Unequal legal protections fathers vs mothers

[Jimmy Higgins]

If a mother wants to end her pregnancy and drives to the clinic without incident than all is well and good after the abortion. But if a man happens to have a car accident with that same mother and kills that same fetus.....then that is manslaughter with a guaranteed sentence of jail time. Then we wonder why more men are incarcerated than women.

You can feel free to demonstrate a single occurrence of that ever happening.

Its definitely a woman's world, at least if you live in the USA.

Must be why all those womanly world like benefits are being written off the books in many states in the US, making getting an abortion near impossible.

 

[Toni]

Note that in reality case #1 normally becomes case #3--she simply pretends she doesn't know.

It also doesn't address the financial responsibility.

Financial responsibility is straightforward: if you have parental rights, then you have parental obligations. And if you have parental obligation,s then you have financial obligations to your child. Whether that obligation is discharged via support payments to the other parent, or by the purchase of goods and services, makes no difference.

The law is usually set up so that there is a reasonable outcome in any conceivable situation.

Pre-birth

1. Woman does not want the child, but man does: Neither person is actually a parent yet, therefore neither has parental rights. Woman's right to bodily autonomy trumps man's right to have his progeny brought to term.

2. Woman wants to have the child, but man does not: The woman's right to bodily autonomy trumps the man's right to not become a father.
...

I thank you for your reply, but I don't understand how a man not becoming legally committed to the birthed child affects the womans autonomous choice to give birth.

It seems to me the woman can still give birth if there is no legally desiginated father.

Why is there an obligation for a man to be a father if he doesn't want to be a father?

The rights of the child to receive support from both parents trumps the rights of the father to hold onto his money.

The state, in its infinite wisdom, has found it in the state's best interests to compel financial support rather than the state stepping in if the mother cannot wholly support the child. The mother is compelled to provide a name if she wants state assistance.

 

[Toni]

Note that in reality case #1 normally becomes case #3--she simply pretends she doesn't know.

It also doesn't address the financial responsibility.

Financial responsibility is straightforward: if you have parental rights, then you have parental obligations. And if you have parental obligation,s then you have financial obligations to your child. Whether that obligation is discharged via support payments to the other parent, or by the purchase of goods and services, makes no difference.

Let's go deeper. Why should a birth parent be responsible for the support of a child until they are 18 years old? Why is society at large not on the hook? Is it "do the crime, do the time" logic, or is something more at work here?

The state makes a lousy parent. Rarely, the state is better parent in cases of extreme neglect and abuse.


Almost all parents want the least amount of state involvement in the rearing of their children. Who pays has control.

 

[Jarhyn]

Financial responsibility is straightforward: if you have parental rights, then you have parental obligations. And if you have parental obligation,s then you have financial obligations to your child. Whether that obligation is discharged via support payments to the other parent, or by the purchase of goods and services, makes no difference.

The law is usually set up so that there is a reasonable outcome in any conceivable situation.

Pre-birth

1. Woman does not want the child, but man does: Neither person is actually a parent yet, therefore neither has parental rights. Woman's right to bodily autonomy trumps man's right to have his progeny brought to term.

2. Woman wants to have the child, but man does not: The woman's right to bodily autonomy trumps the man's right to not become a father.
...

I thank you for your reply, but I don't understand how a man not becoming legally committed to the birthed child affects the womans autonomous choice to give birth.

It seems to me the woman can still give birth if there is no legally desiginated father.

Why is there an obligation for a man to be a father if he doesn't want to be a father?

The rights of the child to receive support from both parents trumps the rights of the father to hold onto his money.

The state, in its infinite wisdom, has found it in the state's best interests to compel financial support rather than the state stepping in if the mother cannot wholly support the child. The mother is compelled to provide a name if she wants state assistance.

No. It doesn't trump the father's right to live a good life. It trumps everyone's mere desire to not pay for taxes for children it lets be created.

 

[Toni]

The law is usually set up so that there is a reasonable outcome in any conceivable situation.

