuver; a man can just up and run off while the woman is still pregnant, at which point she has to the burden of either caring for the child or disposing of it in some way (abortion, adoption, dumpster in the street...) That's why I propose that we simply make the father assist in the process. I also think it would be productive to encourage further R&D on better male birth control methods - I believe more choice/options for everyone would be a good thing.
I am worried about the natural progression this line of argument is taking. I would rather we not allow discussion of the pros/cons of abortion to distract from the topic. Especially the alleged hypocrisy of one's deeply held beliefs on the matter, for or against. I foresee walking on dangerous ground...
...yet I would like to address one aspect of your reasoning, and hope it does not stray too close to sensitive subject matter. Please direct me to private message if it does: If personal freedom is so very important, and our society can't push moral sensibilities onto someone, why shouldn't a man be allowed the freedom to be a complete dirtbag (my opinion) and "abandon" a possible future offspring he never wanted nor asked for?
When a man and a woman conceive a fetus, they implicitly become responsible for the child that fetus will eventually develop into. This responsibility only ends if
1. The pregnancy is not carried to term.
2. The child dies.
3. The child is put into the care of someone else under some other arrangement, with the mutual consent of all involved parties.
We're obviously not going to ever plan for #2 to happen. I think we need to make some kind of legal recourse for anyone of either gender to end their responsibility via a good-faith effort towards #1 or #3. Women already can do #1, by getting an abortion themselves, and both should already have some ability to do #3. This is why I suggest having men contribute to the cost of an abortion financially, as that would represent a good-faith effort toward #1, and potentially #3 also. But allowing a person to unilaterally their kid doesn't fit into any of these categories, since the kid's still there and the spouse who now has to care for the kid did not consent to doing so on their own.
Going back to your original question, "Why shouldn't dirtbags be allowed to run off?", its because allowing them to do so would infringe on their spouse's freedom at the same time. You would be forcing them to raise a child on terms they never consented to, just as the opposite would force them to pay for the child without their consent. Hence why we need to compromise between the two to some degree.
As a sidenote though...I'm not very hip on "moral sensibilities" being forced on people, but let's be honest, our laws do it anyway as a matter of course. You can honestly believe that killing your neighbor is morally right, but that's not going to change the fact that its murder in the eyes of the law. I think that limiting "personal choice" is necessary to maintaining an orderly society to some degree, but we should endeavor to do so as little as possible. Ergo whenever we do try to impose such limits, we should think VERY long and hard about whether it's actually worth it (hint: in most cases its not)
In all honesty, the most effective solution to problems like this would be to simply assert that a person does not default to being the guardian of the children they conceive. You cannot gain parental rights/responsibilities by having a kid; such rights must be explicitly granted through some other means. This would also probably solve a lot of problems with regards to unequal opportunity in our society - since a child won't default to being raised by their biological parents, a lot of nurture type stuff ceases to be strictly hereditary. Unfortunately virtually no one would consent to such a system, it does open some cans of worms of its own, and there are some obvious logistical problems. But I'm not gonna lie, the idea that being able to **** gives you the resources and the ability to raise a kid to be a functioning member of society is illogical and stupid beyond belief, and is the fundamental source of a lot of our society's problems there days...
In that case, I highly suggest you encourage people not murder, and NOT loudly demand that murder laws all be formed to suit your particular morality.
(Yes, that *is* effectively what you just said to me.)
You are utterly ignoring the fact that there are people out there, like me, who literally believe that abortion is on the same moral level as cold blooded, pre-meditated murder. You don't say "If you think murder is wrong, don't murder people!", so why, in all that is holy, would you ever think that line would be convincing to someone who thinks that abortion is on the same moral level as murder?
There are a lot of ways to flip this.... you say "the spouse who now has to care for the kid did not consent to doing so on their own" I will assume you mean "the random woman the guy hooked up with" instead of spouse... This changes greatly if the woman is responsible for informing the father within abortion limits and gives the father the opportunity to "financially abort" at that time. Once the biological abortion limit is passed so to would the "financial" abortion limit; however, if the father is not informed of his possible responsibility before hand he would have the opportunity to choose whether he wants to opt in or out of his child's life. Now the woman would have full knowledge of the father's responsibilities before having to decide whether or not to abort or adopt.
How is it that a man "consents" to financial responsibility for offspring every time he has sex? What if the female says she is going to take Plan B the next morning so dont worry?
