Everyone but this guy (ignoring the fact that he didn't know he needed to do more, because I bet you didn't know either) fucked up all along the way. Yet he's the one holding the bill because "won't someone think of the children."
Just to be clear, this has nothing to do with the child, who is an adult. The aid was paid. This has to do with the state recouping money from him after the fact.
So I guess maybe it has to do with the child, in that we won't care for children unless we can find a discrete individual to saddle with the bill. And even then, we don't. Not really. Not for as long as child support judgments routinely exceed state benefits available (implying the former is insufficient, or the latter excessive).
I know, but people keep tying it to the child needing aide so I have to keep framing a conversation around that instead of how the statute of limitations for the state recouping their costs should be applied to when the state decides to go after the guy, not 25 years ago when he didn't know any better, and there was little he could do anyways because it'd be he-said/she-said and the court would rule in her favor anyways.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Everyone but this guy (ignoring the fact that he didn't know he needed to do more, because I bet you didn't know either) fucked up all along the way. Yet he's the one holding the bill because "won't someone think of the children."
Just to be clear, this has nothing to do with the child, who is an adult. The aid was paid. This has to do with the state recouping money from him after the fact.
So I guess maybe it has to do with the child, in that we won't care for children unless we can find a discrete individual to saddle with the bill. And even then, we don't. Not really. Not for as long as child support judgments routinely exceed state benefits available (implying the former is insufficient, or the latter excessive).
I know, but people keep tying it to the child needing aide so I have to keep framing a conversation around that instead of how the statute of limitations for the state recouping their costs should be applied to when the state decides to go after the guy, not 25 years ago when he didn't know any better, and there was little he could do anyways because it'd be he-said/she-said and the court would rule in her favor anyways.
And even assuming he consented to putting his name on the form (which is not unlikely), I'd be surprised if it was informed consent (and he intended to take on eighteen years of financial burden).
EDIT: Basically I believe at worst he intended to assist in welfare fraud. But hey, at least there's a statute of limitations on that.
I think people are conflating how courts work in their heads, safe in their armchairs secure in their knowledge that its not their ass on the line with how they work in reality. In reality courts are about power which is only achieved through money and connections of which this guy has neither. So excuse me that I don't take the system's word that they gave this guy, who they have been keeping in a cage half his life, a fair shake.
For all your talk about how the problem is that dads can't afford it, a lot of your rhetoric seems to be premised on indignation that parents are required to pay any money at all for an unwanted child, just based on principle. Is that where you're coming from? Should the very idea of child support be abolished? If not, what are your thoughts on specific ways in which the system might be reformed, in terms of what a parent should be reasonable expected to contribute?
I would abolish the idea that parents who don't want their children are nonetheless legally mandated to pay child support.
Yeah, I think "parents should have no legal or financial obligation to provide anything for their kids ever" is where I bow out of this conversation. We're working from completely incompatible core principles, here.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
The incompatible core principles between us, ElJeffe, is that I'm not sure ignoring a fucked problem if it only happens to a few people is okay.
Yeah, this is the point that I was trying to make last night. ElJeffe keeps asking for numbers, saying that if it is a small enough percentage it is acceptable, but the fact that it is greater than zero means something should probably change in my mind.
And yes, the MRA movement is by and large bullshit and full of assholes. That doesn't mean that anything they touch on is automatically bad though. There are legitimate options for mothers to opt out of caring for a child with no financial responsibility (abortion and adoption); the fact that a biological father can be on the hook for 18 years with no choice in the matter seems unjust.
And, again, that inequity is fixable. It just costs money. Taxpayer money, that is.
Edit: also I find the idea that the act of fornication should carry with it, necessarily, the risk of crushing individual financial obligation incompatible with my code principles. It seems quite retrograde.
mcdermott on
+1
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
The incompatible core principles between us, ElJeffe, is that I'm not sure ignoring a fucked problem if it only happens to a few people is okay.
Yeah, this is the point that I was trying to make last night. ElJeffe keeps asking for numbers, saying that if it is a small enough percentage it is acceptable, but the fact that it is greater than zero means something should probably change in my mind.
And yes, the MRA movement is by and large bullshit and full of assholes. That doesn't mean that anything they touch on is automatically bad though. There are legitimate options for mothers to opt out of caring for a child with no financial responsibility (abortion and adoption); the fact that a biological father can be on the hook for 18 years with no choice in the matter seems unjust.
