how is abortion different from post birthing abandonment besides death of the fetus? In both cases, to the parents the child does not exist and they are not responisble for it.
Well in the abortion example, a child doesn't yet exist.
Well in the abortion example, a child doesn't yet exist.
well that's undergoing a legal challenge. But that wasn't the point. The point being, that the outcome for the parent isn't different. Either way the "parent" is no longer responsible for the "child."
well that's undergoing a legal challenge. But that wasn't the point. The point being, that the outcome for the parent isn't different. Either way the "parent" is no longer responsible for the "child."
Ends don't justify the means in my mind. We can't look at the results of the actions and decide that because the results are equitable the actions themselves are then equitable.
As for the legal challenge you say, there currently is no legal challenge. I'm basing my statement off of the current laws. When they change so will the foundation of my argument and ultimately my opinion. In the meantime, it's not really debatable.
Ends don't justify the means in my mind. We can't look at the results of the actions and decide that because the results are equitable the actions themselves are then equitable.
As for the legal challenge you say, there currently is no legal challenge. I'm basing my statement off of the current laws. When they change so will the foundation of my argument and ultimately my opinion. In the meantime, it's not really debatable.
well that's nice, you hold an opinion ;-)
Actually the issue if up for debate. the argument over stem cell research has shown that there is a crop of legal questions over when a fetus is a "person" and has the resulting "property rights" i discussed earlier. Anyways. If you 're of the opinion that the process of relinquishing ones parental responsibilities is more important that the actual ending of parental responisbilities, then fine there is no debate then.
Your second paragraph makes the most sense. Most of these women giving children up for adoption, or abandonment have likely been abandoned by the fathers. That or they have done something horrible (multiple partners, cheating, etc.) that they don't wish to admit to and just can't/don't name the father claiming his abandonment. I think that is why most laws really don't push regarding a father's rights. They assume abandonment of them.
This last sentence is unfortunately the crux of the issue: They should assume abandonment, because that's what tends to happen.
A few other pragmatic considerations:
The "sentencing" to 18 years of child support is nominal at best in practice. The majority of deadbeat dads don't pay, and get away with it. So, basically, men already can opt out, and they do in droves no matter what the woman wants, or what her circumstance is.
Someone mentioned the (very real) pain of a father losing a child he wanted to an abortion. But if it was aborted, then it's likely that she didn't want it. The implication is that the man should be able to impose her will on the woman. I doubt that was what the poster meant; but if your position is for equality, this sort of scenario is inevitable. Both parents would have to want the child in order to avoid it.
The argument in favor of the right to "opt out" of parenthood post hoc assumes good faith on the part of the absconding parent; requiring it as a right that can be asserted over and against the will of the other parent assumes bad faith on the part of the other parent. Given that an alarming number of men opt out despite the laws against such and get away with it, it's not hard to imagine a situation in which men do what they do now, only leaving the woman with a child, full responsibility for it, and no recourse whatsoever. With freedom comes responsibility. As for the supposed impact on democracy, Jefferson famously observed that a democracy couldn't function without a sufficiently educated and participatory citizenry. Right now, education of men as equal participants in a family is coming along, but it's not there yet. When deadbeat dads are rare and exceptional creatures, we can revisit this (and in that case, I would say that the legal ability of a father to opt out would end with the mother's practical ability to opt out).
The premise that fatherhood dooms a man to 18 years of hard labor is dubious, even leaving aside the statistical toothlessness of the current laws: Whether or not a man is ever a father (or for that matter, whether a woman is ever a mother) the odds are that they will be working. Right now, the odds that they'll be working two or more jobs, or for a total of significantly more than 40 hours a week, are very good. Whether he becomes a "mere paycheck" is up to him (unless he's such a freak that the mother doesn't want him anywhere near her, although, in that case the laws aren't much help either in practice). There is certainly no shortage of men who are not sole or principle supporters of children who work strenuous and hazardous jobs for whatever reason. Currently, motherhood "dooms" a woman to 18 years of labor in addition to 9 months of pregnancy if she wants the child; if she has no father, it becomes extremely hard labor with an unsatisfactory end result: Children don't do well with single working parents.
I won't go into the problems pregnant women face in the workplace. It's better than it was, but the assumption that they're not serious or dedicated persists -- after all, they have a kid to take care of, and we know who does all that work, right?
