Child Support Liability

[freethinker44]

You're treating the father's interests as superior to the interests of the child.

Funny how giving the father right's equal to the mother would disadvantage the child, isn't it?

- "the vast majority" is not all. You're still describing a situation where nobody has an obligation to make sure the child's needs are met.

It doesn't matter. A court order mandating support doesn't ensure the child's needs are met. It just ensures that parents who don't pay will be penalized.

- A child who is wanted by one parent is not "unwanted", and in the cases we're talking about here, the only obstacle to providing the child with a loving home that provides for the child's needs is money.

Again, mandating support doesn't mean support will be given. If we were really just looking out for what is best for the child, it would be better for the child to be adopted into a home with two loving parents rather than a single parent receiving no support from the other.

but giving the child up is really not a proper option in the vast majority of cases we're talking about: it's badfor the child, it's unnecessarily expensive, it takes adoptive homes away from the kids who truly need them... there's nothing positive in it.

Why is adoption not proper in the majority of cases where unplanned children are born to at least one parent who doesn't want them and won't support them? Is there some study that supports this, that says children are better off living with a single, poor parent rather than two loving, economically stable adoptive parents?

 

[Alceste]

Funny how giving the father right's equal to the mother would disadvantage the child, isn't it?

Are you still trying to equate the right of women not to bring a child into existence in the first place with the right of men to stroll away from their EXISTING CHILDREN without a backward glance? I don't get how you're not seeing those are not the same.

You have birth control options, she has birth control options.
You have obligations if those options fail, she has obligations if those options fail.

Totally fair. I can't see how that does not look fair to you.

 

[DallasApple]

Is there some study that supports this, that says children are better off living with a single, poor parent rather than two loving, economically stable adoptive parents?

Why did you leave the loving part out when it came to the single poor parent?Just curious.

 

[DallasApple]

Funny how giving the father right's equal to the mother would disadvantage the child, isn't it?

How besides the fact you cant force her to get an abortion or have the baby is it not equal?

If you want to keep the baby and she wants to put it up for adoption she needs your consent.(unless she can prove abandonment)If you take custody of the baby she cant just walk off and say "its my right not to help support the child" .Do you realize women pay child support?

 

[DallasApple]

Again, mandating support doesn't mean support will be given.

Again,it means its more likely to be given.If its not mandated its less likely to be given.

 

[freethinker44]

Are you still trying to equate the right of women not to bring a child into existence in the first place with the right of men to stroll away from their EXISTING CHILDREN without a backward glance? I don't get how you're not seeing those are not the same.

It is the same. And I said nothing about allowing men to turn their backs on their existing children. These rights for men would mirror abortion rights for women. So if a woman can legally obtain an abortion, I think a man should be able to legally renounce any parental obligations if the woman decides to have the child.

 

[freethinker44]

If you take custody of the baby she cant just walk off and say "its my right not to help support the child" .Do you realize women pay child support?

Do you realize I believe women should also have this right? If the woman doesn't want an abortion but doesn't want the child, I think 100% of the obligation should go to the father if he wants custody instead of adoption.

 

[Alceste]

It is the same. And I said nothing about allowing men to turn their backs on their existing children. These rights for men would mirror abortion rights for women. So if a woman can legally obtain an abortion, I think a man should be able to legally renounce any parental obligations if the woman decides to have the child.

But if the child is never created in the first place, there are no parental obligations to renounce. The mother doesn't "renounce her parental obligations". She doesn't have any. No child exists. It never will exist. She is pregnant for a bit, then she isn't. That's all.

Look, the difference is that terminating a pregnancy results in there being no child born. Just like using a condom, getting a vasectomy, having the shot in the balls Dallas mentioned, pulling out, etc. Nobody has any parental obligations because no child exists.

Your parental obligations only kick in when you're actually a parent. You have those obligations because there is a new human being you helped to spawn actually wandering around the world. It needs food, shelter, education, clothes, a library card, trips to the zoo, video games, snot control intervention and constant supervision. A non-existent child needs none of those things.

Somebody has to provide all those things for the child, and in our culture, that responsibility rests with the two individuals who contributed their genetic material to the spawning of it.

Your best option, if you don't want to be responsible for a child you've helped to spawn, is to wear a condom, get a vasectomy, get the shot in the balls, use the pill, pull out, etc. You are completely free to use any of these methods to prevent the birth of a child you will become responsible for if your prevention efforts fail. No woman can coerce you to do any of the above, with the possible exception of wearing a condom.

Likewise, a woman is completely free to use (or not use) any of the birth control measures available to her, including abortion.

It is EXACTLY the same. You both can use birth control. If a child is born despite your efforts at birth control, you are both responsible for it.

 

[DallasApple]

I think 100% of the obligation should go to the father if he wants custody instead of adoption.

O.K fair enough.I don't .I would never agree to that.Ever.

 

[freethinker44]

But if the child is never created in the first place, there are no parental obligations to renounce. The mother doesn't "renounce her parental obligations". She doesn't have any. No child exists. It never will exist. She is pregnant for a bit, then she isn't. That's all.