There is no just way because basic biology is unjust. The situations are not equal, at their most basic. Until such a time as men can carry a pregnancy, the law should favour women when it comes to choices regarding the unborn. In fact, there should be no legal mechanism whereby a man can pressure a woman into aborting, or carrying a pregnancy, against her will. Giving a man the option to abdicate at will allows that legal mechanism to exist.
Right now the man's choice is to have sex or not have sex. Because the mother bears 100% of the physiological risk, she has total control of the outcome for the nine months following. Once the child is born, if one parent wants to keep the child, then both are on the hook. This is about as close to a just system as we're going to get.
The incompatible core principles between us, @ElJeffe, is that I'm not sure ignoring a fucked problem if it only happens to a few people is okay.
I agree with Eljeffe for the most part, the system from what we can see works most of the time, it is the cases that aren't working and are unjust are the ones that need to be examined and scrutinized and used to make the system better. The laws should be evolving to encompass situations that may have never come up before, will the law ever be perfect, no. Because it is imperfect right now do we throw everything out.. also no. We tweak and adjust and work with it to hopefully avoid those situations and correct situations that have already happened.
I think people should always be free to expand their level of objections to a case, as long as they broaden their response to the rebuttal. Taking a case, which is notable because of fraud, expanding it to other issues about the general topic, and then when the response comes deciding that now it's about the very specifics of the case and obviously meaning this person approves of them strikes me as a bit dishonest.
The incompatible core principles between us, ElJeffe, is that I'm not sure ignoring a fucked problem if it only happens to a few people is okay.
Yeah, this is the point that I was trying to make last night. ElJeffe keeps asking for numbers, saying that if it is a small enough percentage it is acceptable, but the fact that it is greater than zero means something should probably change in my mind.
And yes, the MRA movement is by and large bullshit and full of assholes. That doesn't mean that anything they touch on is automatically bad though. There are legitimate options for mothers to opt out of caring for a child with no financial responsibility (abortion and adoption); the fact that a biological father can be on the hook for 18 years with no choice in the matter seems unjust.
There is no just way because basic biology is unjust. The situations are not equal, at their most basic. Until such a time as men can carry a pregnancy, the law should favour women when it comes to choices regarding the unborn. In fact, there should be no legal mechanism whereby a man can pressure a woman into aborting, or carrying a pregnancy, against her will. Giving a man the option to abdicate at will allows that legal mechanism to exist.
Right now the man's choice is to have sex or not have sex. Because the mother bears 100% of the physiological risk, she has total control of the outcome for the nine months following. Once the child is born, if one parent wants to keep the child, then both are on the hook. This is about as close to a just system as we're going to get.
Unless you're talking practically, based on the unwillingness of congress to expand the social safety net, I disagree. Within this very thread it was suggested that all children of need should be able to receive government assistance, completely divorced from any reliance on making an unwilling parent foot the bill. And that seems way more just, to have the financial burden removed from the equation, so both parents can decide if they actually want to be parents instead of just genetic donors on the hook financially for 18 years.
I really fail to see why we cannot come up with a more equitable system than "if both parents agree to adbicate, they can...but if either decides not to, it binds both." I don't see why sex need be a suicide pact, other than stinginess of taxpayers.
I can think of dozens of things I'd rather not pay for, including some completely willing mistakes of irresponsible adults, but I do. And I'm largely okay with it, because as I've matures somehow I've gotten less and less conservative in my fiscal philosophy. Like, remember when I wanted every idiot who bought inflated houses held liable forever for their stupidity? Individually? Because as a responsible non-moron (who did not buy at the peak) I shouldn't be penalized for their stupidity? Which was obvious at the time? Whether they realized it or not?
I've grown a bit. I understand these things happen.
Apparently unplanned pregnancies are the one issue where left and right alike can agree on strict accountability and personal responsibility. And don't see it changing. But again, pretty retrograde. Because it's an entirely fixable disparity. If we pony up the money.
And our attitudes already lead to less than optimal outcomes as-is.
Everyone but this guy (ignoring the fact that he didn't know he needed to do more, because I bet you didn't know either) fucked up all along the way. Yet he's the one holding the bill because "won't someone think of the children."
Just to be clear, this has nothing to do with the child, who is an adult. The aid was paid. This has to do with the state recouping money from him after the fact.
So I guess maybe it has to do with the child, in that we won't care for children unless we can find a discrete individual to saddle with the bill. And even then, we don't. Not really. Not for as long as child support judgments routinely exceed state benefits available (implying the former is insufficient, or the latter excessive).