Quote:
As for the prenatal care, you are correct there are costs. However what if the father doesn't want the child. Should he be liable for more than half the cost of the abortion? Should his obligation be for half the pregnancy costs and then the child responsibility on his part lasts no longer than hers? How would that go?
Anyone living in the world has to accept the idea that you do not always get what you want. If you're a father, well, guess what? You're a father. Right now I would say that any imbalance in the rights of women vs. the rights of men is merely an inadequate counterbalance to the behavior of women vs. the behavior of men in the face of an unwanted pregnancy, and also in the almost inevitable assignment of child care - by the court, or by happenstance - to the woman if the two parents don't stay together for whatever reason. If men want more freedom, they can behave more responsibly.
Yes, if the woman aborts or doesn't name the father on the birth certificate.
We covered this earlier in the thread, but what I said was that men need to be responsible enough to keep track of their sperm. It's not the woman's job to do it, but our own.
We covered this earlier in the thread, but what I said was that men need to be responsible enough to keep track of their sperm. It's not the woman's job to do it, but our own.
If we keep track of our sperm then...
But even if he keeps track of it Bunge, he still has no rights if the mother doesn't name him. He has to go to court and have them take almost two years to establish his parental rights.
This last sentence is unfortunately the crux of the issue: They should assume abandonment, because that's what tends to happen.
The "sentencing" to 18 years of child support is nominal at best in practice. The majority of deadbeat dads don't pay, and get away with it. So, basically, men already can opt out, and they do in droves no matter what the woman wants, or what her circumstance is.
Well of course the majority of "deadbeat" dad's don't pay support. That is why we call them deadbeats. However of all father with support orders an overwhelming majority pay. Likewise of those who are deadbeats, most have paid to the best of their ability, but if you get behind even part of your support for even one month, they you are a "deadbeat."
Let me slap you upside the head with a few statistics, including that a much higher percentage of mothers with support orders against them are deadbeats than fathers.
Information from multiple sources show that only 10% of all noncustodial father fit the "deadbeat dad" category: 90% of the fathers with joint custody paid the support due. Fathers with visitation rights pay 79.1%; and 44.5% of those with NO visitation rights still financially support their children. (Source: Census Bureau report. Series P-23, No. 173). Additionally, of those NOT paying support, 66% are not doing so because they LACK THE FINANCILA RESOURCES to pay (Source: GAO report: GAO/HRD-92-39 FS).
66% of single mothers work less than full time while only 10% of fathers fall into this category. In addition, almost 47% of non-custodial MOTHER DEFAULT on support compared with the 27% of fathers who default. (Source: Garansky and Meyer, DHHS Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, 1991).
Total Custodial Mothers: 11,268,000. Total Custodial Fathers 2,907,000 (Source: Current Population Reports, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Series P-20, No. 458, 1991).
Total amount of child support owed - $14,800,000,000. Total amount of child support received - $11,100,000,000. (Source: Current Population Reports, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Series P-23, No 173, 1998).
66% of all support not paid by non-custodial fathers is due to inability to pay. (Source: U.S. General Accounting Office Report, GAO/HRD-92-39FS January 1992).
The following is sourced from: Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Income Security Policy, Oct. 1991, Authors: Meyer and Garansky -
* Custodial mothers who receive a support award: 79.6%
Custodial fathers who receive a support award: 29.9%
* Non-custodial mothers who totally default on support: 46.9%
Non-custodial fathers who totally default on support: 26.9%
(Data obtained by asking custodial parents)
* All the following are for custodial parents-
Single mothers who work less than full time: 66.2%
Single fathers who work less than full time: 10.2%
* Single mothers who work more than 44 hours per week: 7.0%
Single fathers who work more than 44 hours per week: 24.5%
* Single mothers who receive public assistance: 46.2%
Single fathers who receive public assistance: 20.8%
If you will read and see the most overwhelming factor affecting support is whether the father gets to see the children. It's not hard to understand why a father might not want to send support of the mother is using it to move his children several hundred miles away from him where he cannot see his children for example. So I would call your "opting out in droves" to be no better than character assasination.
Quote:
The argument in favor of the right to "opt out" of parenthood post hoc assumes good faith on the part of the absconding parent; requiring it as a right that can be asserted over and against the will of the other parent assumes bad faith on the part of the other parent. Given that an alarming number of men opt out despite the laws against such and get away with it, it's not hard to imagine a situation in which men do what they do now, only leaving the woman with a child, full responsibility for it, and no recourse whatsoever. With freedom comes responsibility. As for the supposed impact on democracy, Jefferson famously observed that a democracy couldn't function without a sufficiently educated and participatory citizenry. Right now, education of men as equal participants in a family is coming along, but it's not there yet. When deadbeat dads are rare and exceptional creatures, we can revisit this (and in that case, I would say that the legal ability of a father to opt out would end with the mother's practical ability to opt out).
