Because I did enjoy reading this debate for the first few pages, I will ask a few general questions.
It seems that some people are arguing that child support is due because it is the legal way to balance out the suffering that women went through in having the birth.
I'm not sure about everybody else, but I'm pro-child support (be it from the father or the state) because the child needs to be taken care of and in current US society most single parents can't do it on their own.
Whatever new system we implement I'm okay with - even if it means more taxes for me - as long as somebody, be it the mother, the father, or society at large - is responsible for the child.
It'd never fly, but I like the "two must sign-off on wanting the child or else its put up for adoption" idea posited above. It'd never fly, but it's an interesting idea, and I think it could work.
So for you this really is a "think of the children!" debate? How, then, do you address the "rights" of all children who are born to single parents where the other parent has died? What about when the other parent is in prison?
Again, to be clear, I'm not against child support. And while it would be nice to have some guarantee that we all had equal opportunities in fact, I just don't know how I feel about trying to legislate that. I definitely don't think it is "fair."
Further, how would you feel about something being done to limit the amount of people a parent has to pay child support on? I don't mean to protect the irresponsible parent, but more to prevent them bringing even more children into the world that they can't support. (I haven't seen numbers, but aren't poor families by and large having the most children now? This would also lead to it is poor people paying child support the most now. Remember, we aren't talking about otherwise successful people, for the most part. Unless, of course, I'm wrong on those points.)
Because I did enjoy reading this debate for the first few pages, I will ask a few general questions.
It seems that some people are arguing that child support is due because it is the legal way to balance out the suffering that women went through in having the birth.
I'm not sure about everybody else, but I'm pro-child support (be it from the father or the state) because the child needs to be taken care of and in current US society most single parents can't do it on their own.
Whatever new system we implement I'm okay with - even if it means more taxes for me - as long as somebody, be it the mother, the father, or society at large - is responsible for the child.
It'd never fly, but I like the "two must sign-off on wanting the child or else its put up for adoption" idea posited above. It'd never fly, but it's an interesting idea, and I think it could work.
Although I'm sure that research indicates that 2 parents are better than one... I find the idea of taking a baby off of a willing and loving mother because she doesnt have anyone to help her pretty abhorrent. And the idea that just because 1 parent isnt the "optimal" situation that its grounds for taking a mother's child away from her... Thats some scary shit.
Because I did enjoy reading this debate for the first few pages, I will ask a few general questions.
It seems that some people are arguing that child support is due because it is the legal way to balance out the suffering that women went through in having the birth.
I'm not sure about everybody else, but I'm pro-child support (be it from the father or the state) because the child needs to be taken care of and in current US society most single parents can't do it on their own.
Whatever new system we implement I'm okay with - even if it means more taxes for me - as long as somebody, be it the mother, the father, or society at large - is responsible for the child.
It'd never fly, but I like the "two must sign-off on wanting the child or else its put up for adoption" idea posited above. It'd never fly, but it's an interesting idea, and I think it could work.
So for you this really is a "think of the children!" debate? How, then, do you address the "rights" of all children who are born to single parents where the other parent has died? What about when the other parent is in prison?
Again, to be clear, I'm not against child support. And while it would be nice to have some guarantee that we all had equal opportunities in fact, I just don't know how I feel about trying to legislate that. I definitely don't think it is "fair."
Further, how would you feel about something being done to limit the amount of people a parent has to pay child support on? I don't mean to protect the irresponsible parent, but more to prevent them bringing even more children into the world that they can't support. (I haven't seen numbers, but aren't poor families by and large having the most children now? This would also lead to it is poor people paying child support the most now. Remember, we aren't talking about otherwise successful people, for the most part. Unless, of course, I'm wrong on those points.)
I wouldn't say it's all "think of the children!" for me. Certainly, that's a part of it because child support laws and judgments are passed and decided on with the best interest of the child in mind. It's not the child's fault that his father walked out, and it's not fair to punish him for it.
I'm not sure what to make of the "one parent died" and "one parent went to prison" scenarios. Ideally, the parent in question would demonstrate to the court that his/her child is still well-provided for and then be left alone. If it was found that the parent needed assistance s/he would get it from the state. As much as the "two parents for a newborn" idea appeals to me, pulling children out of the homes they know certainly does not.
As far as limiting the number of children an irresponsible parent has to pay for, I don't think there should be a limit. As our system is set up it's the parents' responsibility to pay for his/her children. If some guy is dumb enough to have four children with four women, it's his own fault when he's got four child support payments to make. You'd think he'd have learned to use a rubber at some point after the first unwanted child. Ideally, if the irresponsible parent can't make payments the state would step in and make them for him/her. Having a deadbeat parent is no reason to punish a child.
The more I think about it, the more it makes sense to me to spread child support payments around as taxes and encourage the regular use of birth control by making it free and widely available. I'm not about to force sterilization on anybody, but if birth control pills and condoms were free and available to all who wanted them, we'd have these discussions a lot less.
EDIT: And I was wrong above. If the mother wants a child and the father doesn't, then the mother can get child support from the state if she needs it. After rereading what I wrote I can't believe that I thought it was a good idea. I suppose I thought that a mother or sister or brother or someone would always sign with the pregnant woman. I'd feel terrible taking somebody's baby away from them without their consent.
This is an honest question. What happens if the woman wants a baby and approaches her husband, but he says he doesn't want a child. What if she were to tamper with his condoms? So, say a few days later she has sex with him and gets pregnant? Who is responsible in that situation?
I wouldn't say it's all "think of the children!" for me. Certainly, that's a part of it because child support laws and judgments are passed and decided on with the best interest of the child in mind. It's not the child's fault that his father walked out, and it's not fair to punish him for it.
But that is an argument that is based on "think of the child."
I'm not sure what to make of the "one parent died" and "one parent went to prison" scenarios. Ideally, the parent in question would demonstrate to the court that his/her child is still well-provided for and then be left alone. If it was found that the parent needed assistance s/he would get it from the state. As much as the "two parents for a newborn" idea appeals to me, pulling children out of the homes they know certainly does not.
I only bring up those scenarios because they have the exact same effect on the child. In one case, though, the remaining parent can expect payments from the absent one. In the other, not so much. So, this whole, make life fair for kids argument is somewhat bunk to me.
As far as limiting the number of children an irresponsible parent has to pay for, I don't think there should be a limit. As our system is set up it's the parents' responsibility to pay for his/her children. If some guy is dumb enough to have four children with four women, it's his own fault when he's got four child support payments to make. You'd think he'd have learned to use a rubber at some point after the first unwanted child. Ideally, if the irresponsible parent can't make payments the state would step in and make them for him/her. Having a deadbeat parent is no reason to punish a child.
There already is an upper limit on the amount of a person's paycheck that can be withheld for childsupport. So, are you basically punishing all kids for having a parent that wouldn't stop having kids they didn't want to support, or only the later ones to be born?
The more I think about it, the more it makes sense to me to spread child support payments around as taxes and encourage the regular use of birth control by making it free and widely available. I'm not about to force sterilization on anybody, but if birth control pills and condoms were free and available to all who wanted them, we'd have these discussions a lot less.
I always say that in any discussion I have. I am anti-abortion, but pro-choice. By that I mean I would rather see the need for abortions go down by educating people on birth-control.
EDIT: And I was wrong above. If the mother wants a child and the father doesn't, then the mother can get child support from the state if she needs it. After rereading what I wrote I can't believe that I thought it was a good idea. I suppose I thought that a mother or sister or brother or someone would always sign with the pregnant woman. I'd feel terrible taking somebody's baby away from them without their consent.
It should be noted if there is ever a case where the father wants a child and the mother doesn't, he is shit out of luck. And if you support divorces, then you almost by definition support taking a child from someone without their consent, because at least one of the parents is going to lose that child. (This can be offset by numbers showing that some divorcees do not want custody. I have no idea if those numbers exist.)
To address the honest question (I don't have an answer).... I would hope the father has some recourse, but by all logic applied, he'd still be responsible for the child.
This is an honest question. What happens if the woman wants a baby and approaches her husband, but he says he doesn't want a child. What if she were to tamper with his condoms? So, say a few days later she has sex with him and gets pregnant? Who is responsible in that situation?
He'd probably never know what happened (and never be able to prove it), so he'd probably end up being responsible. But this is a pretty rare occurrence anyway, so probably not worth much consideration when deciding on policy.
I wouldn't say it's all "think of the children!" for me. Certainly, that's a part of it because child support laws and judgments are passed and decided on with the best interest of the child in mind. It's not the child's fault that his father walked out, and it's not fair to punish him for it.
I'm not sure what to make of the "one parent died" and "one parent went to prison" scenarios. Ideally, the parent in question would demonstrate to the court that his/her child is still well-provided for and then be left alone. If it was found that the parent needed assistance s/he would get it from the state. As much as the "two parents for a newborn" idea appeals to me, pulling children out of the homes they know certainly does not.
I think the "parent dead/incarcerated" situations are just more reason to consider beefing up the system we have now to assist single parents, and stop worrying as much about holding parents responsible for children they didn't want. Treat the whole issue of single-parent households as a simple poverty issue (which it too often is) and deal with it as such when necessary.