I know, but people keep tying it to the child needing aide so I have to keep framing a conversation around that instead of how the statute of limitations for the state recouping their costs should be applied to when the state decides to go after the guy, not 25 years ago when he didn't know any better, and there was little he could do anyways because it'd be he-said/she-said and the court would rule in her favor anyways.
And even assuming he consented to putting his name on the form (which is not unlikely), I'd be surprised if it was informed consent (and he intended to take on eighteen years of financial burden).
EDIT: Basically I believe at worst he intended to assist in welfare fraud. But hey, at least there's a statute of limitations on that.
I am pretty sure that the mother in this case freely admits, to anyone who asks, that she committed unilateral fraud and the defendant had no idea what was going on. Perhaps she is trying to protect him, but there doesn't seem to be a particularly good reason to just assume that.
So we know what? (not directed at you, mcdermott, just thinking out loud.)
It is likely that:
• the fraud was unilateral.
• this guy received the required, actual notice only after the statute of limitations ran.
• for several decades worth of showing up in court and pleading his case, the answer was somewhere between "the statute of limitations ran" and "you don't understand the technical motions we require".
It is certain that:
• the process server committed fraud.
Edge cases be damned; I just cannot understand how these facts mix together to leave someone comfortable to conclude, "Well, sometimes some people get screwed in any system. Deal with it." As best we can tell, this situation is both exceptionally unjust and easy to remedy.
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
I really fail to see why we cannot come up with a more equitable system than "if both parents agree to adbicate, they can...but if either decides not to, it binds both." I don't see why sex need be a suicide pact, other than stinginess of taxpayers.
I can think of dozens of things I'd rather not pay for, including some completely willing mistakes of irresponsible adults, but I do. And I'm largely okay with it, because as I've matures somehow I've gotten less and less conservative in my fiscal philosophy. Like, remember when I wanted every idiot who bought inflated houses held liable forever for their stupidity? Individually? Because as a responsible non-moron (who did not buy at the peak) I shouldn't be penalized for their stupidity? Which was obvious at the time? Whether they realized it or not?
I've grown a bit. I understand these things happen.
Apparently unplanned pregnancies are the one issue where left and right alike can agree on strict accountability and personal responsibility. And don't see it changing. But again, pretty retrograde. Because it's an entirely fixable disparity. If we pony up the money.
And our attitudes already lead to less than optimal outcomes as-is.
Shrug.
I think child support is less about punishing parents for the sake of punishment and more about discouraging the conception of children who do not have financially stable homes ready for them.
It's hard to find a good home for each child born, and it would be harder if the credible prospect of child support payments did not encourage some people to use protection.
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
There is no just way because basic biology is unjust. The situations are not equal, at their most basic. Until such a time as men can carry a pregnancy, the law should favour women when it comes to choices regarding the unborn. In fact, there should be no legal mechanism whereby a man can pressure a woman into aborting, or carrying a pregnancy, against her will. Giving a man the option to abdicate at will allows that legal mechanism to exist.
So you're argument is that allowing fathers to opt out of their financial obligations creates a legal mechanism that allows fathers to force women to abort? If the man opting out of his financial obligation is enough to literally force the woman to abort, I'd argue that she was never really ready to be a mother in the first place if she was only planning to carry the pregnancy to term because she had some guy on the hook to foot the bill for 18 years.
"The psychedelic mind is a higher dimensional mind, it is not fit for three dimensional space time."
- Terence McKenna
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
There is no just way because basic biology is unjust. The situations are not equal, at their most basic. Until such a time as men can carry a pregnancy, the law should favour women when it comes to choices regarding the unborn. In fact, there should be no legal mechanism whereby a man can pressure a woman into aborting, or carrying a pregnancy, against her will. Giving a man the option to abdicate at will allows that legal mechanism to exist.
So you're argument is that allowing fathers to opt out of their financial obligations creates a legal mechanism that allows fathers to force women to abort? If the man opting out of his financial obligation is enough to literally force the woman to abort, I'd argue that she was never really ready to be a mother in the first place if she was only planning to carry the pregnancy to term because she had some guy on the hook to foot the bill for 18 years.
I don't deal with a pretend world where women aren't hampered by rampant mysogyny. I deal with the world as it is. As such, I'm not sure characterizing a woman's dilemma about whether or not she can afford to be a single parent as some kind of plot to trap a man is at all appropriate.
I really fail to see why we cannot come up with a more equitable system than "if both parents agree to adbicate, they can...but if either decides not to, it binds both." I don't see why sex need be a suicide pact, other than stinginess of taxpayers.
