Who Should Pay Child Support? (Split from Roe v Wade is on deck)

[Bomb#20]

I understand your analogy.
But here's where it breaks down.

The child is entirely a result of the woman's choice. She can choose against creating a child if she wants to do so. It's not the father's child. It's entirely her child.

That's an odd way to look at it. They both have veto power over creation of the child; you're suggesting that his veto power doesn't count for anything and it's all on her merely because her veto power is exercised second. That's like saying if you buy Jimmy a gun to kill Loren with, the killing is entirely a result of Jimmy's choice; he can choose against killing if he wants to do so; it's not your killing; it's entirely Jimmy's killing.

 

[Jarhyn]

And if a pregnant father decides to get an abortion the mother has no say.

Just because they lack the power does not mean they lack the right.

This makes no sense.

If a guy makes a baby he has few if any rights, legally. He cannot unChoose. Women can.

I don't see why this is hard to understand.

If a man and a woman get together for a mutually agreeable romp, then it turns out they made a new human, the woman has all the rights. Including the right to demand years of payments.
Tom

If he makes the baby inside his own body, then he can decide to abort or keep it and the other parent gets no say.

He can't do it, and while that is a tragedy of nature deserving of remedy, it is not one that can be remedied today, alas.

Men do have the equal right to carry any pregnancy they undergo to term.

Nearly zero "men" of any kind (though not exactly zero) have that power, but all who do have the right.

 

[Bomb#20]

Men have EXACTLY the same rights as women in this.

I don't understand why you keep saying this when it's demonstrably, obviously, false.
If a pregnant woman decides to get an abortion, the father has no say. If she decides to keep the baby she can legally demand a bunch of cash that he never agreed to give her. That's the reality.

She can decide whether she has a baby or not. If she does decide that she has, he's expected to pay her for 18 years to raise a kid he doesn't, and never did, want. Calling that exactly the same rights is ridiculous.
Tom

What you're missing is that she doesn't get to legally demand a bunch of cash that he never agreed to give her in her role as "woman"; she gets to demand that in her role as "legal guardian of a minor". It's not her right; it's the child's right. It's up to her to exercise it only because the child doesn't have the skill set to take his father to court. So if, for example, the mother is a drug addict and the father skips town and the court assigns custody to the baby's nearest other relative -- his uncle -- then the father will be taken to court for child support payments by the father's own brother, even though he's a man too. Likewise, when the father loses his job and goes broke and the mother gets out of rehab and gets a job, it will be the father's brother who's taking the mother to court for child support payments, even though she's a woman. The law is not assigning any rights or duties on the basis of sex; it's assigning rights and duties on the basis of the child's needs and of whose choices created those needs.

Now, you may well think the reality of the social situation is that 90% of the time that means it's the mother suing the father for child support, and may well think that this statistic makes it discriminatory. If so, that's pretty much the same argument as "If a college ignores race and admits on the basis of test scores, the reality of the social situation is that 90% of the time that means they'll take an Asian and not an African-American. Therefore colorblindness is racist."

 

[Toni]

And if a pregnant father decides to get an abortion the mother has no say.

Just because they lack the power does not mean they lack the right.

This makes no sense.

If a guy makes a baby he has few if any rights, legally. He cannot unChoose. Women can.

I don't see why this is hard to understand.

If a man and a woman get together for a mutually agreeable romp, then it turns out they made a new human, the woman has all the rights. Including the right to demand years of payments.
Tom

No, the woman has the right over her body-in this case, to carry the pregnancy to term or to obtain an abortion —in some states.

The man has the right to petition for custody and if he is awarded custody, he can also sue for child support from the mother. Or they can share custody and amicably agree to how to share costs.

Men are extremely good at avoiding paying child support, including for their biological children born within a marriage.

I honestly do not understand why so many find it unreasonable to expect a man to do his share in preventing unwanted pregnancies or to pay his fair share of the support for any resulting children. It’s almost as though they believe that men should have consequence free sex and that women should bear some responsibility for any child that results from the man’s choice or lack of foresight.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's been some years but I think that Loren was among those outraged when some college campuses were suggesting signing consent documents as to what each person consented to happen before sex. My apologies if I've gotten that wrong.

I was saying it was impractical, I wasn't outraged.

Ah, sorry if I misrepresented you.

And note that what I'm proposing here is basically providing a default approach that reflects the cheapest legal option, the couple may come up with different agreements. I'd suggest normally using a few canned options to avoid issues of stuff hidden in the legalese. Make sure they're on the same page before it matters.

Sounds very romantic!

Actually I definitely get what you’re saying. Personally I think that people really ought to know something about each other before they have sex. No birth control is infallible and people sometimes react unexpectedly when there is a pregnancy involved.

Sounds like you want to stick your head in the sand about the risk of an oops until it happens.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In the US, if a woman wants state aid in helping to support her child, she is obligated to provide the name of the father.