If the woman wants the child, it's her body and her choice. Same is true if she doesn't want it. By notifying him early in her pregnancy, she can get to the truth of the matter regarding the man and his desire to parent instead of possibly deluding herself and carrying the child to term. Claiming that a man shouldn't get the right because a few men don't pay support is the most superficial argument I've read. If anything it supports giving men equal rights because it shows how women can force a man into parenting when he cares not to do so. You then say we can revisit this when deadbeat dad's are rare. I've already shown you they are so I suggest you get busy visiting it instead of dismissing it with false claims. Likewise if men shouldn't get rights because of deadbeat dad's then women deserve fewer rights as well because they default on support at an even HIGHER RATE.
Quote:
The premise that fatherhood dooms a man to 18 years of hard labor is dubious, even leaving aside the statistical toothlessness of the current laws: Whether or not a man is ever a father (or for that matter, whether a woman is ever a mother) the odds are that they will be working. Right now, the odds that they'll be working two or more jobs, or for a total of significantly more than 40 hours a week, are very good. Whether he becomes a "mere paycheck" is up to him (unless he's such a freak that the mother doesn't want him anywhere near her, although, in that case the laws aren't much help either in practice). There is certainly no shortage of men who are not sole or principle supporters of children who work strenuous and hazardous jobs for whatever reason. Currently, motherhood "dooms" a woman to 18 years of labor in addition to 9 months of pregnancy if she wants the child; if she has no father, it becomes extremely hard labor with an unsatisfactory end result: Children don't do well with single working parents.
The labor doesn't have to be hard. The real issue with the "toothless" laws is that a man can be held in contempt of court of he quits a high paying job and takes a lower paying job. Thus if he was working as an oil refinery worker and earned $100k a year and quit to become safe and work as a bus driver earning $50k a year, he could be thrown in jail by our "toothless" support laws. As for those toothless laws, they allow a court to determine when you can visit your own children. They can ruin your credit, garnish your wages and tax returns, take your drivers license, and lastly toss you in jail for support orders. You tell me which of those provisions are toothless in today's society.
To dismiss it saying he would be working anyway is to support slavery. Just because someone is working doesn't mean they aren't entitled to the fruits of their labor. As for what motherhood "dooms" a mother to do. That is why we have legal abortion, adoption and abandonment laws. So she can choose not to do that to herself. If she still chooses to do it, then it is her choice.
Quote:
I won't go into the problems pregnant women face in the workplace. It's better than it was, but the assumption that they're not serious or dedicated persists -- after all, they have a kid to take care of, and we know who does all that work, right?
Get out of the 19th century. You do know women can vote and even own property now right? The assumption that they are not "serious" and "dedicated" persists because most women are smart enough to see that your value to society and your family is not only determined by your job title or your paycheck. Men would like to move on to this understanding as well but they have this little problem called the courts which tells them when they can "visit" their own children and likewise that "parenting = paycheck."
Women opt (not are forced) to work part time at 5 times the rate of men. Quite simply put they have a different set of priorities. As for men being "serious" and "dedicated" well when your a$$ is going to jail over support orders it is amazing how "serious" and "dedicated" you can be about avoiding that. Why don't you pull up the news articles about all the women going to jail over child support orders for me?
Quote:
Anyone living in the world has to accept the idea that you do not always get what you want. If you're a father, well, guess what? You're a father. If men want more freedom, they can behave more responsibly.
So you don't always get what you want. So perhaps it is women who should come to the realization that giving a man 15 minutes of fun doesn't = 18 years of support. Perhaps when women become more responsible and get their expectations realistic they will stop filing for divorces at 200-300% the rate of men just because they are "emotionally unfulfilled." Maybe women will become responsible enough to see that with their sexual revolution and abortion rights comes the responsibility to pick a father that will help them raise children instead of defaulting to some guy that was fun for that night.
And lastly aside from your cartoonish attempts to portray men as bad for not being a paycheck, you've shown no reason why they shouldn't have the same rights as women regarding the choice of parenting.
He has to go to court and have them take almost two years to establish his parental rights.
