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.
I'm genuinely curious why we hate this "punish those that had sex" line of thinking. All you're doing is holding the person that helped make the child responsible for its well-being. You're not punishing the deadbeat parent because s/he had sex. You're punishing the deadbeat parent because s/he is refusing to care for their child.
It's cause and effect. The sex made the pregnancy and carrying the pregnancy to term made the child. It only makes sense to hold the two people that had sex responsible for the well-being of the child that they created.
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.)
Those people are wrong/fuckwits/patriarchal assholes.
I personally don't care for that line of thinking.
Good, because it has no validity and it reeks of patriarchal thinking/selfishness/retardation.
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.
That's not exactly what I said, though I don't blame you for seeing that. I guess what I was trying to say is that women still need to be conscious of consequences re: sex. It's not like it's some happy dandy worry-free experience to get pregnant and get an abortion. And also I was trying to refute the idea that there is somehow something wrong with women having more overall choice. The latter was actually my biggest point.
Again, I don't like this argument for CS either, as it falls apart on situations where a child simply lost a parent.
Well, then the state should step in, which they already do, usually.
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.
Granted, bitch should really go to a sperm bank, but again I don't think that necessitates reform. I mean, to be that guy would really suck hardcore, but it's not like he can be forced to bone the chick in question. He's gotta be voluntarily accepting risks, on some level. Including the risk that he's fucking some crazy woman who wants to get pregnant, regardless of what he wants.
However, I think overall it probably would be worth making a legal allowance for cases like this. Because it's essentially fraud, no different from any other. She's lying to him, and he's only accepting risks that are being presented to him (i.e., the risk of failing contraceptives), when in fact the risk is far greater. However, this doesn't mean we have to overhaul the very premise of CS because of a few manipulative bitches out there. It means that we need to add legislation that makes an allowance for men who are the victims of fraud.
This does not somehow invalidate the premise of CS, though it is definitely something worth taking action on.
I think this falls back on the punishing people that have sex argument, though.
Punishment != responsibility. And why should society get "punished" instead? I mean, there's even less grounds for that than there is for making the dude pay.
And, if CS is really about the children, you completely miss all who are in single families but don't have a deadbeat parent.
What do you mean? Like if there's a dead parent, or something? Well, in many cases already, the state does step in, and wherever that isn't true, it should be.
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.
Wow. You just said, basically, that it is only unfair if it is unfair. Which is a truism, and indeed, it is unfair.
Well, that's because that's a completely different right, basically, which men have zero say over.
And keeping a child is a different right, basically, than having one. If you can't afford the first on your own merits, you should consider not going through with the second.
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
Wow. WOW. Just LOOK at that. You managed to say that the legal system treats people equally, and then without even taking a breath, you highlight how it does NOT.
And women deserve that right. And men don't. The end.
And to think, I used to wonder why we lived in a world wherein men make more money for the same work, and got to vote way earlier than women did.
Reproductive freedom involves having a full range of options realistically available for all, not just those who can afford it.
But that's just not true.
I am free to do - or attempt to do - a whole lot of things I cannot afford. No one is arguing, or is likely to argue, the angle that I should be afforded money from someone to do those things based simply on the virtue of the fact that I want to do them.
Well... OK. Some people here are arguing just that. But I don't think it is very wise.
Now you have to tell us why we should make a drastic change, besides the one I suggested.
Equality. Right now, things are not equal and are unjust.
If our goal is 'equality' that pays absolutely no attention to financial costs, or any other practical consideration, because like you said "this isn't about the price tag," then the solution is pretty simple.
100% tax.
And the reason we don't have it isn't that society is too stupid to comprehend your brilliant plan.
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.
Raising the child isn't a greater responsibility?
There's a difference between taking a smaller responsibility, and no responsibility.
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.
They're not her rights, though. They're paid to the woman, sure, but they're for the child.
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.
Wow. You just said, basically, that it is only unfair if it is unfair. Which is a truism, and indeed, it is unfair.
Well, that's because that's a completely different right, basically, which men have zero say over.
And keeping a child is a different right, basically, than having one. If you can't afford the first on your own merits, you should consider not going through with the second.
CS law is not about turning mothers without the ability to support children into ones who can -- it's about defraying the cost of child-rearing (which are quite significant) and providing a life for the child which is more similar to the one it would have if its second parent weren't absentee.
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
Wow. WOW. Just LOOK at that. You managed to say that the legal system treats people equally, and then without even taking a breath, you highlight how it does NOT.
You know, that's my fault for phrasing this incorrectly. Let me explain so that even you can understand -- for women, the right to "opt out" is actually the right to control her own body. For men, the "right" to opt out is actually...the right to opt out. Of caring for a child you helped bring into existnce. Because you don't wanna.
They're two utterly different rights. Once the child is born, the two parents are legally equivalent in their responsibilties and rights. While the child is yet unborn, the woman has more choices available to her, but in truth, she has no more rights than the man, because all these choices stem from the right to control her body, which men also have.
The law is entirely the same. Both parties have the right to control their bodies. Both parties are held accountable post-birth. Women, however, get more choices as a result of biology, which is not fair, because it is not a human contstruct.
The law treats both parties equally. Women get more options for birth control. Sorry. That's nothing new. And it does not demand some legal compensation for men. Do we need legal reparations because we don't have a BC pill, too? Because that's what your argument amounts to -- women get more choices because of their biology (also way more burdens, but that's not convenient to your argument, so let's ignore that), so men should get some bonus from the government to make them feel better. That's retarded.