I do not favor taking kids away from single parents in general. If they have one parent who's willing to take care of them, then that person I think has a right to their offspring (outside of abuse/neglect). If the other parent can't/won't help, then as I've said I think the "least harm" route is for the state to step in. Which we already do to some extent, but not only is the aid offered not always entirely adequate but often there is a gap between those who qualify for aid and those who are actually able to decently provide on their own.
But that is an argument that is based on "think of the child."
It's a poverty issue. The child is the one person who made no choices whatsoever leading to their situation. So yeah, they're pretty much the one that we should be concerned with, provided you believe that our society has any reason to be concerned with poverty. It's not just because they're "the child" in some sort of emotional sense.
It should be noted if there is ever a case where the father wants a child and the mother doesn't, he is shit out of luck. And if you support divorces, then you almost by definition support taking a child from someone without their consent, because at least one of the parents is going to lose that child. (This can be offset by numbers showing that some divorcees do not want custody. I have no idea if those numbers exist.)
To address the honest question (I don't have an answer).... I would hope the father has some recourse, but by all logic applied, he'd still be responsible for the child.
Divorce is a messy subject (and something of a tangent), but assuming the parent that wasn't awarded majority custody isn't a complete and utter bastard they still get to see and spend time with their child. I'm honestly not sure what we could do that's a better solution. Staying together for the child, in my opinion, doesn't help him any. Now instead of having two parents that no longer like each other, he's got two parents that no longer like each other and are fighting all the time and being generally miserable people.
As far as everything else goes, I suppose I am using special pleading, but I genuinely don't know how else to approach this. It's not right to hurt an innocent because another party doesn't want to pay, and until we can get child support to be shouldered by taxpayers instead of deadbeat parents I'll continue to support the idea that parents, at the very least, need to be financially responsible for their children regardless of whether they wanted those children.
I understand that the system is not ideal, and I understand that the mother has considerably more choice as to whether the child is born or not, but people need to take responsibility for their actions. Even if there wasn't a law telling you to do so I would encourage parents to live by "you helped make it, and you'd damn well better help support it." It's the right thing to do within our system as it works today. Life's not fair, and this is one instance where I won't support making it fair until the only person in the equation who genuinely has no blame is taken care of regardless of whether he was wanted by both of his parents.
But that is an argument that is based on "think of the child."
It's a poverty issue. The child is the one person who made no choices whatsoever leading to their situation. So yeah, they're pretty much the one that we should be concerned with, provided you believe that our society has any reason to be concerned with poverty. It's not just because they're "the child" in some sort of emotional sense.
I agree that that is a poverty issue. However, that is being used to say that the non-custodial parent owes child-support. Unless there is more done to prop up single parents who are not owed child support, then it is not being treated as a poverty issue. At least, that is what it seems like to me.
To put this in another perspective, lets say a woman somehow (probably by sex ) has children by two men. Both she declines to marry. One makes X for salary, the other makes 4xX. In this scenario, the child-support check provided by the second father will roughly be 4x the other father. This is essentially saying the second child is worth 4x more support even though they are in the same family/receiving the same amount of care. How does this follow from it being a simple poverty issue?
I'm gonna be honest, I'm just happy that a topic I helped start went 17 pages without getting shit on. Good work, all.
I agree. Almost every step of the way, this could have turned the way of most internet discussions and collapsed under a ton of ad homenims and insults. With rare exception, it mostly didn't. That's pretty awesome, especially for this many pages (including the thread that spawned it).
I still have yet to see a single argument against child support that does not involve the introduction of false choice or a huge state investment in child support and economic support to single parents. The first tramples on women's reproductive rights and the second taxes uninvolved 3rd parties. It makes more sense (and considerably less bureaucracy as far as I can tell) to ask an involved party (the biological but missing parent in this case, regardless of sex) to help pay for the child's upbringing.
You may want absolutely equality as an ideal but sadly, we're dealing with an asymmetrical situation. Child support seems to be, as put earlier, the least worse choice.
I still have yet to see a single argument against child support that does not involve the introduction of false choice or a huge state investment in child support and economic support to single parents. The first tramples on women's reproductive rights and the second taxes uninvolved 3rd parties. It makes more sense (and considerably less bureaucracy as far as I can tell) to ask an involved party (the biological but missing parent in this case, regardless of sex) to help pay for the child's upbringing.
You may want absolutely equality as an ideal but sadly, we're dealing with an asymmetrical situation. Child support seems to be, as put earlier, the least worse choice.
What's necessarily wrong with taxing uninvolved third parties? Childless people pay taxes for schools.
Edit: Bad analogy there I guess because childless people did go to school, but still.
I still have yet to see a single argument against child support that does not involve the introduction of false choice or a huge state investment in child support and economic support to single parents. The first tramples on women's reproductive rights and the second taxes uninvolved 3rd parties. It makes more sense (and considerably less bureaucracy as far as I can tell) to ask an involved party (the biological but missing parent in this case, regardless of sex) to help pay for the child's upbringing.
You may want absolutely equality as an ideal but sadly, we're dealing with an asymmetrical situation. Child support seems to be, as put earlier, the least worse choice.
What's necessarily wrong with taxing uninvolved third parties? Childless people pay taxes for schools.
Edit: Bad analogy there I guess because childless people did go to school, but still.
Exactly. Taxes, in theory, go toward the common good. Roads, schools, police, firefighters, welfare. It's in the public interest to keep children from growing up below the poverty line.
Becaues of biology, in this situation, the woman has more rights than the man. Case closed. I hate to say it (having a pair of testicles myself), but that's the way it is.
But you know, granted the burden that is pregnancy, I think men still make out a hell of a lot better. I mean, think how awesome it is that you never have to worry about some horrible little alien growing inside you, siphoning nutrients from you? Which can in fact threaten your life, and can only be removed by surgical procedures. Women have to worry about that shit. That sucks. Men have to worry about writing a check. Win.
Really though you should just freeze some swimmers and get a vasectomy as soon as possible.
I really don't see why this is so hard to accept -- equality is not inherent to life. We try to make sure that human constructs treat people equally, because we have control over that. This shit starts to break down where human constructs (like the law) and natural constructs (like uteruses) intersect. In this case? Biology wins. Because pregnacy is a huge fucking deal, and it all happens within the purview of a woman's body, which a man has zero right to say shit about (legally. I don't buy the argument that he can't ask her to get the little fucker sucked out. He absolutely should be able to talk about it with her. But that's OT).
So, for men? The choice he gets to make is to have sex or not. If he doesn't want kids? Don't have sex. Tough titty. The reason it's different for women? Because it happens inside of them. Legislating anything else is directly interfering with a woman's right to control her own fucking body. Men's right to more money is the only thing being interfered with in this case. Oh, wait, that isn't a right. I forgot.
Seriously, I don't get how fuckers can keep talking about this shit like it's somehow on equal footing from the beginning. Women, biologically, get the raw end of the deal. Be glad that the least your selfish ass has to worry about is some wage-garnishing.
I still have yet to see a single argument against child support that does not involve the introduction of false choice or a huge state investment in child support and economic support to single parents. The first tramples on women's reproductive rights and the second taxes uninvolved 3rd parties. It makes more sense (and considerably less bureaucracy as far as I can tell) to ask an involved party (the biological but missing parent in this case, regardless of sex) to help pay for the child's upbringing.
You may want absolutely equality as an ideal but sadly, we're dealing with an asymmetrical situation. Child support seems to be, as put earlier, the least worse choice.
But you are wording child support so that it is meant to benefit the woman. (The whole false choice thing.) The argument is going to have to center on who child support is meant to benefit. It may be a woman's right to have a child, but is it now automatically a woman's entitlement to have help supporting that child? And a child may have a right to not grow up below the poverty line, but by whom are they granted this right? If it is by society, then it is up to society to ensure that this happens. (At least, I think that is the argument that has been made.)
And again, this completely fails when you add in that it isn't just by deadbeat parents that a child will wind up with just one parent. Who is responsible for helping the remaining one in these cases? And if nobody, are we then telling children you'd be better off financially had you had a deadbeat parent.
I would support elevated taxes to support single parents but not for the sake of the parent who refuses to help his/her child. I still say, if the parent can afford it, then there is no reason for them to deny their child.
Becaues of biology, in this situation, the woman has more rights than the man. Case closed. I hate to say it (having a pair of testicles myself), but that's the way it is.
That may be an effective argument where pregnancy and abortion and such are concerned, but I don't think it is an effective point here.
Becaues of biology, in this situation, the woman has more rights than the man. Case closed. I hate to say it (having a pair of testicles myself), but that's the way it is.
But you know, granted the burden that is pregnancy, I think men still make out a hell of a lot better. I mean, think how awesome it is that you never have to worry about some horrible little alien growing inside you, siphoning nutrients from you? Which can in fact threaten your life, and can only be removed by surgical procedures. Women have to worry about that shit. That sucks. Men have to worry about writing a check. Win.
Really though you should just freeze some swimmers and get a vasectomy as soon as possible.