I can think of dozens of things I'd rather not pay for, including some completely willing mistakes of irresponsible adults, but I do. And I'm largely okay with it, because as I've matures somehow I've gotten less and less conservative in my fiscal philosophy. Like, remember when I wanted every idiot who bought inflated houses held liable forever for their stupidity? Individually? Because as a responsible non-moron (who did not buy at the peak) I shouldn't be penalized for their stupidity? Which was obvious at the time? Whether they realized it or not?
I've grown a bit. I understand these things happen.
Apparently unplanned pregnancies are the one issue where left and right alike can agree on strict accountability and personal responsibility. And don't see it changing. But again, pretty retrograde. Because it's an entirely fixable disparity. If we pony up the money.
And our attitudes already lead to less than optimal outcomes as-is.
Shrug.
I think child support is less about punishing parents for the sake of punishment and more about discouraging the conception of children who do not have financially stable homes ready for them.
It's hard to find a good home for each child born, and it would be harder if the credible prospect of child support payments did not encourage some people to use protection.
So why don't we require all children, even those in stable two parent homes, incur child support payments that are enforced by the state? This would ensure that children could be guaranteed minimum standards of funding being provided by their parents. We'd have to track that this money is actually going to the child's benefit but if the goal is to encourage a minimum level of financial resources for the child surely we should be doing this anyways?
I think it's clear that using that reasoning in defense of child support leads to some questionable places.
I really fail to see why we cannot come up with a more equitable system than "if both parents agree to adbicate, they can...but if either decides not to, it binds both." I don't see why sex need be a suicide pact, other than stinginess of taxpayers.
I can think of dozens of things I'd rather not pay for, including some completely willing mistakes of irresponsible adults, but I do. And I'm largely okay with it, because as I've matures somehow I've gotten less and less conservative in my fiscal philosophy. Like, remember when I wanted every idiot who bought inflated houses held liable forever for their stupidity? Individually? Because as a responsible non-moron (who did not buy at the peak) I shouldn't be penalized for their stupidity? Which was obvious at the time? Whether they realized it or not?
I've grown a bit. I understand these things happen.
Apparently unplanned pregnancies are the one issue where left and right alike can agree on strict accountability and personal responsibility. And don't see it changing. But again, pretty retrograde. Because it's an entirely fixable disparity. If we pony up the money.
And our attitudes already lead to less than optimal outcomes as-is.
Shrug.
I think child support is less about punishing parents for the sake of punishment and more about discouraging the conception of children who do not have financially stable homes ready for them.
It's hard to find a good home for each child born, and it would be harder if the credible prospect of child support payments did not encourage some people to use protection.
So why don't we require all children, even those in stable two parent homes, incur child support payments that are enforced by the state? This would ensure that children could be guaranteed minimum standards of funding being provided by their parents. We'd have to track that this money is actually going to the child's benefit but if the goal is to encourage a minimum level of financial resources for the child surely we should be doing this anyways?
I think it's clear that using that reasoning in defense of child support leads to some questionable places.
The well-being of each child who has been born differs from the pre-parenthood incentive I am talking about.
All I am saying is that the looming certainty of child support payments is a big reason that more kids are not having more kids, and that this seems to be for the best.
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
There is no just way because basic biology is unjust. The situations are not equal, at their most basic. Until such a time as men can carry a pregnancy, the law should favour women when it comes to choices regarding the unborn. In fact, there should be no legal mechanism whereby a man can pressure a woman into aborting, or carrying a pregnancy, against her will. Giving a man the option to abdicate at will allows that legal mechanism to exist.
So you're argument is that allowing fathers to opt out of their financial obligations creates a legal mechanism that allows fathers to force women to abort? If the man opting out of his financial obligation is enough to literally force the woman to abort, I'd argue that she was never really ready to be a mother in the first place if she was only planning to carry the pregnancy to term because she had some guy on the hook to foot the bill for 18 years.
I don't deal with a pretend world where women aren't hampered by rampant mysogyny. I deal with the world as it is. As such, I'm not sure characterizing a woman's dilemma about whether or not she can afford to be a single parent as some kind of plot to trap a man is at all appropriate.
You know. Speaking of mysogyny.
I don't know if I'd classify "I don't want to pay child support" as mysogyny.
CEOs and libertarians getting pissed their health insurance covers BCP, sure, absolutely.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I really fail to see why we cannot come up with a more equitable system than "if both parents agree to adbicate, they can...but if either decides not to, it binds both." I don't see why sex need be a suicide pact, other than stinginess of taxpayers.