Some men are not informed that they may become fathers because some of them disappear and don’t care to be found, are arrested, engendered a child through rape and so on. Some women choose not to inform the father for a variety of reasons. One reason might be uncertainty about who the father is or being mistaken about who the father is.

Which is horribly unfair to the woman who truly doesn't know (hookup situation.)

It also causes a lot of abuse because being named the father is a guilty until proven innocent type situation.

There are tests that can establish paternity. I would always recommend having a paternity test before heading into court.

That doesn't always stop the officials. They decide you're the father and start taking money. You go to court to get it stopped but it's likely to cost you more to get back what they stole than the amount they stole. They know that so they keep doing it because they're scored on how much they get, not whether it's from the actual fathers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why should an agreement to choose the least expensive option in case of an oops be unenforceable?

Because forced abortions are a human rights violation.

I'm not saying to force them. I'm saying if she chooses a more expensive option that cost is on her.

 

[Toni]

It's been some years but I think that Loren was among those outraged when some college campuses were suggesting signing consent documents as to what each person consented to happen before sex. My apologies if I've gotten that wrong.

I was saying it was impractical, I wasn't outraged.

Ah, sorry if I misrepresented you.

And note that what I'm proposing here is basically providing a default approach that reflects the cheapest legal option, the couple may come up with different agreements. I'd suggest normally using a few canned options to avoid issues of stuff hidden in the legalese. Make sure they're on the same page before it matters.

Sounds very romantic!

Actually I definitely get what you’re saying. Personally I think that people really ought to know something about each other before they have sex. No birth control is infallible and people sometimes react unexpectedly when there is a pregnancy involved.

Sounds like you want to stick your head in the sand about the risk of an oops until it happens.

Sounds like you want to disagree with me and are coming up short with respect to actual reasons.

It would be more straight forward for you to just to continue to assert that the man can/should be able to indemnify himself against any/all risks and responsibilities if the woman does not follow his wishes with regards to any potential pregnancy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Each gets to decide whether to have sex (aside from situations of rape) - and whether to use birth control

And you seem unable to comprehend the case that it fails.

 

[Toni]

In the US, if a woman wants state aid in helping to support her child, she is obligated to provide the name of the father.

Some men are not informed that they may become fathers because some of them disappear and don’t care to be found, are arrested, engendered a child through rape and so on. Some women choose not to inform the father for a variety of reasons. One reason might be uncertainty about who the father is or being mistaken about who the father is.

Which is horribly unfair to the woman who truly doesn't know (hookup situation.)

It also causes a lot of abuse because being named the father is a guilty until proven innocent type situation.

There are tests that can establish paternity. I would always recommend having a paternity test before heading into court.

That doesn't always stop the officials. They decide you're the father and start taking money. You go to court to get it stopped but it's likely to cost you more to get back what they stole than the amount they stole. They know that so they keep doing it because they're scored on how much they get, not whether it's from the actual fathers.

Then the problem is with the state agencies, not with the idea that men can and should establish whether or not they are the biological father as soon as possible.

 

[Rhea]

Men have EXACTLY the same rights as women in this.

I don't understand why you keep saying this when it's demonstrably, obviously, false.
If a pregnant woman decides to get an abortion, the father has no say.

And if a man‘s kidney is needed for a woman’s child, the woman has NO SAY in whether he donates it.

If she decides to keep the baby

I’m guessing that here you mean “decides not to give to adoption” and not “decides to complete the pregnancy”

she can legally demand a bunch of cash that he never agreed to give her. That's the reality.

He agreed by having sex with her, right? You said there was a foolproof way of avoiding pregnancy - abstinence. Now you realize that there’s a foolproof way of avoiding child support - abstinence.

She can decide whether she has a baby or not.

She decides whether or not she donates her body to the pregnancy. The man also decides to not donate HIS body to the pregnancy. Same rules. He has exactly the same right to bodily autonomy that she has.

If she does decide that she has, he's expected to pay her for 18 years to raise a kid he doesn't, and never did, want.

(You said before he should not have sex, then.)

Bear in mind that she ALSO has to pay for the child until it is 18. She is not doing anything that he is not. If she decides to give the child for adoption, he can STOP THAT and take the child to raise himself, and then she owes him child support.

Moreover, it is well documented that men walk out on obligations of childrearing at much higher rates.



(And again, in my view, forced child support is bad for kids. It should be a social network always available. That everyone pays into. And preceded by the establishment of comprehensive sexuality education and free-to-user, easily accessible, Long Acting Reversible Contraception (LARCs) and fully funded national labs conducting male contraceptive research and development.)

 

[Rhea]

Each gets to decide if their own body will be used for the support of another (spoiler; men get to decide this evey day, anytime someone needs their kidney or blood, or marrow - anytime another being asks to use parts of his body.

Can we talk about this incredibly weak analogy?

If "Joe" made a choice that resulted in catastrophic kidney failure in "Bob", and was also the sole possible donor,
I'd strap Joe to the gurney myself.

And you would be arrested, as you have no right to do that. It is unconstitutional.

But this combination is so incredibly unlikely that nobody has ever bothered with thinking about it, much less setting legal precedents or something.