Then I think we've found a problem that needs to be fixed. Doing what you're suggesting doesn't address this problemed link in the chain, it's just adding another.
We covered this earlier in the thread, but what I said was that men need to be responsible enough to keep track of their sperm. It's not the woman's job to do it, but our own.
If we keep track of our sperm then...
Give me a break. If our sperm is stolen and hijacked we should not be held responsible. Period.
Then I think we've found a problem that needs to be fixed. Doing what you're suggesting doesn't address this problemed link in the chain, it's just adding another.
How could it possibly be fixed? The courts have shown that they will not decide on anything that forces a woman to be a parent or do something with her body at the expense of a man. It wouldn't just be changing a law. It would be changing an entire precident. Women name the fathers of the children. What sort of remedy would you recommend where fathers could "claim" their children without legal challenge and stop a woman from asserting her rights regarding giving up her body, time, money etc. instead of giving up her parenting rights.
How could it possibly be fixed? The courts have shown that they will not decide on anything that forces a woman to be a parent or do something with her body at the expense of a man. It wouldn't just be changing a law. It would be changing an entire precident. Women name the fathers of the children. What sort of remedy would you recommend where fathers could "claim" their children without legal challenge and stop a woman from asserting her rights regarding giving up her body, time, money etc. instead of giving up her parenting rights.
Nick
What you want is to force the woman who HATES the parassite in her body to continue the pregnancy, and then fully support it for the next 18 years, only because you want it? I think the science should try to implant the fetus to the man's body if it's the MAN that wants the kid, and not the woman.
I'd run away fast seeign a single, expecting father ...
What you want is to force the woman who HATES the parassite in her body to continue the pregnancy, and then fully support it for the next 18 years, only because you want it? I think the science should try to implant the fetus to the man's body if it's the MAN that wants the kid, and not the woman.
I'd run away fast seeign a single, expecting father ...
No one has said she has to continue the pregnancy, that is what abortion is for.
[starts slow clapping for Trumptman's longer recent post above]
...and can Giaguara get anymore circular? Yes, yes, we get your point. No man will want to carry a baby till matriculation. It was a f*cking movie. You are fixated on it in some passive aggressive revenge mode. Get over it.
It seems a few people here are unable to grasp the notion that nobody here, nor is this topic title, suggesting that a woman should be forced to gestate and birth a baby if it is not her will to do so. If she doesn't want to have it, she doesn't want to have it- end of story (until science figures out how to do embryo and pre-embryo transplants into surrogate mothers, perhaps- a potentially more feasible technique than idle fantasies of men being converted to hermaphrodites and "rolling their own"). No sane or respectful man would dare to have this legal precedence fiddled with.
What this is really about is if men's rights should be brought further to parity or not with women's rights wrt legally opt-out motions. Basically, there are none for men, but half-a-dozen ways for women. Additionally, women can seemingly "opt-in" a man, any man, at literally any time of the pregnancy or even after the pregnancy. Just write in some man's name on the birth certificate. No proof required. Just boom- you're it (even if you weren't the sperm donor). The "mark" then has to pursue legal action to correct this matter. That's right- guilty until proven innocent. Doing the legal dance may take a few years to pan-out, as well, all the while you are responsible for the child support in the meantime.
Just live with a single mother for a few months, and you may become legally accountable for child support (for children you have NO blood relation to whatsoever). The laws in some states have reached ridiculous levels- don't turn your back for a second.
In all seriousness, how can our sperm be stolen and hijacked?
There are cases where men have been declared responsible for supporting children where the woman impregnated herself with sperm taken from a used condom.
Of course that is no more outragous than the doctor order to pay child support to a woman for whom he had performed the procedure to make her infertile. Likewise there are men who have been ordered to pay support for children that are not theirs but they lived with them and supported them for a period of time while living with their mother. (not even married)
It's why Tom Liekus recommends putting a few drops of tobasco sauce in your used condom before chucking it in the trash (or aside) after a session with your girl. This may seem completely ridiculous and paranoid, but it is known to happen (the hijacking).
Comments
Originally posted by Sondjata
how is abortion different from post birthing abandonment besides death of the fetus? In both cases, to the parents the child does not exist and they are not responisble for it.
Well in the abortion example, a child doesn't yet exist.
Originally posted by bunge
Well in the abortion example, a child doesn't yet exist.
well that's undergoing a legal challenge. But that wasn't the point. The point being, that the outcome for the parent isn't different. Either way the "parent" is no longer responsible for the "child."