I can think of dozens of things I'd rather not pay for, including some completely willing mistakes of irresponsible adults, but I do. And I'm largely okay with it, because as I've matures somehow I've gotten less and less conservative in my fiscal philosophy. Like, remember when I wanted every idiot who bought inflated houses held liable forever for their stupidity? Individually? Because as a responsible non-moron (who did not buy at the peak) I shouldn't be penalized for their stupidity? Which was obvious at the time? Whether they realized it or not?
I've grown a bit. I understand these things happen.
Apparently unplanned pregnancies are the one issue where left and right alike can agree on strict accountability and personal responsibility. And don't see it changing. But again, pretty retrograde. Because it's an entirely fixable disparity. If we pony up the money.
And our attitudes already lead to less than optimal outcomes as-is.
Shrug.
I think child support is less about punishing parents for the sake of punishment and more about discouraging the conception of children who do not have financially stable homes ready for them.
It's hard to find a good home for each child born, and it would be harder if the credible prospect of child support payments did not encourage some people to use protection.
So why don't we require all children, even those in stable two parent homes, incur child support payments that are enforced by the state? This would ensure that children could be guaranteed minimum standards of funding being provided by their parents. We'd have to track that this money is actually going to the child's benefit but if the goal is to encourage a minimum level of financial resources for the child surely we should be doing this anyways?
I think it's clear that using that reasoning in defense of child support leads to some questionable places.
Isn't that what child neglect laws kind-of sort-of do already?
I mean, they don't demand an accounting of each dollar that goes to the children, but if you aren't providing the basics to your kid - especially if you have the means - it falls pretty hard into the 'neglect' category.
I really fail to see why we cannot come up with a more equitable system than "if both parents agree to adbicate, they can...but if either decides not to, it binds both." I don't see why sex need be a suicide pact, other than stinginess of taxpayers.
I can think of dozens of things I'd rather not pay for, including some completely willing mistakes of irresponsible adults, but I do. And I'm largely okay with it, because as I've matures somehow I've gotten less and less conservative in my fiscal philosophy. Like, remember when I wanted every idiot who bought inflated houses held liable forever for their stupidity? Individually? Because as a responsible non-moron (who did not buy at the peak) I shouldn't be penalized for their stupidity? Which was obvious at the time? Whether they realized it or not?
I've grown a bit. I understand these things happen.
Apparently unplanned pregnancies are the one issue where left and right alike can agree on strict accountability and personal responsibility. And don't see it changing. But again, pretty retrograde. Because it's an entirely fixable disparity. If we pony up the money.
And our attitudes already lead to less than optimal outcomes as-is.
Shrug.
I think child support is less about punishing parents for the sake of punishment and more about discouraging the conception of children who do not have financially stable homes ready for them.
It's hard to find a good home for each child born, and it would be harder if the credible prospect of child support payments did not encourage some people to use protection.
So why don't we require all children, even those in stable two parent homes, incur child support payments that are enforced by the state? This would ensure that children could be guaranteed minimum standards of funding being provided by their parents. We'd have to track that this money is actually going to the child's benefit but if the goal is to encourage a minimum level of financial resources for the child surely we should be doing this anyways?
I think it's clear that using that reasoning in defense of child support leads to some questionable places.
The well-being of each child who has been born differs from the pre-parenthood incentive I am talking about.
All I am saying is that the looming certainty of child support payments is a big reason that more kids are not having more kids, and that this seems to be for the best.
This is also impacting adults, too, though, which is not for the best.
There's a reason both birth and marriage rates are declining, and I'm not sure "the recession" is the reason.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
There is no just way because basic biology is unjust. The situations are not equal, at their most basic. Until such a time as men can carry a pregnancy, the law should favour women when it comes to choices regarding the unborn. In fact, there should be no legal mechanism whereby a man can pressure a woman into aborting, or carrying a pregnancy, against her will. Giving a man the option to abdicate at will allows that legal mechanism to exist.
So you're argument is that allowing fathers to opt out of their financial obligations creates a legal mechanism that allows fathers to force women to abort? If the man opting out of his financial obligation is enough to literally force the woman to abort, I'd argue that she was never really ready to be a mother in the first place if she was only planning to carry the pregnancy to term because she had some guy on the hook to foot the bill for 18 years.
I don't deal with a pretend world where women aren't hampered by rampant mysogyny. I deal with the world as it is. As such, I'm not sure characterizing a woman's dilemma about whether or not she can afford to be a single parent as some kind of plot to trap a man is at all appropriate.
