Child Support Liability

[freethinker44]

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.

Yes, they are both obligated. An obligation which the woman has sole discretion to choose for the man.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, they are both obligated. An obligation which the woman has sole discretion to choose for the man.

But what's your alternative? Despite the fact that neither parent intended a child, a child exists and will need to be supported somehow. How should the costs to raise the child be divided up if the father isn't covering any of them?

It's pretty much a zero-sum game here: the costs to raise a child (the necessities, anyhow) are fixed, so unless your alternative arrangement identifies enough parties who are responsible to pay these costs (and are capable of paying their share of those costs), you're effectively arguing for a system where it's okay for the child to be deprived.

So how would it work? I hear you saying that a reluctant father shouldn't have to pay; so who should pay instead?

 

[freethinker44]

But what's your alternative? Despite the fact that neither parent intended a child, a child exists and will need to be supported somehow. How should the costs to raise the child be divided up if the father isn't covering any of them?

It's pretty much a zero-sum game here: the costs to raise a child (the necessities, anyhow) are fixed, so unless your alternative arrangement identifies enough parties who are responsible to pay these costs (and are capable of paying their share of those costs), you're effectively arguing for a system where it's okay for the child to be deprived.

So how would it work? I hear you saying that a reluctant father shouldn't have to pay; so who should pay instead?

I don't expect extra rights for a man, just the same rights women have. If the woman has a choice whether or not she has a child, whether that be abortion or adoption, the man should also have a choice whether he has a child. If the man chooses to not be a parent, the woman has the choice to either abort the pregnancy, put the child up for adoption, or raise the child on her own. And I would do the same for women as well. If they decide to put the child up for adoption, but the father wants to raise the child, then the woman should be relieved of any parental obligations, and the father will raise the child on his own.

 

[McBell]

I don't expect extra rights for a man, just the same rights women have. If the woman has a choice whether or not she has a child, whether that be abortion or adoption, the man should also have a choice whether he has a child. If the man chooses to not be a parent, the woman has the choice to either abort the pregnancy, put the child up for adoption, or raise the child on her own. And I would do the same for women as well. If they decide to put the child up for adoption, but the father wants to raise the child, then the woman should be relieved of any parental obligations, and the father will raise the child on his own.

You did not answer the question the above post is in reply to.

So far, as far as I can tell, you are doing nothing more than jumping up and down whining that it is not fair.
Even when flat out asked how you propose to "fix" the unfairness of it.

 

[Alceste]

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.

Ok, so he would specifically be compensated for not being able to decide what kind of education the child gets? What's that worth?

What I'm trying to say is, being a parent costs money. It doesn't earn you any. So it makes no sense for the father to be compensated out of the mother's estate for being unaware of the existence of his child. He's already had a prolonged child support holiday: he's already been "paid".

There are a lot of women who have chosen not to inform the father of their unexpected child. What you're proposing - that she can be sued for this - would have some serious real world consequences.

 

[Alceste]

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.

Most people don't perceive a pregnancy as a child, unless they're planning on having a child at the end of it. When was the last time you went to a funeral for a first trimester miscarriage?

 

[Alceste]

Yes, they are both obligated. An obligation which the woman has sole discretion to choose for the man.

No, he could have a vasectomy, wear a condom, or pull out. Perhaps soon he will be able to take a pill to control his fertility.

He has fewer birth control options, but he is not completely without a say in whether or not a child is created.

 

[moodys]

What I'm trying to say is, being a parent costs money. It doesn't earn you any. So it makes no sense for the father to be compensated out of the mother's estate for being unaware of the existence of his child. He's already had a prolonged child support holiday: he's already been "paid".

There are a lot of women who have chosen not to inform the father of their unexpected child. What you're proposing - that she can be sued for this - would have some serious real world consequences.

Most people don't perceive a pregnancy as a child, unless they're planning on having a child at the end of it. When was the last rune you went to A funeral for a first trimester miscarriage?

No, he could have a vasectomy, wear a condom, or pull out.

I'm almost certain you're using this forum as an outlet for pro-feminist talking points, I'm sure there's a more suitable forum for your grievances. The talking points you present don't really address the issue of rights for the father with respects to the child but rather play on a series of hypotheticals. Moreover there is no valid reason to oppose the notion that a pregnancy is typically associated with having a child.

 

[Alceste]

I'm almost certain you're using this forum as an outlet for pro-feminist talking points, I'm sure there's a more suitable forum for your grievances. The talking points you present don't really address the issue of rights for the father with respects to the child but rather play on a series of hypotheticals. Moreover there is no valid reason to oppose the notion that a pregnancy is typically associated with having a child.

We're talking about men. Fathers in particular. And many, many pregnancies do not result in a child. Half of them miscarry, for example.