Originally posted by Sondjata
well that's undergoing a legal challenge. But that wasn't the point. The point being, that the outcome for the parent isn't different. Either way the "parent" is no longer responsible for the "child."
Ends don't justify the means in my mind. We can't look at the results of the actions and decide that because the results are equitable the actions themselves are then equitable.
As for the legal challenge you say, there currently is no legal challenge. I'm basing my statement off of the current laws. When they change so will the foundation of my argument and ultimately my opinion. In the meantime, it's not really debatable.
Originally posted by bunge
Ends don't justify the means in my mind. We can't look at the results of the actions and decide that because the results are equitable the actions themselves are then equitable.
As for the legal challenge you say, there currently is no legal challenge. I'm basing my statement off of the current laws. When they change so will the foundation of my argument and ultimately my opinion. In the meantime, it's not really debatable.
well that's nice, you hold an opinion ;-)
Actually the issue if up for debate. the argument over stem cell research has shown that there is a crop of legal questions over when a fetus is a "person" and has the resulting "property rights" i discussed earlier. Anyways. If you 're of the opinion that the process of relinquishing ones parental responsibilities is more important that the actual ending of parental responisbilities, then fine there is no debate then.
Originally posted by trumptman
Your second paragraph makes the most sense. Most of these women giving children up for adoption, or abandonment have likely been abandoned by the fathers. That or they have done something horrible (multiple partners, cheating, etc.) that they don't wish to admit to and just can't/don't name the father claiming his abandonment. I think that is why most laws really don't push regarding a father's rights. They assume abandonment of them.
This last sentence is unfortunately the crux of the issue: They should assume abandonment, because that's what tends to happen.
A few other pragmatic considerations:
The "sentencing" to 18 years of child support is nominal at best in practice. The majority of deadbeat dads don't pay, and get away with it. So, basically, men already can opt out, and they do in droves no matter what the woman wants, or what her circumstance is.
Someone mentioned the (very real) pain of a father losing a child he wanted to an abortion. But if it was aborted, then it's likely that she didn't want it. The implication is that the man should be able to impose her will on the woman. I doubt that was what the poster meant; but if your position is for equality, this sort of scenario is inevitable. Both parents would have to want the child in order to avoid it.
The argument in favor of the right to "opt out" of parenthood post hoc assumes good faith on the part of the absconding parent; requiring it as a right that can be asserted over and against the will of the other parent assumes bad faith on the part of the other parent. Given that an alarming number of men opt out despite the laws against such and get away with it, it's not hard to imagine a situation in which men do what they do now, only leaving the woman with a child, full responsibility for it, and no recourse whatsoever. With freedom comes responsibility. As for the supposed impact on democracy, Jefferson famously observed that a democracy couldn't function without a sufficiently educated and participatory citizenry. Right now, education of men as equal participants in a family is coming along, but it's not there yet. When deadbeat dads are rare and exceptional creatures, we can revisit this (and in that case, I would say that the legal ability of a father to opt out would end with the mother's practical ability to opt out).
The premise that fatherhood dooms a man to 18 years of hard labor is dubious, even leaving aside the statistical toothlessness of the current laws: Whether or not a man is ever a father (or for that matter, whether a woman is ever a mother) the odds are that they will be working. Right now, the odds that they'll be working two or more jobs, or for a total of significantly more than 40 hours a week, are very good. Whether he becomes a "mere paycheck" is up to him (unless he's such a freak that the mother doesn't want him anywhere near her, although, in that case the laws aren't much help either in practice). There is certainly no shortage of men who are not sole or principle supporters of children who work strenuous and hazardous jobs for whatever reason. Currently, motherhood "dooms" a woman to 18 years of labor in addition to 9 months of pregnancy if she wants the child; if she has no father, it becomes extremely hard labor with an unsatisfactory end result: Children don't do well with single working parents.
I won't go into the problems pregnant women face in the workplace. It's better than it was, but the assumption that they're not serious or dedicated persists -- after all, they have a kid to take care of, and we know who does all that work, right?
As for the prenatal care, you are correct there are costs. However what if the father doesn't want the child. Should he be liable for more than half the cost of the abortion? Should his obligation be for half the pregnancy costs and then the child responsibility on his part lasts no longer than hers? How would that go?