I really don't see why this is so hard to accept -- equality is not inherent to life. We try to make sure that human constructs treat people equally, because we have control over that. This shit starts to break down where human constructs (like the law) and natural constructs (like uteruses) intersect. In this case? Biology wins. Because pregnacy is a huge fucking deal, and it all happens within the purview of a woman's body, which a man has zero right to say shit about (legally. I don't buy the argument that he can't ask her to get the little fucker sucked out. He absolutely should be able to talk about it with her. But that's OT).
So, for men? The choice he gets to make is to have sex or not. If he doesn't want kids? Don't have sex. Tough titty. The reason it's different for women? Because it happens inside of them. Legislating anything else is directly interfering with a woman's right to control her own fucking body. Men's right to more money is the only thing being interfered with in this case. Oh, wait, that isn't a right. I forgot.
Seriously, I don't get how fuckers can keep talking about this shit like it's somehow on equal footing from the beginning. Women, biologically, get the raw end of the deal. Be glad that the least your selfish ass has to worry about is some wage-garnishing.
But in this case you make the same mistake of saying that child support is meant to equalize the role of men and women. This is obviously false, as women can be required to pay child support.
In other words, some of us don't disagree with your conclusion, but your argument to get there sucks.
Further.... is it really a "right" of women to have children. Seems to me it is a biological priviledge for younger healthy women. Otherwise, all women would be able to have as many children as they want, which is clearly not the case.
Becaues of biology, in this situation, the woman has more rights than the man. Case closed. I hate to say it (having a pair of testicles myself), but that's the way it is.
That may be an effective argument where pregnancy and abortion and such are concerned, but I don't think it is an effective point in this instance.
That's great that you think that, but you're wrong. And I see no reason to assume differently if you're going to provide approximately jack and shit for reasoning behind your argument.
I'm sorry, but men just have less say here, because inherently childbirth has a vastly greater effect on women, and it is in fact something that occurs within their bodies, which they should have complete control over. Seriously, this is not complex.
So, for men? The choice he gets to make is to have sex or not. If he doesn't want kids? Don't have sex. Tough titty. The reason it's different for women? Because it happens inside of them. Legislating anything else is directly interfering with a woman's right to control her own fucking body. Men's right to more money is the only thing being interfered with in this case. Oh, wait, that isn't a right. I forgot.
This has been covered over the last 8 pages or so. Sex != Pregnancy != Child-rearing. Of the three, only "pregnancy" can be defended as solely the woman's choice.
Yes, but just because the biology is (arguably) unfair to women, that doesn't necessarily mean that the legal system has to somehow be unfair to men to balance it out. If a father wants nothing to do with the child, theoretically it could be made so that he can absolve himself of the responsibility of paying child support if he also forfeits all rights to the child. Child support could then be paid by the state. To argue for the current system, you have to say specifically why it's more fair than the system I outlined, not just phrase the current system in emotive language and cite the unfairness of biology as justification for an unfair legal system.
Two other points: Men (as well as women) do have a "right to more money", or at least a right to money they have earned. And this "if you don't want the responsibilities that having a child entails, don't have sex" argument is nonsense. It basically says "if you have sex, under the current legal system, X could happen. Therefore, if you don't want X to happen, don't have sex." This is a circular argument. X could be that one in a hundred men who have sex are executed. That's obviously not fair. So using the argument in support of the current system presupposes that it is fair.
But in this case you make the same mistake of saying that child support is meant to equalize the role of men and women. This is obviously false, as women can be required to pay child support.
In other words, some of us don't disagree with your conclusion, but your argument to get there sucks.
When the fuck did I say that? It was other fucksticks who were harping on equality. I was in fact saying that equality does not exist in this situation, and men need to suck it up. So, basically what I'm saying is: what?
Further.... is it really a "right" of women to have children. Seems to me it is a biological priviledge for younger healthy women. Otherwise, all women would be able to have as many children as they want, which is clearly not the case.
It's a right of women to have control over their bodies. And whatever that entails. Be it having children or whatever. Men automatically get full control over their bodies. That shit is never even questioned, ever. The fact that you ask -- essentially -- "do women have the right to control their own bodies?" is so incredibly offensive, regressive, patriarchal; it's really hard to wrap my mind around. Wow. Way to go.
It's a right of women to have control over their bodies. And whatever that entails. Be it having children or whatever. Men automatically get full control over their bodies. That shit is never even questioned, ever. The fact that you ask -- essentially -- "do women have the right to control their own bodies?" is so incredibly offensive, regressive, patriarchal; it's really hard to wrap my mind around. Wow. Way to go.
Yes except few people are saying that. They're simply saying with greater rights comes greater responsibilities. The woman can choose to have or not have the child, the man should be able to choose whether or not to help raise it.
Becaues of biology, in this situation, the woman has more rights than the man. Case closed. I hate to say it (having a pair of testicles myself), but that's the way it is.
That may be an effective argument where pregnancy and abortion and such are concerned, but I don't think it is an effective point in this instance.
That's great that you think that, but you're wrong. And I see no reason to assume differently if you're going to provide approximately jack and shit for reasoning behind your argument.
I'm sorry, but men just have less say here, because inherently childbirth has a vastly greater effect on women, and it is in fact something that occurs within their bodies, which they should have complete control over. Seriously, this is not complex.
Yes, they do have less say in regards to pregnancy due to biology. However, that is not what is being discussed here. Here, we are talking about whether or not a man can be held responsible by law for financially supporting the child. Many would say he can not, because he has no say on whether the baby is carried to term (as he shouldn't).
Biology naturally gives her more rights in pregnancy and birth, but this is not related to her rights in pregnancy and birth.
edit: For the record, I think that a guy who trys to shirk helping out is a dick.
But in this case you make the same mistake of saying that child support is meant to equalize the role of men and women. This is obviously false, as women can be required to pay child support.
In other words, some of us don't disagree with your conclusion, but your argument to get there sucks.
When the fuck did I say that? It was other fucksticks who were harping on equality. I was in fact saying that equality does not exist in this situation, and men need to suck it up. So, basically what I'm saying is: what?
Your whole point seemed to revolve around how men should suck it up because that only seems fair. If I misread your argument, sorry. I will have to ask that you repeat it, though.
Further.... is it really a "right" of women to have children. Seems to me it is a biological priviledge for younger healthy women. Otherwise, all women would be able to have as many children as they want, which is clearly not the case.
It's a right of women to have control over their bodies. And whatever that entails. Be it having children or whatever. Men automatically get full control over their bodies. That shit is never even questioned, ever. The fact that you ask -- essentially -- "do women have the right to control their own bodies?" is so incredibly offensive, regressive, patriarchal; it's really hard to wrap my mind around. Wow. Way to go.
I will never object to a woman's right of abortion. That is a different right, though. I am just pointing out that a right to abortion != a right to have children. And I really only make this distinction because I have known some women who would love to have children that can not do so. So, in that regard, it was more a passing comment that probably has no bearing whatsoever on the rest of this discussion.
So, did anyone in the last thirteen pages figure out that the only reason a minimum of two people's input are needed to raise a child in some kind of comfort is because our socioeconomic system thinks profit and productivity shouldn't be sacrificed to raise the next generation, or are we stuck on the same old "BUT I NEED THAT MONEY FOR A PS3" arguments made in total ignorance of how CS payment systems actually work?
How do Child Support payments actually work?
They're not designed to turn you into a fucking pauper, for one thing. The median payment in Aus is $5 a month, that's paid in 40% of cases. Median rates are more realistic in the US, but I've seen the stats and the percentage of income taken is not high. Its not a crippling burden. Also, its tailored to your income, and most states are flexible enough to do things like hold your payments while you're out of work or too sick to work, stuff like that. Its not a death sentence, and frankly anyone who whines about it, of either gender, is too immature to be fucking.
Your quoted stat here is unbelevably misleading. Austraila typically awards 16-27% , depending on the number of children. This is not five dollars nor is it a particularily trivial sum.
I agree that CS is tailored to the difference in incomes, which may lead to your median figure, but the rate itself is more significant than you are letting on.
Regardless, a burden doesn't have to be crippling for it to be severely impacting. No doubt the court wouldn't put you in a situation where you are starving or destitute. But it's certainly going to be limiting, especially if your're in a career instead of just a job. A healthy chunk of change like that is going to hamper your abilties to remain socially and economically competitive with one's peers, and whereas no one will actually hold it against you or discriminate you for having to make payments, its going to be a part in creating a type of 'glass ceiling' effect. Even though you would make the same money and be in the same situation as your peers, you would have less resources, so as time goes on you will fall further and further behind.
I like the switch of topic to male birth control though - effective male contraceptives would certainly give men more options than complete abstinence. The abstinance arguments I've seen so far ('if you don't want to be a dad, don't put your junk in there) strike me as being every bit as shallow and short-sighted as teaching abstinance only sex education.
It's technology that has interrupted the natural course here to allow women an alternative to pregnancy, it seems reasonable to follow that a technology should be made availible to men to allow the same alternative.
