Alceste
Vagabond
What rights, specifically? Can you point me to the law that outlines the specific legal rights a biological parent has? I'm aware of the obligations, but not any entitlements apart from the odd tax credit.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Child Support Liability
- Thread starter Revoltingest
- Start date
What rights, specifically? Can you point me to the law that outlines the specific legal rights a biological parent has? I'm aware of the obligations, but not any entitlements apart from the odd tax credit.
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
I love it that you can say that without a hint of irony.
Alceste
Vagabond
If we're going to talk about legalities as opposed to ethics, don't we need to look at the specific laws in question? They vary from place to place.
That's all fine and dandy, but it really has nothing to do with the thread does it? It's discussing the father's rights (Bob in particular in accordance with the OP).
When this issue was discussed in another thread, I brought up the "reasonable person" test that's used in many other circumstances. If we're consistent with other situations, then Bob's responsibility wouldn't be reduced at all as long as Sally's actions are reasonable.
IMO, abortion, adoption, and raising the child are all reasonable options, so Bob should bear responsibility for half of the cost of any of them.
Also, the small (very small) libertarian in me gets the screaming heebie-jeebies at the idea of setting up a situation where someone would be coerced into violating their bodily security with surgery she doesn't want.
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
But they're not his options. They are options for the mother that he has to pay for. After conception, the only option for the father is to wait and see how the mother will decide the rest of his life.
Last edited:
But how is this different from many other situations? For instance, in a business partnership, one partner's actions can create liabilities for the whole business, not just the half owned by the partner making the decision.
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
I don't think that is an accurate analogy. A partnership implies equality, but in the case of the OP the only partnership-like agreement is the agreement to have sex. After that, the decision making process is 100% owned by the woman even though the decision would effect both of them equally. So it isn't like a business partnership at all, it is more like a sole-proprietorship. The woman decides how to run "the business" and the man has to live with her decision.
Just to throw in a monkey wrench in the discussion (sorry
)...There are other legal business arrangements with LLC's and partnerships where one is a "silent" partner. You can have claim of ownership of an establishment and all its assets based on the number of shareholders and what percentage each has dividend rights to per quarter (or however the investors decide is best in their meetings).
"Silent" partners are investors who place some of their assets or liquid cash into a business but does not hold legal decision making power. It is usually based on knowledge or if the silent partner has no time he or she wishes to devote to the endeavor.
In this case, is it reasonable to suggest that the building of a fetus is entirely the work of the uterus and the woman's health? You could say that the man invested his sperm cells to the creation of the fetus, but his investment does not make him a co-owner or legal partnership where ownership is 50/50 (or even 51/49 with giving a woman the edge).
Just other things to consider, IMO, if pregnancy is being compared to an establishment.
I didn't mean it as an analogy; I meant it as an example to show that this apparent principle of "one person's choices shouldn't create obligations for another" just isn't true in the general sense. And since it's not true in general, you would need to establish it for the specific case of child support before you could appeal to it.
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
Just to throw in a monkey wrench in the discussion (sorry
There are other legal business arrangements with LLC's and partnerships where one is a "silent" partner. You can have claim of ownership of an establishment and all its assets based on the number of shareholders and what percentage each has dividend rights to per quarter (or however the investors decide is best in their meetings).
"Silent" partners are investors who place some of their assets or liquid cash into a business but does not hold legal decision making power. It is usually based on knowledge or if the silent partner has no time he or she wishes to devote to the endeavor.
In this case, is it reasonable to suggest that the building of a fetus is entirely the work of the uterus and the woman's health? You could say that the man invested his sperm cells to the creation of the fetus, but his investment does not make him a co-owner or legal partnership where ownership is 50/50 (or even 51/49 with giving a woman the edge).
Just other things to consider, IMO, if pregnancy is being compared to an establishment.
Actually, a silent partnership is sort of what I am advocating. I don't want men to have a voice in what the woman decides, I want them to be able to cut their "cut their losses", so to speak, and pull out of the business if they don't like the decisions being made for them.