Anyone living in the world has to accept the idea that you do not always get what you want. If you're a father, well, guess what? You're a father. Right now I would say that any imbalance in the rights of women vs. the rights of men is merely an inadequate counterbalance to the behavior of women vs. the behavior of men in the face of an unwanted pregnancy, and also in the almost inevitable assignment of child care - by the court, or by happenstance - to the woman if the two parents don't stay together for whatever reason. If men want more freedom, they can behave more responsibly.
Originally posted by bunge
Can a woman do this if the man wants the child? No, only when the father is willing to let the child go up for adoption.
Yes, if the woman aborts or doesn't name the father on the birth certificate.
Originally posted by BR
Yes, if the woman aborts or doesn't name the father on the birth certificate.
We covered this earlier in the thread, but what I said was that men need to be responsible enough to keep track of their sperm. It's not the woman's job to do it, but our own.
If we keep track of our sperm then...
Originally posted by bunge
We covered this earlier in the thread, but what I said was that men need to be responsible enough to keep track of their sperm. It's not the woman's job to do it, but our own.
If we keep track of our sperm then...
But even if he keeps track of it Bunge, he still has no rights if the mother doesn't name him. He has to go to court and have them take almost two years to establish his parental rights.
Nick
Originally posted by Amorph
This last sentence is unfortunately the crux of the issue: They should assume abandonment, because that's what tends to happen.
The "sentencing" to 18 years of child support is nominal at best in practice. The majority of deadbeat dads don't pay, and get away with it. So, basically, men already can opt out, and they do in droves no matter what the woman wants, or what her circumstance is.
Well of course the majority of "deadbeat" dad's don't pay support. That is why we call them deadbeats. However of all father with support orders an overwhelming majority pay. Likewise of those who are deadbeats, most have paid to the best of their ability, but if you get behind even part of your support for even one month, they you are a "deadbeat."
Let me slap you upside the head with a few statistics, including that a much higher percentage of mothers with support orders against them are deadbeats than fathers.
Information from multiple sources show that only 10% of all noncustodial father fit the "deadbeat dad" category: 90% of the fathers with joint custody paid the support due. Fathers with visitation rights pay 79.1%; and 44.5% of those with NO visitation rights still financially support their children. (Source: Census Bureau report. Series P-23, No. 173). Additionally, of those NOT paying support, 66% are not doing so because they LACK THE FINANCILA RESOURCES to pay (Source: GAO report: GAO/HRD-92-39 FS).
66% of single mothers work less than full time while only 10% of fathers fall into this category. In addition, almost 47% of non-custodial MOTHER DEFAULT on support compared with the 27% of fathers who default. (Source: Garansky and Meyer, DHHS Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, 1991).
Total Custodial Mothers: 11,268,000. Total Custodial Fathers 2,907,000 (Source: Current Population Reports, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Series P-20, No. 458, 1991).
Total amount of child support owed - $14,800,000,000. Total amount of child support received - $11,100,000,000. (Source: Current Population Reports, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Series P-23, No 173, 1998).
66% of all support not paid by non-custodial fathers is due to inability to pay. (Source: U.S. General Accounting Office Report, GAO/HRD-92-39FS January 1992).
The following is sourced from: Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Income Security Policy, Oct. 1991, Authors: Meyer and Garansky -
* Custodial mothers who receive a support award: 79.6%
Custodial fathers who receive a support award: 29.9%
* Non-custodial mothers who totally default on support: 46.9%
Non-custodial fathers who totally default on support: 26.9%
(Data obtained by asking custodial parents)
* All the following are for custodial parents-
Single mothers who work less than full time: 66.2%
Single fathers who work less than full time: 10.2%
* Single mothers who work more than 44 hours per week: 7.0%
Single fathers who work more than 44 hours per week: 24.5%
* Single mothers who receive public assistance: 46.2%
Single fathers who receive public assistance: 20.8%
If you will read and see the most overwhelming factor affecting support is whether the father gets to see the children. It's not hard to understand why a father might not want to send support of the mother is using it to move his children several hundred miles away from him where he cannot see his children for example. So I would call your "opting out in droves" to be no better than character assasination.
The argument in favor of the right to "opt out" of parenthood post hoc assumes good faith on the part of the absconding parent; requiring it as a right that can be asserted over and against the will of the other parent assumes bad faith on the part of the other parent. Given that an alarming number of men opt out despite the laws against such and get away with it, it's not hard to imagine a situation in which men do what they do now, only leaving the woman with a child, full responsibility for it, and no recourse whatsoever. With freedom comes responsibility. As for the supposed impact on democracy, Jefferson famously observed that a democracy couldn't function without a sufficiently educated and participatory citizenry. Right now, education of men as equal participants in a family is coming along, but it's not there yet. When deadbeat dads are rare and exceptional creatures, we can revisit this (and in that case, I would say that the legal ability of a father to opt out would end with the mother's practical ability to opt out).
