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

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem I'm having in this thread is the general feminist principle that only women's rights matter.
Tom

Yup, while it can't be made perfectly fair it can be made more fair than the current system.

The current laws made sense long ago, but the situation has changed.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Toni]

See posts 122 and 119

Caution: Post numbers are not set in stone. I deleted a duplicate post in this thread. And I see there's another deletion farther down the thread, also.

Thanks for the heads up

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Metaphor]

They both have a choice before sex.

Granted. I agree.

They both have a choice after birth

That's false and you know it. Legally, the father is required to pay the mother child support if she wants it.

Man, it is always about the dollar signs. This really ignores the woman's (and man's) role regarding support, both financial and physical. For a chunk of change a guy can walk away and not do a thing for the child. The price of not having a help raise a child is somewhat priceless, as that investment of time is substantial.

The woman is on the hook for financial support and being there. And to be clear, the investment in a child is a lot more time than money.

In what universe? Women are not obligated to raise their children or help pay for them.

If the mother wants to place the child for adoption, the father must also agree: they must both relinquish their parental rights, with some exceptions when the court terminated parental rights. Those circumstances are generally quite severe.

You are ahead of yourself. Women don't have to carry a fetus to term.

If the father wants to raise the child, he can petition for custody AND the mother then pays child support, assuming the father gains custody.

Some biological fathers do not know they are fathers, because there is no obligation for a woman to tell a man she is pregnant with his child.

Not sure what nonsense you are about. You stated a woman is not obligated to raise their children or pay for them. If you meant that a woman is not obligated to carry a pregnancy to term, you’re only partially right with respect to the current status of women’s rights in the US. Some states absolutely are doing their best to compel a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, under pretty severe penalty for not complying.

Not just that. There are also safe haven laws in every US state.

You do realize pregnancy and birth aren't negligble things to endure?

What has that to do with anything?

I made a contention: that women are not 'on the hook' for anything.

If a woman gets pregnant, she can abort. If she has the child, she can give it up under safe haven laws.

Ergo, a woman is not obligated to pay for a child or raise them.

 

[Metaphor]

They both have a choice before sex.

Granted. I agree.

They both have a choice after birth

That's false and you know it. Legally, the father is required to pay the mother child support if she wants it.

Man, it is always about the dollar signs. This really ignores the woman's (and man's) role regarding support, both financial and physical. For a chunk of change a guy can walk away and not do a thing for the child. The price of not having a help raise a child is somewhat priceless, as that investment of time is substantial.

The woman is on the hook for financial support and being there. And to be clear, the investment in a child is a lot more time than money.

In what universe? Women are not obligated to raise their children or help pay for them.

If the mother wants to place the child for adoption, the father must also agree: they must both relinquish their parental rights, with some exceptions when the court terminated parental rights. Those circumstances are generally quite severe.

You are ahead of yourself. Women don't have to carry a fetus to term.

If the father wants to raise the child, he can petition for custody AND the mother then pays child support, assuming the father gains custody.

Some biological fathers do not know they are fathers, because there is no obligation for a woman to tell a man she is pregnant with his child.

Not sure what nonsense you are about. You stated a woman is not obligated to raise their children or pay for them. If you meant that a woman is not obligated to carry a pregnancy to term, you’re only partially right with respect to the current status of women’s rights in the US. Some states absolutely are doing their best to compel a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, under pretty severe penalty for not complying.

Not just that. There are also safe haven laws in every US state.

Yes, there are safe haven laws. Do you have any understanding of just who makes use of safe havens? Or why?

Going through an unwanted, difficult, stressful pregnancy is not like taking a shit. There are a lot of physical, emotional, psychological, societal and economic reasons some decide their only alternative is to leave the baby at a hospital or fire station. Generally, the father is either abusive or out of the picture to the point that attempting to pursue him for support or to see if he wants to raise the baby is impossible.

About 75% of infants surrendered via safe haven laws or who are not allowed to leave the hospital with their parents are born with drugs in their systems.

I’d much prefer that there were no need for such safe havens. I’d much prefer that everyone who becomes pregnant has the support to make the very best decision that they can, whether to carry the pregnancy or to terminate it. Whether to raise the child (either or both parents) or to place the child for adoption.

Great story.

What has that to do with my contention that women are neither obligated to have, raise or pay for children, including their own?

 

[Metaphor]

They both have a choice before sex.

Granted. I agree.

They both have a choice after birth

That's false and you know it. Legally, the father is required to pay the mother child support if she wants it.

Man, it is always about the dollar signs. This really ignores the woman's (and man's) role regarding support, both financial and physical. For a chunk of change a guy can walk away and not do a thing for the child. The price of not having a help raise a child is somewhat priceless, as that investment of time is substantial.

The woman is on the hook for financial support and being there. And to be clear, the investment in a child is a lot more time than money.

In what universe? Women are not obligated to raise their children or help pay for them.

Those women wouldn't be getting paid support, which is what some are messing their pants over in this thread. Keep up.