Vasectomies are not suitable for this purpose, reversal is not ensured. Less than 40% I beleive. There is a technique, like Cat mentioned, GBSR, which uses a block instead of a cut which is almost entirely reversable - over 99%. I think it would excellent to see more funding and heavy subsidization for this kind of technology, in hopes that it would relieve some of the inherent inequalities in the current system.
Yes, but just because the biology is (arguably) unfair to women, that doesn't necessarily mean that the legal system has to somehow be unfair to men to balance it out. If a father wants nothing to do with the child, theoretically it could be made so that he can absolve himself of the responsibility of paying child support if he also forfeits all rights to the child. Child support could then be paid by the state. To argue for the current system, you have to say specifically why it's more fair than the system I outlined, not just phrase the current system in emotive language and cite the unfairness of biology as justification for an unfair legal system.
I was just addressing all the dumbasses who seemed to be questioning a woman's right to go through with the pregnancy or not. So many fuckwits turned this into a "so, how much can we possibly control women's bodies?" thread, that I felt it necessary to adress their idiocy.
However, I do see how the current system could be improved, theoretically, but it just doesn't seem that horrible to me, or particularly unfair towards either gender. I wasn't saying that the law needs to be unfair to men to balance out nature's inequality -- that's not what I said at all. I was saying that women have more control/rights in this situation, becuase of biology. Because of the implications of biology, and how biology puts childbirth and female autonomy into one basket, largely. It's not about "evening the score." I was just pointing out that it's ridiculous to assume (a) that everything must be equal, always, even when things like biology are involved, and (b) that child-support somehow leaves men worse off. Both assumptions are bullshit, and that's what I was trying to point out.
Two other points: Men (as well as women) do have a "right to more money", or at least a right to money they have earned. And this "if you don't want the responsibilities that having a child entails, don't have sex" argument is nonsense.
Granted you have a right to property. But that in no way should override the right for someone to control their own bodies, which is what I was addressing. Prioritization, basically.
It basically says "if you have sex, under the current legal system, X could happen. Therefore, if you don't want X to happen, don't have sex." This is a circular argument. X could be that one in a hundred men who have sex are executed. That's obviously not fair. So using the argument in support of the current system presupposes that it is fair.
Except that's a ridiculous instance of strawmanning which has nothing to do with the argument at hand, because the right to a bigger paycheck is a fundamentally different right than the right to not be arbitrarily executed.
I do see what you're getting at -- it's just that I was replying to certain themes in this thread that were utterly retarded, and needed to be addressed.
As to the fundamental structure of child support law -- I don't see how the basic premise of it is flawed. The execution may be flawed in some instances, but the idea itself seems reasonably fair. Men still get off with the better end of the deal. I don't see why I should be outraged that I get off easier than women. I just don't.
I don't think anyone's actually said anything like "women should be forced to have abortions," rather they've said that if a woman doesn't when asked then she waives certain rights - namely, support payments.
It basically says "if you have sex, under the current legal system, X could happen. Therefore, if you don't want X to happen, don't have sex." This is a circular argument. X could be that one in a hundred men who have sex are executed. That's obviously not fair. So using the argument in support of the current system presupposes that it is fair.
Except that's a ridiculous instance of strawmanning which has nothing to do with the argument at hand, because the right to a bigger paycheck is a fundamentally different right than the right to not be arbitrarily executed.
I do see what you're getting at -- it's just that I was replying to certain themes in this thread that were utterly retarded, and needed to be addressed.
As to the fundamental structure of child support law -- I don't see how the basic premise of it is flawed. The execution may be flawed in some instances, but the idea itself seems reasonably fair. Men still get off with the better end of the deal. I don't see why I should be outraged that I get off easier than women. I just don't.
Well yes, it was intentionally a ridiculous strawman, I only said it to highlight the fact that that line of reasoning in and of itself is flawed. But anyway, I guess you were talking about people who hold vastly more idiotic opinions than I was, so we don't really disagree that much.
And this "if you don't want the responsibilities that having a child entails, don't have sex" argument is nonsense.
Why is this nonsense? It strikes me as common sense.
1.) Sex has the potential to make women pregnant.
2.) Women have the ultimate decision - as is proper - regarding the conclusion of that pregnancy.
3.) Parents, including fathers, are legally obligated to pay for their children.
These three points are a mixture of biological fact and legal fact. Men having sex know these things. It's not asking too much for men to combine their knowledge of biology and law to arrive at the conclusion "If I 100% don't want to pay for children then I should avoid having sex."
Similarly, using only biological fact, women should arrive at the conclusion "If I 100% don't want to become pregnant then I should avoid having sex."
Argue about whether the system is right all you want, but as it stands right now, men do have a choice. They have a choice about whether they'll have sex. Every time they decide to engage in sex they are taking a calculated risk that they will become parents. Parents, in the US, are currently expected to be financially responsible for their offspring.
As it stands right now, biology combined with our legal system, not me and my opinions have formed the truth that "every time a man has sex he is tacitly agreeing to the potentiality of becoming a father."
Your whole point seemed to revolve around how men should suck it up because that only seems fair. If I misread your argument, sorry. I will have to ask that you repeat it, though.
Well, that is basically what I'm saying. Is that the current system seems just fine -- not some egregious breach of male property rights, or something. Men make a decision knowing full well what the potential consequences could be. Those potential consequences are not unacceptable breaches of the rights of the individual. This is opposed to pro-life law, which would be an unacceptable breach of the rights of the individual. That's why "don't have sex if you don't want the consequences," works for one argument and not the other -- because the consequences are about as fundamentally different as can be.
Also, it seems reasonable that you should support your own offspring, to some extent. Is that wrong?
I will never object to a woman's right of abortion. That is a different right, though. I am just pointing out that a right to abortion != a right to have children.
Wrong. They both are the same right -- to control one's own body, and whatever other decisions that may entail at any point in one's adult life.
And this "if you don't want the responsibilities that having a child entails, don't have sex" argument is nonsense.
Why is this nonsense? It strikes me as common sense.
1.) Sex has the potential to make women pregnant.
2.) Women have the ultimate decision - as is proper - regarding the conclusion of that pregnancy.
3.) Parents, including fathers, are legally obligated to pay for their children.
These three points are a mixture of biological fact and legal fact. Men having sex know these things. It's not asking too much for men to combine their knowledge of biology and law to arrive at the conclusion "If I 100% don't want to pay for children then I should avoid having sex."
Similarly, using only biological fact, women should arrive at the conclusion "If I 100% don't want to become pregnant then I should avoid having sex."
Argue about whether the system is right all you want, but as it stands right now, men do have a choice. They have a choice about whether they'll have sex. Every time they decide to engage in sex they are taking a calculated risk that they will become parents. Parents, in the US, are currently expected to be financially responsible for their offspring.
As it stands right now, biology combined with our legal system, not me and my opinions have formed the truth that "every time a man has sex he is tacitly agreeing to the potentiality of becoming a father."
And this "if you don't want the responsibilities that having a child entails, don't have sex" argument is nonsense.
Why is this nonsense? It strikes me as common sense.
1.) Sex has the potential to make women pregnant.
2.) Women have the ultimate decision - as is proper - regarding the conclusion of that pregnancy.
3.) Parents, including fathers, are legally obligated to pay for their children.
These three points are a mixture of biological fact and legal fact. Men having sex know these things. It's not asking too much for men to combine their knowledge of biology and law to arrive at the conclusion "If I 100% don't want to pay for children then I should avoid having sex."
Similarly, using only biological fact, women should arrive at the conclusion "If I 100% don't want to become pregnant then I should avoid having sex."
Argue about whether the system is right all you want, but as it stands right now, men do have a choice. They have a choice about whether they'll have sex. Every time they decide to engage in sex they are taking a calculated risk that they will become parents. Parents, in the US, are currently expected to be financially responsible for their offspring.
As it stands right now, biology combined with our legal system, not me and my opinions have formed the truth that "every time a man has sex he is tacitly agreeing to the potentiality of becoming a father."
Yes, I agree entirely. I just mean that this can't be used as an argument that the current system is the best one, or a fair one, or whatever.
I really don't see why this is so hard to accept -- equality is not inherent to life. We try to make sure that human constructs treat people equally, because we have control over that.
And right now, those self-same human constructs are not treating people equally, when that is their stated goal. That should be fixed. This is my entire point.
This shit starts to break down where human constructs (like the law) and natural constructs (like uteruses) intersect.
No. We are choosing to ignore equality right now, but it in no way "breaks down". We KNOW It is unequal, and most people in this thread who support child support admit to its inequality and sexism.
The schism lies in the proposed solutions. Most are in agreement that CS is the least worst solution. Others suggest new tactics, some of which are really very good.
Legislating anything else is directly interfering with a woman's right to control her own fucking body.
Okay, that's enough. Seriously. The whole "forced-choice" thing is at very best a gross exaggeration, and at worst a total distortion of what would actually happen. That some single women – and I stress “some” - would start to choose to terminate a pregnancy over having a baby is not what I'd call a bad thing. In fact, in a situation wherein a woman wants a child and a man doesn't, it is arguable that not allowing a baby to be made here might more than likely be a better choice to make, insofar as child care and social impact is concerned.