You know. Speaking of mysogyny.
I don't know if I'd classify "I don't want to pay child support" as mysogyny.
CEOs and libertarians getting pissed their health insurance covers BCP, sure, absolutely.
I was more regarding Kilnaga's assertion that a woman feeling pressure to abort because she'll be the sole provider, even though the father has means, is the woman only wanting to carry the child because, and I quote, "She had some guy on the hook to foot the bill".
There is no just way because basic biology is unjust. The situations are not equal, at their most basic. Until such a time as men can carry a pregnancy, the law should favour women when it comes to choices regarding the unborn. In fact, there should be no legal mechanism whereby a man can pressure a woman into aborting, or carrying a pregnancy, against her will. Giving a man the option to abdicate at will allows that legal mechanism to exist.
So you're argument is that allowing fathers to opt out of their financial obligations creates a legal mechanism that allows fathers to force women to abort? If the man opting out of his financial obligation is enough to literally force the woman to abort, I'd argue that she was never really ready to be a mother in the first place if she was only planning to carry the pregnancy to term because she had some guy on the hook to foot the bill for 18 years.
I don't deal with a pretend world where women aren't hampered by rampant mysogyny. I deal with the world as it is. As such, I'm not sure characterizing a woman's dilemma about whether or not she can afford to be a single parent as some kind of plot to trap a man is at all appropriate.
You know. Speaking of mysogyny.
I don't know if I'd classify "I don't want to pay child support" as mysogyny.
CEOs and libertarians getting pissed their health insurance covers BCP, sure, absolutely.
I was more regarding Kilnaga's assertion that a woman feeling pressure to abort because she'll be the sole provider, even though the father has means, is the woman only wanting to carry the child because, and I quote, "She had some guy on the hook to foot the bill".
Yeah, the 'pregnancy trap' is every bit as much a dog whistle for mysogyny as the 'welfare queen' is for racism.
Not saying it doesn't happen, but I'd bet money there are orders of magnitude more deadbeat dads out there than women having babies because they 'have some guy on the hook to foot the bill'.
I was more regarding Kilnaga's assertion that a woman feeling pressure to abort because she'll be the sole provider, even though the father has means, is the woman only wanting to carry the child because, and I quote, "She had some guy on the hook to foot the bill".
This is some fun word play. "Feeling pressure"
Because I'm pretty sure the term you used originally was "forced." A legal mechanism whereby fathers could force the mother to have an abortion. Not just feel some pressure, but force, that's what you said.
If the lack of the father's financially support is literally forcing her to have an abortion, then the reason she was planning to carry to term clearly had a whole lot to do with expecting the dude to foot the bill.
"The psychedelic mind is a higher dimensional mind, it is not fit for three dimensional space time."
- Terence McKenna
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
There is no just way because basic biology is unjust. The situations are not equal, at their most basic. Until such a time as men can carry a pregnancy, the law should favour women when it comes to choices regarding the unborn. In fact, there should be no legal mechanism whereby a man can pressure a woman into aborting, or carrying a pregnancy, against her will. Giving a man the option to abdicate at will allows that legal mechanism to exist.
So you're argument is that allowing fathers to opt out of their financial obligations creates a legal mechanism that allows fathers to force women to abort? If the man opting out of his financial obligation is enough to literally force the woman to abort, I'd argue that she was never really ready to be a mother in the first place if she was only planning to carry the pregnancy to term because she had some guy on the hook to foot the bill for 18 years.
I don't deal with a pretend world where women aren't hampered by rampant mysogyny. I deal with the world as it is. As such, I'm not sure characterizing a woman's dilemma about whether or not she can afford to be a single parent as some kind of plot to trap a man is at all appropriate.
You know. Speaking of mysogyny.
I don't know if I'd classify "I don't want to pay child support" as mysogyny.
CEOs and libertarians getting pissed their health insurance covers BCP, sure, absolutely.
I was more regarding Kilnaga's assertion that a woman feeling pressure to abort because she'll be the sole provider, even though the father has means, is the woman only wanting to carry the child because, and I quote, "She had some guy on the hook to foot the bill".
Honestly, the whole situation sucks. I do have some sympathy even for negative views, because it is a very rare case of someone unilaterally putting you in a financial obligation for an absurdly long time with no recourse, and in most other cases, we'd have sympathy for the 'victim.'