Lets imagine a wild scenario.... lets say a man and woman are married. The woman does not want children at all. The man desperately wants to have children. The man decides to harvest an egg from his wife and create a test tube baby. He is successful and suddenly brings a baby home with 50% his DNA and 50% his wife's DNA.... Should the wife have any responsibility to the child that is hers but she had no idea was created?
THIS right here, was what was fishing for. The complete lack of accountability on a woman's part. If a woman is free to remove her offspring, WITHOUT her partner's consent, because it's her body, then she should take responsibility when she decides not to do so without the partner's consent, too. Why are you having a child when you're on welfare? Why are you even having a child without a spouse?
You don't get to have it both ways. You can't decide "it's my body" when it's convenient for you, then turn around and tell a man "well you should be responsible if you're going to have sex, D-bag!"
Child support is about the child's well being. This debate was hashed out pretty thoroughly well earlier in this thread.
As I mentioned a little earlier... there already exist mechanisms where a child loses rights to resources from his/her parents... for example in the case of a sperm donor.
What is the huge difference between a single female going to a sperm donor versus a single female going to a drunk guy at a bar? Why does the child have rights to the father's resources in 1 case but not the other?
If you find a drunk guy at the bar how did you find him a second time to demand child support?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Well, I'm not a fan of those situations either. Hence my earlier tirade about how I'd rather not default to parents being in charge of their biological offspring. I actually would support the idea of sterilization being a condition of receiving welfare, but I'd also guess that's not going to have much popular support.
Yes, that's what I essentially said - because as of right now, most people don't see it the way you do. Simply demanding that laws be shaped around your views, when they're in the minority, is not going to produce the results you want (less babies being "murdered") Encouraging people to not exercise the choice you view as morally bad has much better odds of achieving that result.
Yes, because a drunk guy you hooked up with at a bar, who you then found a second time is going to have sex. An accepted consequence of sex is that it can lead to children. When a woman gets a sperm doner she accepts the responsibility of single-handedly raising the child. As opposed to the fantasy sperm-jacking situation that's being illustrated.
Try this argument on a woman arguing for the right to have an abortion and see how far it gets you.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Pretty much every time the man walks out on her when she tells him she's keeping the baby?
And if you don't think that ever happens, you need to to move out of that cave.
This is why I often am against abortion in most cases, because I believe that having children makes people fess up to reality that they aren't children and their anatomy isn't a "play thing" but it may feel very good but it's primary focus is to make babies.
But I will say this, my biggest problem isn't anti-abortion it's the way that marriage has worked out in this country. Premarital sex has always existed, the Puritans had a high amount of premarital sex and if you look at the birth records versus the marriage records you find a high enough incident to see that these women were knocked up before the altar. So I'm done pretending by religious conservatives about a "city on a hill" regarding Victorian sensibilities about sex.
People have sex, people make babies. Deal with it.
The question is how to "bring" good out of these accidents. Some of these accidents you end up having a Steve Jobs, while a genius he was also a prick.. so yea.
We have to remind ourselves about the nature of humanity to screw up, and look at the larger picture about upward mobility. We've decimated tribes, destroyed clans, so the "nuclear family" isn't that strong to stand up against economic turmoil as a clan or tribe would do related by blood. Instead we have replaced the tribe and the clan with the government. And the welfare system under the tribe has been over time replaced by new systems to deal with the young.
I am not positive about what new systems will exist in the future, but we will have government for sometime or have an emergence of neo-tribes such as gangs or something that looks like the ancient Medici with regards to family dynasties.
I'm far more concerned about some minorities making babies and having third and fourth generation gangs and perpetuating that disrupting by undermining the social fabric in the United States. All the while, people in middle and upper America build fences and new forms of alienation to help create socially unstable microcultures that only the violent reap the best of the best from.
In short, the final remainder of the chosen few who get out of that life style and move onward and upward are few and cannot be nothing more than comparing your normal man to Conan or Neo or some random Horatio Alger personality.
And this instance has enabled for many lawyers to put their children through Harvard and Yale for generations. Which is why I'm sort of sad that we can't "sea horse" as humans.
"Oh don't worry I'll take any potential fertilized egg!"
":( Heya, we're pregnant"
"Uh, sure I'll be the mom"
Three weeks later, the woman is nowhere to be seen and is living somewhere five states away under an assumed name.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.