Accidents happen, people forget, birth control methods fail. After all that, Ultimately, the woman decides whether or not a child is born. And if one parent decides to keep the child while the other would put it up for adoption, the one has decided a major life decision for the other, completely against their will.

 

[Curious George]

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.

And a vasectomy involves the direct destruction of living cells, both. Prevent. Children. So by definition they are both preventative.

 

[Alceste]

Accidents happen, people forget, birth control methods fail. After all that, Ultimately, the woman decides whether or not a child is born. And if one parent decides to keep the child while the other would put it up for adoption, the one has decided a major life decision for the other, completely against their will.

No, they haven't. Either parent can still pass their personal obligations to another willing adult (I propose), assuming such a person can be found. The only thing they are NOT allowed to do is just stroll away without making any arrangements whatsoever for the adequate care of the child.

 

[DallasApple]

[QUOTEIt is the same. And I said nothing about allowing men to turn their backs on their existing children. These rights for men would mirror abortion rights for women. ][/QUOTE]

It would not "mirror" abortion .A viable whole human being never even exist.An abortion HALTS the formation and bringing into the world a separate whole human being.

Once it exists in the world (a whole human being) you can not compare it to abortion by saying you refuse to feed it .Neither the woman nor the man can .That is murder.

Based on your theory NO ONE should have to feed and take care of a child.Because everyone has the 'right' to not support it.

 

[Apex]

I propose a world where people are forced to take responsibility for their actions.

Problem solved.

 

[DallasApple]

The only thing they are NOT allowed to do is just stroll away without making any arrangements whatsoever for the adequate care of the child.
__________________

But not if you compare it to abortion.

 

[Curious George]

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.

And the alternative, that the mother can infringe upon the father's rights, what you are suggesting has real world consequences. Currently, the father does not need to Sue because he can fight and win custody. You are proposing he should forfeit a portion of these rights. The rights by the way are not limited to choice of education. The link I posted was dealing with that but also spoke of other rights. Read the opinions of the cases they cited. For more info.

Time and time again you have pointed out thatin an abortion "there is no child yet" well in the case of a birth there is a child. Why should the father's rights ne limited in anyway when there very much is a child involved and the discussion is not about the woman's body?

 

[DallasApple]

This is what it would be like.Seriously if we only go with the rights of adults AFTER a child is born.I the mother have the "right to not support it" the father as well has the "right to not support it" and of course the public has the "right not to support it".

So everyone has their right to not support the child.

 

[freethinker44]

It would not "mirror" abortion .A viable whole human being never even exist.An abortion HALTS the formation and bringing into the world a separate whole human being.

Once it exists in the world (a whole human being) you can not compare it to abortion by saying you refuse to feed it .Neither the woman nor the man can .That is murder.

Based on your theory NO ONE should have to feed and take care of a child.Because everyone has the 'right' to not support it.

As I said in previous posts. All of this would take place during the time frame when a woman can legally obtain an abortion. After that, at least one parent, or adoptive parents will be legally responsible for welfare of the child. Once they decide what they want to do, and it is legally done, they can't take it back, unless of course in cases of fraud or something similar. The decision to renounce parental responsibilities should be done before the child is born. At no point do I believe a parent should be allowed to renounce responsibility after the birth.

 

[Curious George]

Yes, I was just reading the actual rules for the first time: -For any DIR or discussion sub-forum that is colored green, non-members of that area may make respectful posts that comply with the tenets and spirit of that area. This includes questions, as well as knowledgeable comments.

I don't think you've been doing that. Reported.

I am going to have to say that while alceste has pointed out other factors to consider when assessing a father's rights she is completely within the spirit of the forum. If her views diverge from yours or mine it doesn't have to do with men's rights but the factors involved in assessing men's rights. This is then a philosophical discussion about defining men's rights. That is very different from your accusations.

 

[Alceste]

And the alternative, that the mother can infringe upon the father's rights, what you are suggesting has real world consequences. Currently, the father does not need to Sue because he can fight and win custody. You are proposing he should forfeit a portion of these rights. The rights by the way are not limited to choice of education. The link I posted was dealing with that but also spoke of other rights. Read the opinions of the cases they cited. For more info.

Time and time again you have pointed out thatin an abortion "there is no child yet" well in the case of a birth there is a child. Why should the father's rights ne limited in anyway when there very much is a child involved and the discussion is not about the woman's body?

They shouldn't, if you're talking about access, and the right to take on part of the responsibility of raising the child.

As to why he shouldn't be able to spirit the child away to a strange place away from her home and family, his rights should be limited because such a tumult in her home and family relations would psychologically damage the child.

Again, I'm seeking a balance between the best interests of everyone affected, and I'm placing the highest priority on the best interests of the child. That is domestic stability and continuity in her relationships with parental figures.

Keep in mind that access is a broad concept. It doesn't necessarily mean supervised visits in a public facility, closely guarded by a team of squint eyed social services counselors. Ideally, he would spend as much time with his child as he can spare, unsupervised and free to do whatever fatherly things he chooses.