That said, I don't support any radical changes to how we look at child support in terms of responsibilities, barring the edge cases of non-parents and rape victims. I do think it needs to be treated like a social assistance payment / tax burden so as to make deadbeat parents the problem of the government's enforcement branches, and not children, which is exactly who should be worried about it.
In fact, there should be no legal mechanism whereby a man can pressure a woman into aborting, or carrying a pregnancy, against her will.
Well if you don't live in the pretend world, pressure is generally how couples come to compromise on topics they disagree with? Even it's as simple as talking and discussing a divorce because of the disagreement, that's still pressure.
Maybe the better word to use there is "force" instead, actually, because every decision you make exerts some sort of pressure on an opposing decision.
It is the real world, after all, not pretend land.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
this discussion has clearly outlived its original remit
Posts
I know, but people keep tying it to the child needing aide so I have to keep framing a conversation around that instead of how the statute of limitations for the state recouping their costs should be applied to when the state decides to go after the guy, not 25 years ago when he didn't know any better, and there was little he could do anyways because it'd be he-said/she-said and the court would rule in her favor anyways.
And even assuming he consented to putting his name on the form (which is not unlikely), I'd be surprised if it was informed consent (and he intended to take on eighteen years of financial burden).
EDIT: Basically I believe at worst he intended to assist in welfare fraud. But hey, at least there's a statute of limitations on that.
Yeah, I think "parents should have no legal or financial obligation to provide anything for their kids ever" is where I bow out of this conversation. We're working from completely incompatible core principles, here.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
Yeah, this is the point that I was trying to make last night. ElJeffe keeps asking for numbers, saying that if it is a small enough percentage it is acceptable, but the fact that it is greater than zero means something should probably change in my mind.
And yes, the MRA movement is by and large bullshit and full of assholes. That doesn't mean that anything they touch on is automatically bad though. There are legitimate options for mothers to opt out of caring for a child with no financial responsibility (abortion and adoption); the fact that a biological father can be on the hook for 18 years with no choice in the matter seems unjust.
3DS: 0963-0539-4405
Edit: also I find the idea that the act of fornication should carry with it, necessarily, the risk of crushing individual financial obligation incompatible with my code principles. It seems quite retrograde.
There is no just way because basic biology is unjust. The situations are not equal, at their most basic. Until such a time as men can carry a pregnancy, the law should favour women when it comes to choices regarding the unborn. In fact, there should be no legal mechanism whereby a man can pressure a woman into aborting, or carrying a pregnancy, against her will. Giving a man the option to abdicate at will allows that legal mechanism to exist.
Right now the man's choice is to have sex or not have sex. Because the mother bears 100% of the physiological risk, she has total control of the outcome for the nine months following. Once the child is born, if one parent wants to keep the child, then both are on the hook. This is about as close to a just system as we're going to get.
I agree with Eljeffe for the most part, the system from what we can see works most of the time, it is the cases that aren't working and are unjust are the ones that need to be examined and scrutinized and used to make the system better. The laws should be evolving to encompass situations that may have never come up before, will the law ever be perfect, no. Because it is imperfect right now do we throw everything out.. also no. We tweak and adjust and work with it to hopefully avoid those situations and correct situations that have already happened.
Unless you're talking practically, based on the unwillingness of congress to expand the social safety net, I disagree. Within this very thread it was suggested that all children of need should be able to receive government assistance, completely divorced from any reliance on making an unwilling parent foot the bill. And that seems way more just, to have the financial burden removed from the equation, so both parents can decide if they actually want to be parents instead of just genetic donors on the hook financially for 18 years.
3DS: 0963-0539-4405
I can think of dozens of things I'd rather not pay for, including some completely willing mistakes of irresponsible adults, but I do. And I'm largely okay with it, because as I've matures somehow I've gotten less and less conservative in my fiscal philosophy. Like, remember when I wanted every idiot who bought inflated houses held liable forever for their stupidity? Individually? Because as a responsible non-moron (who did not buy at the peak) I shouldn't be penalized for their stupidity? Which was obvious at the time? Whether they realized it or not?
I've grown a bit. I understand these things happen.
Apparently unplanned pregnancies are the one issue where left and right alike can agree on strict accountability and personal responsibility. And don't see it changing. But again, pretty retrograde. Because it's an entirely fixable disparity. If we pony up the money.
And our attitudes already lead to less than optimal outcomes as-is.
Shrug.
I am pretty sure that the mother in this case freely admits, to anyone who asks, that she committed unilateral fraud and the defendant had no idea what was going on. Perhaps she is trying to protect him, but there doesn't seem to be a particularly good reason to just assume that.