There's still a choice, its just that one of the options would be more readily preferable and/or attractive. It will at least encourage avoiding the pitfall that is making an entirely new life to fuck around with. And if we can accomplish more people making what looks like a better choice in matters like this, while getting our legal system to treat people as equally as it says it should? Score.
Seriously, I don't get how fuckers can keep talking about this shit like it's somehow on equal footing from the beginning. Women, biologically, get the raw end of the deal. Be glad that the least your selfish ass has to worry about is some wage-garnishing.
Oh. Well, I'm glad you can justify sexism on the basis that you think some people might be “selfish”. What bothers me is that you really think that this is what the entire discussion is really about.
To be fair, that may have been happening somewhere on pages 8-17. I didn't read much of those. Most people now are simply saying that if society feels single parents need help, then society should supply the money. Not a parent that had expressed a lack of desire of having the child. (Be it man or woman.)
I have simply been trying to shift it such that it is not an issue of women vs. men. This should not be an argument of a man having to suck it up and pay the check. Unless, of course, this really is meant to equalize women and men. In that case, though, it should be clear this is not necessarily about the child.
This is exactly why I misread your argument. You were saying that "men get it easy." While I would tend to agree, if that is anywhere in your argument, you suddenly took the child out of child support. Make sense?
But you are wording child support so that it is meant to benefit the woman. (The whole false choice thing.) The argument is going to have to center on who child support is meant to benefit. It may be a woman's right to have a child, but is it now automatically a woman's entitlement to have help supporting that child? And a child may have a right to not grow up below the poverty line, but by whom are they granted this right? If it is by society, then it is up to society to ensure that this happens. (At least, I think that is the argument that has been made.)
And again, this completely fails when you add in that it isn't just by deadbeat parents that a child will wind up with just one parent. Who is responsible for helping the remaining one in these cases? And if nobody, are we then telling children you'd be better off financially had you had a deadbeat parent.
I'm acknowledging the fact that under our current system, poor pregnant women would be presented with a false choice in the absense of child support payments. We would be saying "You can either abort or give this child up for adoption" since they would be unable to support a child without signficant financial assistance. This is, in my opinion, just as bad as limiting to the choices to "you can either raise this child or give it up for adoption but you cannot abort it." Reproductive freedom involves having a full range of options realistically available for all, not just those who can afford it.
Also, this money is obtained for the support of the child. Raising a child has truly significant costs. Support payments, either from the state or from the missing parent, are intended to defray those costs not materially benefit the remaining parent.
If you do think state assistance is a better solution than making interested parties responsible, show me how it is a more sensible solution. How much do you think this would cost? Would it provide the same quality of childhood? How much more are you personally willing to pay in taxes to support such measures? Do you think it would be politically feasible?
I don't have any problem with it (though i think government sponsored child-care could be an absolute horror show if done badly) but all of the anti-tax people here would probably have a field day. If you could make it happen, great. But the pragmatist in me says that anti-tax sentiments would probably ruin such attempts.
And right now, those self-same human constructs are not treating people equally, when that is their stated goal. That should be fixed. This is my entire point.
If we're talking just about child-support here, then it is equal. Whoever gets custody, gets custody. Whoever doesn't pays child support, regardless of gender. There is no inequality here whatsoever. It only becomes inequitable if you inject biological inequalities re: choice into the mix. By itself, the human construct is both reasonable and perfectly and utterly equitable.
No. We are choosing to ignore equality right now, but it in no way "breaks down". We KNOW It is unequal, and most people in this thread who support child support admit to its inequality and sexism.
See: above.
The schism lies in the proposed solutions. Most are in agreement that CS is the least worst solution. Others suggest new tactics, some of which are really very good.
Not only is CS the "least worst," it seems to make perfect sense. Support your offspring. What's wrong with this, again? You don't want to take responsibility for your actions? What?
Legislating anything else is directly interfering with a woman's right to control her own fucking body.
Okay, that's enough. Seriously. The whole "forced-choice" thing is at very best a gross exaggeration, and at worst a total distortion of what would actually happen. That some single women – and I stress “some†- would start to choose to terminate a pregnancy over having a baby is not what I'd call a bad thing. In fact, in a situation wherein a woman wants a child and a man doesn't, it is arguable that not allowing a baby to be made here might more than likely be a better choice to make, insofar as child care and social impact is concerned.
It seemed to me like an awful lot of people were talking about abortion, and "how is this different," etc etc, and I was pointing out what fuckwits they are for not understanding the difference. Seriously, a lot of people just did not get the fundamental realities involved here, nor did they understand teh biological/legal divide. I mean, page after page, I kept seeing people acting like fuckwits, talking about how a woman gets more choices, blah blah blah. I was explaining what that makes perfect sense.
Also, CS seems perfectly reasonable to me, and utterly equitable, when viewed by itself. It's only "unfair" if you consider that women don't have to take it to term if they don't want it, while men don't get to make that decision. Well, that's because that's a completely different right, basically, which men have zero say over.
There's still a choice, its just that one of the options would be more preferable. And if we can accomplish more people making what looks like a better choice in matters like this, while getting our legal system to treat people as equally as it says it should? Score.
Our legal system already treats people equally. It's just that women have the right to opt out of having a kid altogether. Men don't, but that has nothing to do with the structure of CS. And women deserve that right. And men don't. The end.
Oh. Well, I'm glad you can justify sexism on the basis that you think some people might be “selfishâ€. What bothers me is that you really think that this is what the entire discussion is really about.
There is no sexism here. Men get fewer choices re: having the kid or not. But CS law is perfectly equitable, reasonable, and grounded in what seems like good emphasis on personal responsibility to me. The only "sexism" is the fact that women have the babies. Grow a womb, and then if the woman still gets to decide if you have the abortion or not, then there's sexism.
But you are wording child support so that it is meant to benefit the woman. (The whole false choice thing.) The argument is going to have to center on who child support is meant to benefit. It may be a woman's right to have a child, but is it now automatically a woman's entitlement to have help supporting that child? And a child may have a right to not grow up below the poverty line, but by whom are they granted this right? If it is by society, then it is up to society to ensure that this happens. (At least, I think that is the argument that has been made.)
And again, this completely fails when you add in that it isn't just by deadbeat parents that a child will wind up with just one parent. Who is responsible for helping the remaining one in these cases? And if nobody, are we then telling children you'd be better off financially had you had a deadbeat parent.
I'm acknowledging the fact that under our current system, poor pregnant women would be presented with a false choice in the absense of child support payments. We would be saying "You can either abort or give this child up for adoption" since they would be unable to support a child without signficant financial assistance. This is, in my opinion, just as bad as limiting to the choices to "you can either raise this child or give it up for adoption but you cannot abort it." Reproductive freedom involves having a full range of options realistically available for all, not just those who can afford it.
Poor pregnant families are already making that choice right now. I know me and my SO would love to have children, but we can't support them yet, so we aren't having children. This is not a choice that is absent in today's world.
Also, this money is obtained for the support of the child. Raising a child has truly significant costs. Support payments, either from the state or from the missing parent, are intended to defray those costs not materially benefit the remaining parent.
If you do think state assistance is a better solution than making interested parties responsible, show me how it is a more sensible solution. How much do you think this would cost? Would it provide the same quality of childhood? How much more are you personally willing to pay in taxes to support such measures? Do you think it would be politically feasible?
I don't have any problem with it (though i think government sponsored child-care could be an absolute horror show if done badly) but all of the anti-tax people here would probably have a field day. If you could make it happen, great. But the pragmatist in me says that anti-tax sentiments would probably ruin such attempts.
And this is what most of this debate has centered for some of us. That is exactly what we think could be a better solution. Unfortunately, most of us would probably agree with you that it is impractical.
Now, some of us, it seems would like to actually make people more responsible for their decisions. This goes for both men and women. The problem is, we would like to make them more responsible without taking away any rights when they show they are not. That would probably be a different debate, though.
To be fair, that may have been happening somewhere on pages 8-17. I didn't read much of those. Most people now are simply saying that if society feels single parents need help, then society should supply the money. Not a parent that had expressed a lack of desire of having the child. (Be it man or woman.)
I have simply been trying to shift it such that it is not an issue of women vs. men. This should not be an argument of a man having to suck it up and pay the check. Unless, of course, this really is meant to equalize women and men. In that case, though, it should be clear this is not necessarily about the child.
This is exactly why I misread your argument. You were saying that "men get it easy." While I would tend to agree, if that is anywhere in your argument, you suddenly took the child out of child support. Make sense?
I see.
Well, I think CS law makes sense. I think you should support your offspring, regardless of gender. I think CS law, ignoring the biological inequity of women's choice re: childbirth, is perfectly equitable. I see no problem with the law whatsoever.
Kids need/deserve that money, and you have a responsibility to pay.
What's so wrong with this system?
How is it sexist?
I guess maybe people miscontstrued me because I got caught up in pointing out how stupid some of the arguments here have been.
But basically, CS law is equitable, gender-neutral, and reasonable.