If the woman wants the child, it's her body and her choice. Same is true if she doesn't want it. By notifying him early in her pregnancy, she can get to the truth of the matter regarding the man and his desire to parent instead of possibly deluding herself and carrying the child to term. Claiming that a man shouldn't get the right because a few men don't pay support is the most superficial argument I've read. If anything it supports giving men equal rights because it shows how women can force a man into parenting when he cares not to do so. You then say we can revisit this when deadbeat dad's are rare. I've already shown you they are so I suggest you get busy visiting it instead of dismissing it with false claims. Likewise if men shouldn't get rights because of deadbeat dad's then women deserve fewer rights as well because they default on support at an even HIGHER RATE.
The premise that fatherhood dooms a man to 18 years of hard labor is dubious, even leaving aside the statistical toothlessness of the current laws: Whether or not a man is ever a father (or for that matter, whether a woman is ever a mother) the odds are that they will be working. Right now, the odds that they'll be working two or more jobs, or for a total of significantly more than 40 hours a week, are very good. Whether he becomes a "mere paycheck" is up to him (unless he's such a freak that the mother doesn't want him anywhere near her, although, in that case the laws aren't much help either in practice). There is certainly no shortage of men who are not sole or principle supporters of children who work strenuous and hazardous jobs for whatever reason. Currently, motherhood "dooms" a woman to 18 years of labor in addition to 9 months of pregnancy if she wants the child; if she has no father, it becomes extremely hard labor with an unsatisfactory end result: Children don't do well with single working parents.
The labor doesn't have to be hard. The real issue with the "toothless" laws is that a man can be held in contempt of court of he quits a high paying job and takes a lower paying job. Thus if he was working as an oil refinery worker and earned $100k a year and quit to become safe and work as a bus driver earning $50k a year, he could be thrown in jail by our "toothless" support laws. As for those toothless laws, they allow a court to determine when you can visit your own children. They can ruin your credit, garnish your wages and tax returns, take your drivers license, and lastly toss you in jail for support orders. You tell me which of those provisions are toothless in today's society.
To dismiss it saying he would be working anyway is to support slavery. Just because someone is working doesn't mean they aren't entitled to the fruits of their labor. As for what motherhood "dooms" a mother to do. That is why we have legal abortion, adoption and abandonment laws. So she can choose not to do that to herself. If she still chooses to do it, then it is her choice.
I won't go into the problems pregnant women face in the workplace. It's better than it was, but the assumption that they're not serious or dedicated persists -- after all, they have a kid to take care of, and we know who does all that work, right?
Get out of the 19th century. You do know women can vote and even own property now right? The assumption that they are not "serious" and "dedicated" persists because most women are smart enough to see that your value to society and your family is not only determined by your job title or your paycheck. Men would like to move on to this understanding as well but they have this little problem called the courts which tells them when they can "visit" their own children and likewise that "parenting = paycheck."
Women opt (not are forced) to work part time at 5 times the rate of men. Quite simply put they have a different set of priorities. As for men being "serious" and "dedicated" well when your a$$ is going to jail over support orders it is amazing how "serious" and "dedicated" you can be about avoiding that. Why don't you pull up the news articles about all the women going to jail over child support orders for me?
Anyone living in the world has to accept the idea that you do not always get what you want. If you're a father, well, guess what? You're a father. If men want more freedom, they can behave more responsibly.
So you don't always get what you want. So perhaps it is women who should come to the realization that giving a man 15 minutes of fun doesn't = 18 years of support. Perhaps when women become more responsible and get their expectations realistic they will stop filing for divorces at 200-300% the rate of men just because they are "emotionally unfulfilled." Maybe women will become responsible enough to see that with their sexual revolution and abortion rights comes the responsibility to pick a father that will help them raise children instead of defaulting to some guy that was fun for that night.
And lastly aside from your cartoonish attempts to portray men as bad for not being a paycheck, you've shown no reason why they shouldn't have the same rights as women regarding the choice of parenting.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
He has to go to court and have them take almost two years to establish his parental rights.