The precedent is set. No person can EVER force another person to donate body use or body parts. They can’t even take things from your corpse without your expressed consent.

Both of those would need to be simultaneously true for it to be a reasonable analogy to pregnancy.

Would you like to test the lung donation match for tobacco and coal executives?

Pregnancy, on the other hand, happens a lot. Has forever. They're just not comparable.
Tom

They are exactly comparable. No woman can be forced by you to donate her organs or body to another being.
It is unconstitutional and deeply, DEEPLY wrong.

 

[Rhea]

Each gets to decide whether to have sex (aside from situations of rape) - and whether to use birth control

And you seem unable to comprehend the case that it fails.

Oh, no, I absolutely do not have any trouble comprehending that.
That is why I fully and completely support the right of a pregnant person to have access to abortions.

And it is why I fully support spending tax money on research for long-acting, reversible, male contraceptives.

The failure of the birth control is an issue that both parties face. Equally.

 

[Bomb#20]

Why should an agreement to choose the least expensive option in case of an oops be unenforceable?

Because forced abortions are a human rights violation.

I'm not saying to force them. I'm saying if she chooses a more expensive option that cost is on her.

Ah. That's not enforcing an agreement to choose the least expensive option; that's enforcing an agreement that she'll cover the excess costs in the event that she chooses a more expensive option. That very likely is enforceable against her, provided she has assets that can be attached to make good on it. But it's not enforceable against the child, because no contract is enforceable against a third party who isn't a signatory. When a mother sues a father for child support, the suit is on behalf of the child.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That doesn't always stop the officials. They decide you're the father and start taking money. You go to court to get it stopped but it's likely to cost you more to get back what they stole than the amount they stole. They know that so they keep doing it because they're scored on how much they get, not whether it's from the actual fathers.

Then the problem is with the state agencies, not with the idea that men can and should establish whether or not they are the biological father as soon as possible.

We are talking about reality, not your ideal fantasy world.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why should an agreement to choose the least expensive option in case of an oops be unenforceable?

Because forced abortions are a human rights violation.

I'm not saying to force them. I'm saying if she chooses a more expensive option that cost is on her.

Ah. That's not enforcing an agreement to choose the least expensive option; that's enforcing an agreement that she'll cover the excess costs in the event that she chooses a more expensive option. That very likely is enforceable against her, provided she has assets that can be attached to make good on it. But it's not enforceable against the child, because no contract is enforceable against a third party who isn't a signatory. When a mother sues a father for child support, the suit is on behalf of the child.

It's not like she can't afford to raise the child herself. It might not be easy but she chose the situation.

 

[laughing dog]

Why should an agreement to choose the least expensive option in case of an oops be unenforceable?

Because forced abortions are a human rights violation.

I'm not saying to force them. I'm saying if she chooses a more expensive option that cost is on her.

Ah. That's not enforcing an agreement to choose the least expensive option; that's enforcing an agreement that she'll cover the excess costs in the event that she chooses a more expensive option. That very likely is enforceable against her, provided she has assets that can be attached to make good on it. But it's not enforceable against the child, because no contract is enforceable against a third party who isn't a signatory. When a mother sues a father for child support, the suit is on behalf of the child.

It's not like she can't afford to raise the child herself. It might not be easy but she chose the situation.

Your response ignores the child’s well-being.

 

[Toni]

That doesn't always stop the officials. They decide you're the father and start taking money. You go to court to get it stopped but it's likely to cost you more to get back what they stole than the amount they stole. They know that so they keep doing it because they're scored on how much they get, not whether it's from the actual fathers.

Then the problem is with the state agencies, not with the idea that men can and should establish whether or not they are the biological father as soon as possible.

We are talking about reality, not your ideal fantasy world.

You’re the one who proposed making women sign a contact swearing that if they get pregnant the man is off the hook.

State agencies are supposed to serve the people. Some agencies are ineffective and harm those they are supposed to serve abs protect. I propose improving the agencies.

You propose punishing women

History to the contrary my proposal is more realistic, given that women actually have agency and the vote and full citizenship and are not mere property.

 

[TomC]

Your response ignores the child’s well-being.

There is no child unless the mother decides to make one. A choice she makes without regard for the father's wishes.
Here, let Jimmy explain:

It isn't a child until it is born.

All else being normal(consenting adults, legal abortion, etc.) there is no child involved until the mother decides whether or not to have an abortion. Growing a fetus into a child is entirely her decision. Women make babies, in the legal sense, by themselves.

Tom

 

[TomC]

How about this.

The default assumption between unmarried people getting together for a mutually agreeable romp is that, in the case of a pregnancy he wants an abortion. And will pay for it.

If she wants something else that's fine too. But if she wants child support, in the event of a pregnancy, she needs to make that clear before the sex. She still has complete control over her body. I'll continue the pregnancy, I'll terminate, whatever she wants.

But she cannot obligate someone else to a commitment against their will, based on her unfettered choice.

How about that?
Tom