I don't think the burden should get pushed off onto "society" when it's really not their responsibility. It's the parents'. If a parent skips out, then society should step in to fill the vacuum, because that's in the child's best interest, but that's already how it is in many/most states.
EDIT: And I don't think there's a damn argument otherwise unless you start bringing biology and women's choices re: pregancy into the equation, which is what basically every single person here has done, who is opposed to current CS law.
So, forgive me for addressing the implications/undercurrents/blatant opinions of one entire side of the argument?
To be fair, that may have been happening somewhere on pages 8-17. I didn't read much of those. Most people now are simply saying that if society feels single parents need help, then society should supply the money. Not a parent that had expressed a lack of desire of having the child. (Be it man or woman.)
I have simply been trying to shift it such that it is not an issue of women vs. men. This should not be an argument of a man having to suck it up and pay the check. Unless, of course, this really is meant to equalize women and men. In that case, though, it should be clear this is not necessarily about the child.
This is exactly why I misread your argument. You were saying that "men get it easy." While I would tend to agree, if that is anywhere in your argument, you suddenly took the child out of child support. Make sense?
I see.
Well, I think CS law makes sense. I think you should support your offspring, regardless of gender. I think CS law, ignoring the biological inequity of women's choice re: childbirth, is perfectly equitable. I see no problem with the law whatsoever.
I think some people feel that way because a woman can get out of all responsibility and effectively prevent a man from ever being a father. (This is probably more true now that we have the "day after" pill.)
I personally don't care for that line of thinking. I just don't like it when people say men should pay child-support because women gave birth. That is just a horribly flawed argument to me as it takes the child out of the consideration.
The main thing wrong with it is that it is open to abuse. If a woman can somehow trick a man into having sex with her and get pregnant, she can obligate him to her for "18 years." Now.... I will gladly concede that not only does this probably not happen often, but there is no such thing as a perfect system. At that point, this boils down to the least bad solution, though.
I guess maybe people miscontstrued me because I got caught up in pointing out how stupid some of the arguments here have been.
But basically, CS law is equitable, gender-neutral, and reasonable.
I don't think the burden should get pushed off onto "society" when it's really not their responsibility. It's the parents'. If a parent skips out, then society should step in to fill the vacuum, because that's in the child's best interest, but that's already how it is in many/most states.
I think this falls back on the punishing people that have sex argument, though. And, if CS is really about the children, you completely miss all who are in single families but don't have a deadbeat parent.
Edit: I saw your edit. Don't mistake the general tone of debate as one saying things aren't alright. I personally feel that the current CS laws are decent. However, I can see many flaws in the arguments for them. What is so bad about questioning what appear to be flaws?
Poor pregnant families are already making that choice right now. I know me and my SO would love to have children, but we can't support them yet, so we aren't having children. This is not a choice that is absent in today's world.
There is support, though not enough, for poor families. I would like to see such support extended. That is not what is being discussed, though. We're talking about the rights of women to have or not have children without being presented with obstructions and false choices in situations in which the father has left and/or does not want to support the child.
If you want to discuss that issue, then spin off another thread.
And this is what most of this debate has centered for some of us. That is exactly what we think could be a better solution. Unfortunately, most of us would probably agree with you that it is impractical.
Now, some of us, it seems would like to actually make people more responsible for their decisions. This goes for both men and women. The problem is, we would like to make them more responsible without taking away any rights when they show they are not. That would probably be a different debate, though.
If we can't get a state system to support these children, then we have to evaluate the cost of the child support system vs. curtailing women's reproductive freedoms through the aforementioned false choice. Personally, I think that the cost of curtailing women's reproductive freedoms is far more significant than forcing biological parents who choose to not care for their children to pay for the costs of raising that child. I understand that there is a slight curtailment of rights. However, without a state system, there is going to be an inequity somewhere. I'm not happy about it but I have yet to hear a better solution that is also feasible. That is why I call it the least worst solution.
Posts
So for you this really is a "think of the children!" debate? How, then, do you address the "rights" of all children who are born to single parents where the other parent has died? What about when the other parent is in prison?
Again, to be clear, I'm not against child support. And while it would be nice to have some guarantee that we all had equal opportunities in fact, I just don't know how I feel about trying to legislate that. I definitely don't think it is "fair."
Further, how would you feel about something being done to limit the amount of people a parent has to pay child support on? I don't mean to protect the irresponsible parent, but more to prevent them bringing even more children into the world that they can't support. (I haven't seen numbers, but aren't poor families by and large having the most children now? This would also lead to it is poor people paying child support the most now. Remember, we aren't talking about otherwise successful people, for the most part. Unless, of course, I'm wrong on those points.)
Although I'm sure that research indicates that 2 parents are better than one... I find the idea of taking a baby off of a willing and loving mother because she doesnt have anyone to help her pretty abhorrent. And the idea that just because 1 parent isnt the "optimal" situation that its grounds for taking a mother's child away from her... Thats some scary shit.
I wouldn't say it's all "think of the children!" for me. Certainly, that's a part of it because child support laws and judgments are passed and decided on with the best interest of the child in mind. It's not the child's fault that his father walked out, and it's not fair to punish him for it.
I'm not sure what to make of the "one parent died" and "one parent went to prison" scenarios. Ideally, the parent in question would demonstrate to the court that his/her child is still well-provided for and then be left alone. If it was found that the parent needed assistance s/he would get it from the state. As much as the "two parents for a newborn" idea appeals to me, pulling children out of the homes they know certainly does not.
As far as limiting the number of children an irresponsible parent has to pay for, I don't think there should be a limit. As our system is set up it's the parents' responsibility to pay for his/her children. If some guy is dumb enough to have four children with four women, it's his own fault when he's got four child support payments to make. You'd think he'd have learned to use a rubber at some point after the first unwanted child. Ideally, if the irresponsible parent can't make payments the state would step in and make them for him/her. Having a deadbeat parent is no reason to punish a child.
The more I think about it, the more it makes sense to me to spread child support payments around as taxes and encourage the regular use of birth control by making it free and widely available. I'm not about to force sterilization on anybody, but if birth control pills and condoms were free and available to all who wanted them, we'd have these discussions a lot less.
EDIT: And I was wrong above. If the mother wants a child and the father doesn't, then the mother can get child support from the state if she needs it. After rereading what I wrote I can't believe that I thought it was a good idea. I suppose I thought that a mother or sister or brother or someone would always sign with the pregnant woman. I'd feel terrible taking somebody's baby away from them without their consent.
But that is an argument that is based on "think of the child."
I only bring up those scenarios because they have the exact same effect on the child. In one case, though, the remaining parent can expect payments from the absent one. In the other, not so much. So, this whole, make life fair for kids argument is somewhat bunk to me.
There already is an upper limit on the amount of a person's paycheck that can be withheld for childsupport. So, are you basically punishing all kids for having a parent that wouldn't stop having kids they didn't want to support, or only the later ones to be born?
I always say that in any discussion I have. I am anti-abortion, but pro-choice. By that I mean I would rather see the need for abortions go down by educating people on birth-control.
It should be noted if there is ever a case where the father wants a child and the mother doesn't, he is shit out of luck. And if you support divorces, then you almost by definition support taking a child from someone without their consent, because at least one of the parents is going to lose that child. (This can be offset by numbers showing that some divorcees do not want custody. I have no idea if those numbers exist.)
To address the honest question (I don't have an answer).... I would hope the father has some recourse, but by all logic applied, he'd still be responsible for the child.
He'd probably never know what happened (and never be able to prove it), so he'd probably end up being responsible. But this is a pretty rare occurrence anyway, so probably not worth much consideration when deciding on policy.
I think the "parent dead/incarcerated" situations are just more reason to consider beefing up the system we have now to assist single parents, and stop worrying as much about holding parents responsible for children they didn't want. Treat the whole issue of single-parent households as a simple poverty issue (which it too often is) and deal with it as such when necessary.
I do not favor taking kids away from single parents in general. If they have one parent who's willing to take care of them, then that person I think has a right to their offspring (outside of abuse/neglect). If the other parent can't/won't help, then as I've said I think the "least harm" route is for the state to step in. Which we already do to some extent, but not only is the aid offered not always entirely adequate but often there is a gap between those who qualify for aid and those who are actually able to decently provide on their own.
It's a poverty issue. The child is the one person who made no choices whatsoever leading to their situation. So yeah, they're pretty much the one that we should be concerned with, provided you believe that our society has any reason to be concerned with poverty. It's not just because they're "the child" in some sort of emotional sense.
Divorce is a messy subject (and something of a tangent), but assuming the parent that wasn't awarded majority custody isn't a complete and utter bastard they still get to see and spend time with their child. I'm honestly not sure what we could do that's a better solution. Staying together for the child, in my opinion, doesn't help him any. Now instead of having two parents that no longer like each other, he's got two parents that no longer like each other and are fighting all the time and being generally miserable people.
As far as everything else goes, I suppose I am using special pleading, but I genuinely don't know how else to approach this. It's not right to hurt an innocent because another party doesn't want to pay, and until we can get child support to be shouldered by taxpayers instead of deadbeat parents I'll continue to support the idea that parents, at the very least, need to be financially responsible for their children regardless of whether they wanted those children.