So we know what? (not directed at you, mcdermott, just thinking out loud.)
It is likely that:
• the fraud was unilateral.
• this guy received the required, actual notice only after the statute of limitations ran.
• for several decades worth of showing up in court and pleading his case, the answer was somewhere between "the statute of limitations ran" and "you don't understand the technical motions we require".
It is certain that:
• the process server committed fraud.
Edge cases be damned; I just cannot understand how these facts mix together to leave someone comfortable to conclude, "Well, sometimes some people get screwed in any system. Deal with it." As best we can tell, this situation is both exceptionally unjust and easy to remedy.
I think child support is less about punishing parents for the sake of punishment and more about discouraging the conception of children who do not have financially stable homes ready for them.
It's hard to find a good home for each child born, and it would be harder if the credible prospect of child support payments did not encourage some people to use protection.
So you're argument is that allowing fathers to opt out of their financial obligations creates a legal mechanism that allows fathers to force women to abort? If the man opting out of his financial obligation is enough to literally force the woman to abort, I'd argue that she was never really ready to be a mother in the first place if she was only planning to carry the pregnancy to term because she had some guy on the hook to foot the bill for 18 years.
- Terence McKenna
I don't deal with a pretend world where women aren't hampered by rampant mysogyny. I deal with the world as it is. As such, I'm not sure characterizing a woman's dilemma about whether or not she can afford to be a single parent as some kind of plot to trap a man is at all appropriate.
You know. Speaking of mysogyny.
So why don't we require all children, even those in stable two parent homes, incur child support payments that are enforced by the state? This would ensure that children could be guaranteed minimum standards of funding being provided by their parents. We'd have to track that this money is actually going to the child's benefit but if the goal is to encourage a minimum level of financial resources for the child surely we should be doing this anyways?
I think it's clear that using that reasoning in defense of child support leads to some questionable places.
The well-being of each child who has been born differs from the pre-parenthood incentive I am talking about.
All I am saying is that the looming certainty of child support payments is a big reason that more kids are not having more kids, and that this seems to be for the best.
I don't know if I'd classify "I don't want to pay child support" as mysogyny.
CEOs and libertarians getting pissed their health insurance covers BCP, sure, absolutely.
Isn't that what child neglect laws kind-of sort-of do already?
I mean, they don't demand an accounting of each dollar that goes to the children, but if you aren't providing the basics to your kid - especially if you have the means - it falls pretty hard into the 'neglect' category.
This is also impacting adults, too, though, which is not for the best.
There's a reason both birth and marriage rates are declining, and I'm not sure "the recession" is the reason.
I was more regarding Kilnaga's assertion that a woman feeling pressure to abort because she'll be the sole provider, even though the father has means, is the woman only wanting to carry the child because, and I quote, "She had some guy on the hook to foot the bill".
Yeah, the 'pregnancy trap' is every bit as much a dog whistle for mysogyny as the 'welfare queen' is for racism.
Not saying it doesn't happen, but I'd bet money there are orders of magnitude more deadbeat dads out there than women having babies because they 'have some guy on the hook to foot the bill'.
This is some fun word play. "Feeling pressure"
Because I'm pretty sure the term you used originally was "forced." A legal mechanism whereby fathers could force the mother to have an abortion. Not just feel some pressure, but force, that's what you said.
If the lack of the father's financially support is literally forcing her to have an abortion, then the reason she was planning to carry to term clearly had a whole lot to do with expecting the dude to foot the bill.
- Terence McKenna
Honestly, the whole situation sucks. I do have some sympathy even for negative views, because it is a very rare case of someone unilaterally putting you in a financial obligation for an absurdly long time with no recourse, and in most other cases, we'd have sympathy for the 'victim.'
That said, I don't support any radical changes to how we look at child support in terms of responsibilities, barring the edge cases of non-parents and rape victims. I do think it needs to be treated like a social assistance payment / tax burden so as to make deadbeat parents the problem of the government's enforcement branches, and not children, which is exactly who should be worried about it.
Holy shit where did I read the word forced then? Man I must be going forum blind. Well just ignore me then.
- Terence McKenna
Well if you don't live in the pretend world, pressure is generally how couples come to compromise on topics they disagree with? Even it's as simple as talking and discussing a divorce because of the disagreement, that's still pressure.
Maybe the better word to use there is "force" instead, actually, because every decision you make exerts some sort of pressure on an opposing decision.
It is the real world, after all, not pretend land.