It is you who has not only not kept up, you're not even on the same road.

I made a point that women are not obligated to have, raise, or pay for children, including their own.

 

[Rhea]

The problem I'm having in this thread is the general feminist principle that only women's rights matter.
Tom

You’re having a problem with that for a couple of reasons:

1. Because you lkeep ignoring the point before conception, and the point after birth, where both progenitors have a say, and
2. Because you keep thinking that the part during a pregancy is a decision to have a baby, which you think the man should get to decide equally, when in fact it is a decision to use the woman’s body, and under no circumstances anywhere in America is one human allowed to decide for another human to do something with their body.
3. Because you think that the man should get to base his decision in part three irrespective of what happened in part one.

This has been pointed out to you before. You keep ignoring that there are three decision points, and you keep ignoring that in one of them, only the person who owns the body gets to decide how the body is used..


Men have EXACTLY the same rights as women in this.
Each gets to decide whether to have sex (aside from situations of rape) - and whether to use birth control
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. In the case of a pregnancy, no one is asking him for body parts, so he does not have a choice to make at that moment.)

 

[Rhea]

I made a point that women are not obligated to have, raise, or pay for children, including their own.

I’m not so sure that is true.

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/what-should-fathers-do-to-get-child-support-from-mothers-37296

For example, if a woman’s child goes into foster care in some states, both she and the father are required to pay support.

A man can prevent a woman from pursuing adoption such that he gains custody. In such a case, he is entitled to support.
“ Most state child support laws say that children are entitled to financial support from both parents.”


So I do not think your premise is true.

 

[Jarhyn]

Because you are vying for a world where people can duck out of responsibility for another human life existing.

If anyone want to avoid responsibility, they can either pay their insurance or get snipped.

That's how a man signs the contract to walk away.

A thing short of that is irresponsible action, especially since he can in many cases use confusion and ambiguity over fatherhood to claim "wasn't me".

So no. You want the contract, you sign it with your consent to accept the shared risk, or snip snip and no risk.

It most certainly can't be "done in the bedroom" like "ooh, contracts get me so WET" like NO PLS..

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

And getting snipped isn't an answer for someone who wants kids later and it's not foolproof anyway.

Because it's leverage over someone's continuing consent over their own body.

In sex, you can't sign a contract that means someone can keep inserting something somewhere when you want them to stop.

In pregnancy you can't sign a contract that means someone can do something medically, bodily, to you when you want them to stop.

There's no ethical basis for such an agreement.

Therefore if someone wants that reality to come to pass where they are not a parent, THEY have the responsibility to SNIP SNIP!

At least for the one party, they can have full authority to make that decision after the fact because it's their body and their continuing consent.

 

[TomC]

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

 

[TomC]

This discussion reminds me of a comedy bit from some old sitcom.

A newlywed bride explaining marriage to her new husband. "Because what's mine is mine. And now what's yours is mine too."
Tom

 

[TomC]

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.

But this combination is so incredibly unlikely that nobody has ever bothered with thinking about it, much less setting legal precedents or something. Both of those would need to be simultaneously true for it to be a reasonable analogy to pregnancy. Pregnancy, on the other hand, happens a lot. Has forever. They're just not comparable.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

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

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.

 

[bilby]

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.

But this combination is so incredibly unlikely that nobody has ever bothered with thinking about it, much less setting legal precedents or something. Both of those would need to be simultaneously true for it to be a reasonable analogy to pregnancy. Pregnancy, on the other hand, happens a lot. Has forever. They're just not comparable.
Tom

Yet lots of people HAVE thought a great deal about it; And the law is very clear indeed on the question.

If you "strap Joe to the gurney" yourself, you are committing a serious assault, and are an evil monster in the eyes of the vast majority of ethicists, even though you are oblivious to the fact that such ethicists even considered your circumstances.

You are not only wrong, and nlt only ignorant, you are do massively at odds with the reality of the society you inhabit that you can only have gotten that way by massive religious indoctrination.

You, sir, are the victim of a Catholic education; And you don't even appear to be aware that your superficial rejection of it has done almost nothing to defend you from its pernicious and corrosive effects.

 

[laughing dog]

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

Any man who does not want have a child should insure his sperm does not inseminate an egg. For some obscure reason, you seem to think men have no agency whatsoever.

In a perfect world, society would step in to help support any child that needs it. But we don't live in such a world. Our society seem to value parental support for children over social support. Parental support means support by the father and the mother in the USA at this moment in time.

Until our society moves towards a wider support network for children, it seems the traditional expectation of support from both parents will prevail.

Forcing biological fathers to support the child he chose to bring into the world by voluntarily inseminating an egg would be illogical and, in my view, immoral in a world where there is adequate social support for children. I must confess that I have not seen the same crowd that routinely complains about forcing support from fathers push for adequate social support for children. Perhaps if they did, it would make their views are motivated by the well-being of children rather than short-sighted selfishness or outright misogyny.

 

[TomC]

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