I understand that the system is not ideal, and I understand that the mother has considerably more choice as to whether the child is born or not, but people need to take responsibility for their actions. Even if there wasn't a law telling you to do so I would encourage parents to live by "you helped make it, and you'd damn well better help support it." It's the right thing to do within our system as it works today. Life's not fair, and this is one instance where I won't support making it fair until the only person in the equation who genuinely has no blame is taken care of regardless of whether he was wanted by both of his parents.
I agree that that is a poverty issue. However, that is being used to say that the non-custodial parent owes child-support. Unless there is more done to prop up single parents who are not owed child support, then it is not being treated as a poverty issue. At least, that is what it seems like to me.
To put this in another perspective, lets say a woman somehow (probably by sex
I agree. Almost every step of the way, this could have turned the way of most internet discussions and collapsed under a ton of ad homenims and insults. With rare exception, it mostly didn't. That's pretty awesome, especially for this many pages (including the thread that spawned it).
You may want absolutely equality as an ideal but sadly, we're dealing with an asymmetrical situation. Child support seems to be, as put earlier, the least worse choice.
What's necessarily wrong with taxing uninvolved third parties? Childless people pay taxes for schools.
Edit: Bad analogy there I guess because childless people did go to school, but still.
Puzzle League: 073119-160185
Exactly. Taxes, in theory, go toward the common good. Roads, schools, police, firefighters, welfare. It's in the public interest to keep children from growing up below the poverty line.
But you know, granted the burden that is pregnancy, I think men still make out a hell of a lot better. I mean, think how awesome it is that you never have to worry about some horrible little alien growing inside you, siphoning nutrients from you? Which can in fact threaten your life, and can only be removed by surgical procedures. Women have to worry about that shit. That sucks. Men have to worry about writing a check. Win.
Really though you should just freeze some swimmers and get a vasectomy as soon as possible.
I really don't see why this is so hard to accept -- equality is not inherent to life. We try to make sure that human constructs treat people equally, because we have control over that. This shit starts to break down where human constructs (like the law) and natural constructs (like uteruses) intersect. In this case? Biology wins. Because pregnacy is a huge fucking deal, and it all happens within the purview of a woman's body, which a man has zero right to say shit about (legally. I don't buy the argument that he can't ask her to get the little fucker sucked out. He absolutely should be able to talk about it with her. But that's OT).
So, for men? The choice he gets to make is to have sex or not. If he doesn't want kids? Don't have sex. Tough titty. The reason it's different for women? Because it happens inside of them. Legislating anything else is directly interfering with a woman's right to control her own fucking body. Men's right to more money is the only thing being interfered with in this case. Oh, wait, that isn't a right. I forgot.
Seriously, I don't get how fuckers can keep talking about this shit like it's somehow on equal footing from the beginning. Women, biologically, get the raw end of the deal. Be glad that the least your selfish ass has to worry about is some wage-garnishing.
But you are wording child support so that it is meant to benefit the woman. (The whole false choice thing.) The argument is going to have to center on who child support is meant to benefit. It may be a woman's right to have a child, but is it now automatically a woman's entitlement to have help supporting that child? And a child may have a right to not grow up below the poverty line, but by whom are they granted this right? If it is by society, then it is up to society to ensure that this happens. (At least, I think that is the argument that has been made.)
And again, this completely fails when you add in that it isn't just by deadbeat parents that a child will wind up with just one parent. Who is responsible for helping the remaining one in these cases? And if nobody, are we then telling children you'd be better off financially had you had a deadbeat parent.
stout's Amazon Wishlist | my lastFM
That may be an effective argument where pregnancy and abortion and such are concerned, but I don't think it is an effective point here.
But in this case you make the same mistake of saying that child support is meant to equalize the role of men and women. This is obviously false, as women can be required to pay child support.
In other words, some of us don't disagree with your conclusion, but your argument to get there sucks.
Further.... is it really a "right" of women to have children. Seems to me it is a biological priviledge for younger healthy women. Otherwise, all women would be able to have as many children as they want, which is clearly not the case.
That's great that you think that, but you're wrong. And I see no reason to assume differently if you're going to provide approximately jack and shit for reasoning behind your argument.
I'm sorry, but men just have less say here, because inherently childbirth has a vastly greater effect on women, and it is in fact something that occurs within their bodies, which they should have complete control over. Seriously, this is not complex.
Two other points: Men (as well as women) do have a "right to more money", or at least a right to money they have earned. And this "if you don't want the responsibilities that having a child entails, don't have sex" argument is nonsense. It basically says "if you have sex, under the current legal system, X could happen. Therefore, if you don't want X to happen, don't have sex." This is a circular argument. X could be that one in a hundred men who have sex are executed. That's obviously not fair. So using the argument in support of the current system presupposes that it is fair.
Puzzle League: 073119-160185
When the fuck did I say that? It was other fucksticks who were harping on equality. I was in fact saying that equality does not exist in this situation, and men need to suck it up. So, basically what I'm saying is: what?
It's a right of women to have control over their bodies. And whatever that entails. Be it having children or whatever. Men automatically get full control over their bodies. That shit is never even questioned, ever. The fact that you ask -- essentially -- "do women have the right to control their own bodies?" is so incredibly offensive, regressive, patriarchal; it's really hard to wrap my mind around. Wow. Way to go.
Yes except few people are saying that. They're simply saying with greater rights comes greater responsibilities. The woman can choose to have or not have the child, the man should be able to choose whether or not to help raise it.
Biology naturally gives her more rights in pregnancy and birth, but this is not related to her rights in pregnancy and birth.
edit: For the record, I think that a guy who trys to shirk helping out is a dick.
Your whole point seemed to revolve around how men should suck it up because that only seems fair. If I misread your argument, sorry. I will have to ask that you repeat it, though.
I will never object to a woman's right of abortion. That is a different right, though. I am just pointing out that a right to abortion != a right to have children. And I really only make this distinction because I have known some women who would love to have children that can not do so. So, in that regard, it was more a passing comment that probably has no bearing whatsoever on the rest of this discussion.
Your quoted stat here is unbelevably misleading. Austraila typically awards 16-27% , depending on the number of children. This is not five dollars nor is it a particularily trivial sum.
I agree that CS is tailored to the difference in incomes, which may lead to your median figure, but the rate itself is more significant than you are letting on.
Regardless, a burden doesn't have to be crippling for it to be severely impacting. No doubt the court wouldn't put you in a situation where you are starving or destitute. But it's certainly going to be limiting, especially if your're in a career instead of just a job. A healthy chunk of change like that is going to hamper your abilties to remain socially and economically competitive with one's peers, and whereas no one will actually hold it against you or discriminate you for having to make payments, its going to be a part in creating a type of 'glass ceiling' effect. Even though you would make the same money and be in the same situation as your peers, you would have less resources, so as time goes on you will fall further and further behind.
I like the switch of topic to male birth control though - effective male contraceptives would certainly give men more options than complete abstinence. The abstinance arguments I've seen so far ('if you don't want to be a dad, don't put your junk in there) strike me as being every bit as shallow and short-sighted as teaching abstinance only sex education.
It's technology that has interrupted the natural course here to allow women an alternative to pregnancy, it seems reasonable to follow that a technology should be made availible to men to allow the same alternative.
Vasectomies are not suitable for this purpose, reversal is not ensured. Less than 40% I beleive. There is a technique, like Cat mentioned, GBSR, which uses a block instead of a cut which is almost entirely reversable - over 99%. I think it would excellent to see more funding and heavy subsidization for this kind of technology, in hopes that it would relieve some of the inherent inequalities in the current system.
I was just addressing all the dumbasses who seemed to be questioning a woman's right to go through with the pregnancy or not. So many fuckwits turned this into a "so, how much can we possibly control women's bodies?" thread, that I felt it necessary to adress their idiocy.
However, I do see how the current system could be improved, theoretically, but it just doesn't seem that horrible to me, or particularly unfair towards either gender. I wasn't saying that the law needs to be unfair to men to balance out nature's inequality -- that's not what I said at all. I was saying that women have more control/rights in this situation, becuase of biology. Because of the implications of biology, and how biology puts childbirth and female autonomy into one basket, largely. It's not about "evening the score." I was just pointing out that it's ridiculous to assume (a) that everything must be equal, always, even when things like biology are involved, and (b) that child-support somehow leaves men worse off. Both assumptions are bullshit, and that's what I was trying to point out.
Granted you have a right to property. But that in no way should override the right for someone to control their own bodies, which is what I was addressing. Prioritization, basically.
Except that's a ridiculous instance of strawmanning which has nothing to do with the argument at hand, because the right to a bigger paycheck is a fundamentally different right than the right to not be arbitrarily executed.
I do see what you're getting at -- it's just that I was replying to certain themes in this thread that were utterly retarded, and needed to be addressed.
As to the fundamental structure of child support law -- I don't see how the basic premise of it is flawed. The execution may be flawed in some instances, but the idea itself seems reasonably fair. Men still get off with the better end of the deal. I don't see why I should be outraged that I get off easier than women. I just don't.