What grievances? These are opinions.

 

[moodys]

We're talking about men. Fathers in particular. And many, many pregnancies do not result in a child. Half of them miscarry, for example.

What grievances? These are opinions.

Here you go, found it. Feminist Only - Religious Education Forum

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't expect extra rights for a man, just the same rights women have. If the woman has a choice whether or not she has a child, whether that be abortion or adoption, the man should also have a choice whether he has a child. If the man chooses to not be a parent, the woman has the choice to either abort the pregnancy, put the child up for adoption, or raise the child on her own.

That's one view of "same rights"; I have a different one:

- both have the right to take steps (within the limits of what's physically possible) to prevent childbirth.
- both have the right to bodily security... i.e. to not be forced or coerced into medical procedures they wouldn't choose for themselves.
- both have the right to support from the other parent for any children they have.
- both have the right not to be coerced into putting their children up for adoption.

And I would do the same for women as well. If they decide to put the child up for adoption, but the father wants to raise the child, then the woman should be relieved of any parental obligations, and the father will raise the child on his own.

Since you didn't actually answer my question directly, I have to infer a bit... but here's what I get from your reply: neither parent is obliged to provide for the child.

 

[moodys]

- both have the right to bodily security... i.e. to not be forced or coerced into medical procedures they wouldn't choose for themselves.
- both have the right to support from the other parent for any children they have.

The issue here is, these rights do not address the right of a man's refusal to provide for any impending child.

 

[Willamena]

The issue here is, these rights do not address the right of a man's refusal to provide for any impending child.

The surrender of parental rights addresses that.

 

[moodys]

The surrender of parental rights addresses that.

I was addressing 9-10ths_Penguin's constitution.

 

[DallasApple]

- both have the right to bodily security... i.e. to not be forced or coerced into medical procedures they wouldn't choose for themselves.

There was an interesting rather unusual case I read about.A married couple had frozen embryos in storage .They ended up divorcing and there was a battle over the embryos.She wanted to keep them he wanted them destroyed.They ruled in his favor.So in that case the man got to decide of have an "abortion".Her body was no longer involved.

 

[Alceste]

There was an interesting rather unusual case I read about.A married couple had frozen embryos in storage .They ended up divorcing and there was a battle over the embryos.She wanted to keep them he wanted them destroyed.They ruled in his favor.So in that case the man got to decide of have an "abortion".Her body was no longer involved.

See? There you go. Completely fair. Men can have abortions after all.

 

[Alceste]

Here you go, found it. Feminist Only - Religious Education Forum

That's for the discussion of feminism. Can't find any gender-based grievances or complaints in there. Looks like this is the place for that.

 

[freethinker44]

No, he could have a vasectomy, wear a condom, or pull out. Perhaps soon he will be able to take a pill to control his fertility.

He has fewer birth control options, but he is not completely without a say in whether or not a child is created.

But ultimately the woman decides whether or not a man is going to be a father though. If all that fails, if both the man and the woman fail to prevent the pregnancy, the woman chooses whether or not they have a child. Right?

The father has a say in whether or not a child is created, but he has no say in whether or not a child is born, which is a pretty important life event that he has no right to decide for himself.

 

[moodys]

That's for the discussion of feminism.

Exactly. Use it. You're consistently championing women's rights in the wrong thread.

 

[freethinker44]

That's one view of "same rights"; I have a different one:

- both have the right to take steps (within the limits of what's physically possible) to prevent childbirth.
- both have the right to bodily security... i.e. to not be forced or coerced into medical procedures they wouldn't choose for themselves.
- both have the right to support from the other parent for any children they have.
- both have the right not to be coerced into putting their children up for adoption.

No. The woman has the right not to be coerced into an abortion or adoption. The man has to pay for her decision to handle the mistake they both made.

Since you didn't actually answer my question directly, I have to infer a bit... but here's what I get from your reply: neither parent is obliged to provide for the child.

Really?!? You have extremely poor powers of observation then. Did you infer that from these posts?

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.

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.

Or from the post you inferred it from:

I don't expect extra rights for a man, just the same rights women have. If the woman has a choice whether or not she has a child, whether that be abortion or adoption, the man should also have a choice whether he has a child. If the man chooses to not be a parent, the woman has the choice to either abort the pregnancy, put the child up for adoption, or raise the child on her own. And I would do the same for women as well. If they decide to put the child up for adoption, but the father wants to raise the child, then the woman should be relieved of any parental obligations, and the father will raise the child on his own.

Which is exactly the opposite of "no parent is obliged to care for the child". Good attempt at a strawman argument though.

If you're still having trouble with your inference process, I can help. One or both or the adoptive parents will care for and be 100% responsible for the child.