We should probably get away from comparing pregnancy to business practices because I don't like the way businesses are run neither.
But that is a different discussion.freethinker44
Well-Known Member
I thought we were establishing it for the specific case of child support. I mean, I am not saying in a general sense this is how it should be in every comparable model. I am only applying this to pregnancy.
Even still, just because this has been the practice in tradition or this is how things are in other places, doesn't make it right. And I don't have to have a plan to change every aspect of society to have an opinion on one part of it. So really, it doesn't matter that businesses operate that way, I am not talking about business operations, I am talking about pregnancy obligations.
And my opinion is that while the child results from the pregnancy, he or she is a third party to any dealings between the two parents, so nothing that one parent does should absolve the responsibility of the other parent to the child... short of the one parent agreeing to take on the other parent's responsibility, but that needs the consent of both parents.
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
Right, and I agree. The rights to choose for the father that I am talking about all take place before the fetus becomes viable, or whatever the legal time limit for obtaining an abortion is. After that, too late, your going to be a father now. I am not saying that 5 years after the kid is born and the man has been acting as the kids father he can suddenly decide not to be the father. I am only saying that men should have the same comparable options that women have, and the woman's decisions should not automatically effect the mans life against his will.
Me Myself
Back to my username
I think both should be able to walk out at any point. The problem with the viable thing is that if he doesnt find out till the baby is out then what?
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
That is a problem. And I would give him the same option I would give a woman who found out she was pregnant after the fetus is viable, which is: Congratulations, your going to be a parent. Unless of course he could prove she intentionally withheld the pregnancy from him, I guess I would give an exception. But there are always exceptions to any rule and they should each be handled reasonably on a case by case basis.
Alceste
Vagabond
I know you're trying to make it feel fair, to make it the same, but there is a fundamental difference.
A: If the mother decides to have an abortion, there is no child. There will never be any child. There is nothing to care for, so there is no obligation on the part of either parent to care for it, and nothing to negotiate.
B: If, on the other hand, she decides to go through with the pregnancy, there is a child (maybe - there are still lots of miscarriages). Both parents made that child, and both have an obligation to care for it, and need to negotiate a way to do that.
See the difference? In A: there's nothing to look after. In B: there's a child that two people created who needs looking after, and they are both obligated to figure out how to do that.
Your perspective is trying to equate a child that doesn't exist (because the mother chose not to continue the pregnancy) with a child that does exist, and saying that because it's OK for a woman to decide not to create a child in the first place, it should also be OK for a man to decide not to care for his existing child.
It's ... irrational.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Parental Rights in Education | American Center for Law and Justice ACLJ
That should work for the U.S. don't have anything on Canada, but I am sure there is. Parents 100% have parental rights. I am not making this stuff up.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Hold the phone...
Are people suggesting that the father has less of a right because he can't get an abortion? Or less of a right because she can get an abortion? Either does not make sense to me. The option of abortion is a medical option regarding the woman's body. I guess a man can get a vasectomy to prevent pregnancy and this would be a medical procedure regarding the man's body that would affect the ability to have a child. So they do really have equal rights. Both can get medical procedures which prevent the creation of children.
Are people suggesting that the father has less of a right because he can't get an abortion? Or less of a right because she can get an abortion? Either does not make sense to me. The option of abortion is a medical option regarding the woman's body. I guess a man can get a vasectomy to prevent pregnancy and this would be a medical procedure regarding the man's body that would affect the ability to have a child. So they do really have equal rights. Both can get medical procedures which prevent the creation of children.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
but an abortion is not a 'preventative' measure... its a direct destruction of a growing child.
I believe pregnancy is the responsibility of both the man and the woman...there are 3 people to consider in the equation and 1/3 of them belongs to the man. So i dont believe the woman should be left with the sole decision on what to do with the pending birth....a man has just as much right as the woman in this case.