Puzzle League: 073119-160185
Why is this nonsense? It strikes me as common sense.
1.) Sex has the potential to make women pregnant.
2.) Women have the ultimate decision - as is proper - regarding the conclusion of that pregnancy.
3.) Parents, including fathers, are legally obligated to pay for their children.
These three points are a mixture of biological fact and legal fact. Men having sex know these things. It's not asking too much for men to combine their knowledge of biology and law to arrive at the conclusion "If I 100% don't want to pay for children then I should avoid having sex."
Similarly, using only biological fact, women should arrive at the conclusion "If I 100% don't want to become pregnant then I should avoid having sex."
Argue about whether the system is right all you want, but as it stands right now, men do have a choice. They have a choice about whether they'll have sex. Every time they decide to engage in sex they are taking a calculated risk that they will become parents. Parents, in the US, are currently expected to be financially responsible for their offspring.
As it stands right now, biology combined with our legal system, not me and my opinions have formed the truth that "every time a man has sex he is tacitly agreeing to the potentiality of becoming a father."
Well, that is basically what I'm saying. Is that the current system seems just fine -- not some egregious breach of male property rights, or something. Men make a decision knowing full well what the potential consequences could be. Those potential consequences are not unacceptable breaches of the rights of the individual. This is opposed to pro-life law, which would be an unacceptable breach of the rights of the individual. That's why "don't have sex if you don't want the consequences," works for one argument and not the other -- because the consequences are about as fundamentally different as can be.
Also, it seems reasonable that you should support your own offspring, to some extent. Is that wrong?
Wrong. They both are the same right -- to control one's own body, and whatever other decisions that may entail at any point in one's adult life.
Puzzle League: 073119-160185
And right now, those self-same human constructs are not treating people equally, when that is their stated goal. That should be fixed. This is my entire point.
No. We are choosing to ignore equality right now, but it in no way "breaks down". We KNOW It is unequal, and most people in this thread who support child support admit to its inequality and sexism.
The schism lies in the proposed solutions. Most are in agreement that CS is the least worst solution. Others suggest new tactics, some of which are really very good.
Okay, that's enough. Seriously. The whole "forced-choice" thing is at very best a gross exaggeration, and at worst a total distortion of what would actually happen. That some single women – and I stress “some” - would start to choose to terminate a pregnancy over having a baby is not what I'd call a bad thing. In fact, in a situation wherein a woman wants a child and a man doesn't, it is arguable that not allowing a baby to be made here might more than likely be a better choice to make, insofar as child care and social impact is concerned.
There's still a choice, its just that one of the options would be more readily preferable and/or attractive. It will at least encourage avoiding the pitfall that is making an entirely new life to fuck around with. And if we can accomplish more people making what looks like a better choice in matters like this, while getting our legal system to treat people as equally as it says it should? Score.
Oh. Well, I'm glad you can justify sexism on the basis that you think some people might be “selfish”. What bothers me is that you really think that this is what the entire discussion is really about.
I have simply been trying to shift it such that it is not an issue of women vs. men. This should not be an argument of a man having to suck it up and pay the check. Unless, of course, this really is meant to equalize women and men. In that case, though, it should be clear this is not necessarily about the child.
This is exactly why I misread your argument. You were saying that "men get it easy." While I would tend to agree, if that is anywhere in your argument, you suddenly took the child out of child support. Make sense?
I'm acknowledging the fact that under our current system, poor pregnant women would be presented with a false choice in the absense of child support payments. We would be saying "You can either abort or give this child up for adoption" since they would be unable to support a child without signficant financial assistance. This is, in my opinion, just as bad as limiting to the choices to "you can either raise this child or give it up for adoption but you cannot abort it." Reproductive freedom involves having a full range of options realistically available for all, not just those who can afford it.
Also, this money is obtained for the support of the child. Raising a child has truly significant costs. Support payments, either from the state or from the missing parent, are intended to defray those costs not materially benefit the remaining parent.
If you do think state assistance is a better solution than making interested parties responsible, show me how it is a more sensible solution. How much do you think this would cost? Would it provide the same quality of childhood? How much more are you personally willing to pay in taxes to support such measures? Do you think it would be politically feasible?
I don't have any problem with it (though i think government sponsored child-care could be an absolute horror show if done badly) but all of the anti-tax people here would probably have a field day. If you could make it happen, great. But the pragmatist in me says that anti-tax sentiments would probably ruin such attempts.
If we're talking just about child-support here, then it is equal. Whoever gets custody, gets custody. Whoever doesn't pays child support, regardless of gender. There is no inequality here whatsoever. It only becomes inequitable if you inject biological inequalities re: choice into the mix. By itself, the human construct is both reasonable and perfectly and utterly equitable.
See: above.
Not only is CS the "least worst," it seems to make perfect sense. Support your offspring. What's wrong with this, again? You don't want to take responsibility for your actions? What?
It seemed to me like an awful lot of people were talking about abortion, and "how is this different," etc etc, and I was pointing out what fuckwits they are for not understanding the difference. Seriously, a lot of people just did not get the fundamental realities involved here, nor did they understand teh biological/legal divide. I mean, page after page, I kept seeing people acting like fuckwits, talking about how a woman gets more choices, blah blah blah. I was explaining what that makes perfect sense.
Also, CS seems perfectly reasonable to me, and utterly equitable, when viewed by itself. It's only "unfair" if you consider that women don't have to take it to term if they don't want it, while men don't get to make that decision. Well, that's because that's a completely different right, basically, which men have zero say over.
Our legal system already treats people equally. It's just that women have the right to opt out of having a kid altogether. Men don't, but that has nothing to do with the structure of CS. And women deserve that right. And men don't. The end.
There is no sexism here. Men get fewer choices re: having the kid or not. But CS law is perfectly equitable, reasonable, and grounded in what seems like good emphasis on personal responsibility to me. The only "sexism" is the fact that women have the babies. Grow a womb, and then if the woman still gets to decide if you have the abortion or not, then there's sexism.
Poor pregnant families are already making that choice right now. I know me and my SO would love to have children, but we can't support them yet, so we aren't having children. This is not a choice that is absent in today's world.
And this is what most of this debate has centered for some of us. That is exactly what we think could be a better solution. Unfortunately, most of us would probably agree with you that it is impractical.
Now, some of us, it seems would like to actually make people more responsible for their decisions. This goes for both men and women. The problem is, we would like to make them more responsible without taking away any rights when they show they are not. That would probably be a different debate, though.
I see.
Well, I think CS law makes sense. I think you should support your offspring, regardless of gender. I think CS law, ignoring the biological inequity of women's choice re: childbirth, is perfectly equitable. I see no problem with the law whatsoever.
Kids need/deserve that money, and you have a responsibility to pay.
What's so wrong with this system?
How is it sexist?
I guess maybe people miscontstrued me because I got caught up in pointing out how stupid some of the arguments here have been.
But basically, CS law is equitable, gender-neutral, and reasonable.
I don't think the burden should get pushed off onto "society" when it's really not their responsibility. It's the parents'. If a parent skips out, then society should step in to fill the vacuum, because that's in the child's best interest, but that's already how it is in many/most states.
EDIT: And I don't think there's a damn argument otherwise unless you start bringing biology and women's choices re: pregancy into the equation, which is what basically every single person here has done, who is opposed to current CS law.
So, forgive me for addressing the implications/undercurrents/blatant opinions of one entire side of the argument?
I think some people feel that way because a woman can get out of all responsibility and effectively prevent a man from ever being a father. (This is probably more true now that we have the "day after" pill.)
I personally don't care for that line of thinking. I just don't like it when people say men should pay child-support because women gave birth. That is just a horribly flawed argument to me as it takes the child out of the consideration.
Again, I don't like this argument for CS either, as it falls apart on situations where a child simply lost a parent.
The main thing wrong with it is that it is open to abuse. If a woman can somehow trick a man into having sex with her and get pregnant, she can obligate him to her for "18 years." Now.... I will gladly concede that not only does this probably not happen often, but there is no such thing as a perfect system. At that point, this boils down to the least bad solution, though.
I think this falls back on the punishing people that have sex argument, though. And, if CS is really about the children, you completely miss all who are in single families but don't have a deadbeat parent.
Edit: I saw your edit.
There is support, though not enough, for poor families. I would like to see such support extended. That is not what is being discussed, though. We're talking about the rights of women to have or not have children without being presented with obstructions and false choices in situations in which the father has left and/or does not want to support the child.
If you want to discuss that issue, then spin off another thread.
If we can't get a state system to support these children, then we have to evaluate the cost of the child support system vs. curtailing women's reproductive freedoms through the aforementioned false choice. Personally, I think that the cost of curtailing women's reproductive freedoms is far more significant than forcing biological parents who choose to not care for their children to pay for the costs of raising that child. I understand that there is a slight curtailment of rights. However, without a state system, there is going to be an inequity somewhere. I'm not happy about it but I have yet to hear a better solution that is also feasible. That is why I call it the least worst solution.