Pre-birth

1. Woman does not want the child, but man does: Neither person is actually a parent yet, therefore neither has parental rights. Woman's right to bodily autonomy trumps man's right to have his progeny brought to term.

2. Woman wants to have the child, but man does not: The woman's right to bodily autonomy trumps the man's right to not become a father.
...

I thank you for your reply, but I don't understand how a man not becoming legally committed to the birthed child affects the womans autonomous choice to give birth.

It seems to me the woman can still give birth if there is no legally desiginated father.

Why is there an obligation for a man to be a father if he doesn't want to be a father?

The rights of the child to receive support from both parents trumps the rights of the father to hold onto his money.

The state, in its infinite wisdom, has found it in the state's best interests to compel financial support rather than the state stepping in if the mother cannot wholly support the child. The mother is compelled to provide a name if she wants state assistance.

No. It doesn't trump the father's right to live a good life. It trumps everyone's mere desire to not pay for taxes for children it lets be created.

It is quite possible to procreate multiple times and support those offspring and not only the father live a good life but frankly a better and richer life for having and supporting his children.

The state cannot and should not control procreation.

 

[none]

I think maybe a question that hasn't been asked and I don't know the legality of child rights..,
But is there an obligation to anyone to be a parent?
is that is what going on here?
The child has a right to a parent I guess, but that doesn't seem like an obligation on the child.
If the child were obligated to have parents maybe that would trump the biological parents rights.

 

[Toni]

I think maybe a question that hasn't been asked and I don't know the legality of child rights..,
But is there an obligation to anyone to be a parent?
is that is what going on here?
The child has a right to a parent I guess, but that doesn't seem like an obligation on the child.
If the child were obligated to have parents maybe that would trump the biological parents rights.

The obligations are to and for the child.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The rights of the child to receive support from both parents trumps the rights of the father to hold onto his money.

Normally, with the choice comes the responsibility for the choice.

The state, in its infinite wisdom, has found it in the state's best interests to compel financial support rather than the state stepping in if the mother cannot wholly support the child. The mother is compelled to provide a name if she wants state assistance.

The state is going on old standards. If abortion isn't legal then conception = birth, there is no other choice. Now, however, they are two separate choices.

Since the Republicans want sex dangerous they aren't going to try to change this. Since the Democrats want to appeal to women they aren't likely to try to change this. Thus we are stuck with outdated laws.

 

[none]

The obligations are to and for the child.

I don't ever think I have heard specifically that a child has an obligation to have a parent.
It seems counter intuitive to me that the state would turn a right into an obligation, meaning the child as a right to have a parent but not an obligation.
If that is the case then I can see that obligation trump the rights of both parents, but it just seems unusual because I haven't heard that a child is obligated to have parents.
Plus a child can emancipate.

 

[bigfield]

The law is usually set up so that there is a reasonable outcome in any conceivable situation.

Pre-birth

1. Woman does not want the child, but man does: Neither person is actually a parent yet, therefore neither has parental rights. Woman's right to bodily autonomy trumps man's right to have his progeny brought to term.

2. Woman wants to have the child, but man does not: The woman's right to bodily autonomy trumps the man's right to not become a father.
...

I thank you for your reply, but I don't understand how a man not becoming legally committed to the birthed child affects the womans autonomous choice to give birth.

It seems to me the woman can still give birth if there is no legally desiginated father.

Why is there an obligation for a man to be a father if he doesn't want to be a father?

The biological parents are the most logical people to charge with the care of the child.

 

[none]

The biological parents are the most logical people to charge with the care of the child.

what makes the "charge" legal in the first place?

 

[bigfield]

The biological parents are the most logical people to charge with the care of the child.

what makes the "charge" legal in the first place?

Where I say 'charge' I don't mean in the legal sense of 'pressing charges', I mean it in the sense of imposing a responsibility.

As in: The most logical people to charge with a child's care are its biological parents, the people responsible for its creation.