Then I think we've found a problem that needs to be fixed. Doing what you're suggesting doesn't address this problemed link in the chain, it's just adding another.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
They meet in a bar.
They start talking.
They go back to her place.
They start kissing.
They move to the bedroom.
They rip each others clothes off.
And then...
"Excuse me, could you read this and sign at the "x" please?"
Right.
At one crazy PC college you do have to do this.
Originally posted by bunge
We covered this earlier in the thread, but what I said was that men need to be responsible enough to keep track of their sperm. It's not the woman's job to do it, but our own.
If we keep track of our sperm then...
Give me a break. If our sperm is stolen and hijacked we should not be held responsible. Period.
Originally posted by bunge
Then I think we've found a problem that needs to be fixed. Doing what you're suggesting doesn't address this problemed link in the chain, it's just adding another.
How could it possibly be fixed? The courts have shown that they will not decide on anything that forces a woman to be a parent or do something with her body at the expense of a man. It wouldn't just be changing a law. It would be changing an entire precident. Women name the fathers of the children. What sort of remedy would you recommend where fathers could "claim" their children without legal challenge and stop a woman from asserting her rights regarding giving up her body, time, money etc. instead of giving up her parenting rights.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
How could it possibly be fixed? The courts have shown that they will not decide on anything that forces a woman to be a parent or do something with her body at the expense of a man. It wouldn't just be changing a law. It would be changing an entire precident. Women name the fathers of the children. What sort of remedy would you recommend where fathers could "claim" their children without legal challenge and stop a woman from asserting her rights regarding giving up her body, time, money etc. instead of giving up her parenting rights.
Nick
What you want is to force the woman who HATES the parassite in her body to continue the pregnancy, and then fully support it for the next 18 years, only because you want it? I think the science should try to implant the fetus to the man's body if it's the MAN that wants the kid, and not the woman.
I'd run away fast seeign a single, expecting father ...
Originally posted by Giaguara
What you want is to force the woman who HATES the parassite in her body to continue the pregnancy, and then fully support it for the next 18 years, only because you want it? I think the science should try to implant the fetus to the man's body if it's the MAN that wants the kid, and not the woman.
I'd run away fast seeign a single, expecting father ...
No one has said she has to continue the pregnancy, that is what abortion is for.
Nick
...and can Giaguara get anymore circular? Yes, yes, we get your point. No man will want to carry a baby till matriculation. It was a f*cking movie. You are fixated on it in some passive aggressive revenge mode. Get over it.
It seems a few people here are unable to grasp the notion that nobody here, nor is this topic title, suggesting that a woman should be forced to gestate and birth a baby if it is not her will to do so. If she doesn't want to have it, she doesn't want to have it- end of story (until science figures out how to do embryo and pre-embryo transplants into surrogate mothers, perhaps- a potentially more feasible technique than idle fantasies of men being converted to hermaphrodites and "rolling their own"). No sane or respectful man would dare to have this legal precedence fiddled with.
What this is really about is if men's rights should be brought further to parity or not with women's rights wrt legally opt-out motions. Basically, there are none for men, but half-a-dozen ways for women. Additionally, women can seemingly "opt-in" a man, any man, at literally any time of the pregnancy or even after the pregnancy. Just write in some man's name on the birth certificate. No proof required. Just boom- you're it (even if you weren't the sperm donor). The "mark" then has to pursue legal action to correct this matter. That's right- guilty until proven innocent. Doing the legal dance may take a few years to pan-out, as well, all the while you are responsible for the child support in the meantime.
Just live with a single mother for a few months, and you may become legally accountable for child support (for children you have NO blood relation to whatsoever). The laws in some states have reached ridiculous levels- don't turn your back for a second.
Originally posted by BR
If our sperm is stolen and hijacked we should not be held responsible.
In all seriousness, how can our sperm be stolen and hijacked?
Originally posted by trumptman
How could it possibly be fixed?
Because the courts are slow, you don't mess something else up.
This argument seems to be running into the abortion argument. I think you want to give men the ability to have an abortion, but it can't happen.
Originally posted by bunge
In all seriousness, how can our sperm be stolen and hijacked?
There are cases where men have been declared responsible for supporting children where the woman impregnated herself with sperm taken from a used condom.
Of course that is no more outragous than the doctor order to pay child support to a woman for whom he had performed the procedure to make her infertile. Likewise there are men who have been ordered to pay support for children that are not theirs but they lived with them and supported them for a period of time while living with their mother. (not even married)
Nick