The law treats both parties equally. Women get more options for birth control. Sorry. That's nothing new. And it does not demand some legal compensation for men. Do we need legal reparations because we don't have a BC pill, too? Because that's what your argument amounts to -- women get more choices because of their biology (also way more burdens, but that's not convenient to your argument, so let's ignore that), so men should get some bonus from the government to make them feel better. That's retarded.
Maybe I'm reading it incorrectly, but your argument seems to be that the law theoretically treats both sexes equally, so the law is fair, even though differences between the sexes in biology means that the actual implementation of the law is not equal. Surely laws should be framed so that they are just in the ways they actually function, not just in some idealised world entirely free of context?
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?
The number I found earlier was about $29 billion a year.
Fuck no I won't pay for that, and it's as politically feasible as a 100% tax.
Wow, so I'm not going to quote everyone because my skills just aren't that good. That being said, I'm sure I'll miss something anyway.
I don't like the punish the people having sex argument, because it completely ignores the child. Remember child support is about supporting the child, not punishing the parent. If you are ok with saying child support is about punishing the parent, then so be it. I have no further debate on that topic.
We are not discussing 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." We are discussing the rights of one parent to state that a child is unwanted when the other parent wants to have it. In most cases (damned near all, I would guess) this leads to a mother wanting a child and a father not. In this case, the mother can choose to not have the child and have no financial obligation afterwards. A father does not have anything even close to this choice. Now.... that is about as far as i can take that, as I have been trying to stay out of the whole "man vs woman" thing.
Now... I have always been trying to shift the argument to show that it isn't about a man's responsibilities after childbirth any more than it is a woman's. Either parent should be able to say they don't want a child. And under current laws this is mostly taken care of with CS. The only things that hurt this are instances where the system is seen as abusable. That aside, my main point was that the sole argument for CS should be for providing support to the child. This being the case, whatever rights men or women have don't really enter into it.
**Dangit... I'll just post this as is for now. Work has flared up.
The law treats both parties equally. Women get more options for birth control. Sorry. That's nothing new. And it does not demand some legal compensation for men. Do we need legal reparations because we don't have a BC pill, too? Because that's what your argument amounts to -- women get more choices because of their biology (also way more burdens, but that's not convenient to your argument, so let's ignore that), so men should get some bonus from the government to make them feel better. That's retarded.
Maybe I'm reading it incorrectly, but your argument seems to be that the law theoretically treats both sexes equally, so the law is fair, even though differences between the sexes in biology means that the actual implementation of the law is not equal. Surely laws should be framed so that they are just in the ways they actually function, not just in some idealised world entirely free of context?
the law is fair: I know several women who are paying child support to the fathers. Just because there are more dead-beat dads than moms doesnt mean the law isn't fair. I know several other men that have fought for and won custody and simply do not want the child support from the mothers - is that because they make more than the women? Does that have any relavance? The law itself isn't sexist but maybe the execution, based on our society is just making it seem so.
Maybe I'm reading it incorrectly, but your argument seems to be that the law theoretically treats both sexes equally, so the law is fair, even though differences between the sexes in biology means that the actual implementation of the law is not equal
Surely laws should be framed so that they are just in the ways they actually function, not just in some idealised world entirely free of context?
I'd say the current law is just. Everyone involved is treated equally under the eyes of the law. I think that's really all we can ever hope law will be. Remember, also, that women get forced to pay CS, too. Not just men.
And again, I really don't see why men deserve legal reparations just because we don't have a 100% effective BC option of our own. That just doesn't make sense to me.
\Granted, bitch should really go to a sperm bank, but again I don't think that necessitates reform. I mean, to be that guy would really suck hardcore, but it's not like he can be forced to bone the chick in question. He's gotta be voluntarily accepting risks, on some level. Including the risk that he's fucking some crazy woman who wants to get pregnant, regardless of what he wants.
Well, actually, he can. Granted how hard it is for a woman to report, prosecute, and convict a rapist, it's a hell of a lot harder for a man. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to imagine a man winding up having to pay child support to his rapist.
Luckily it doesn't happen very much at all, but it does happen.
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?
The number I found earlier was about $29 billion a year.
Fuck no I won't pay for that, and it's as politically feasible as a 100% tax.
I would pay for it if it would have all the benefits that more stable families and parental involvement should bring (lower crime rates, better overall education, to name 2). However, I doubt it would actually achieve that considering how huge a system it would be.
Also, I agree that's it's not politically feasible, not at all.
While everyone else is arguing about some fantasy-worlds, how about we address the issue of money and efficacy?
I'm unused to your quote system, so I'm sorry if my patch up is clunky.
Aemilius
No, I said that the law is fair, biology is not.
But the inequality could be corrected for. In our current system, women get to have sex without having to worry about the finacial responcibility of raising a child. Even if they get pregnant, they can choose not to carry the child to term. This is a choice the man does not get, hence, the system is unequal. The system cannot be absolutely equal without violating a woman's right to do what she likes with her body. Men cannot be given the choice whether or not to carry the child to term without violating a woman's rights, but regarding the finacial support for the child, the system is also unequal, the woman can give it up for adoption, and not be responcible, the man cannot.
if the man could, in fact, give up both rights and responcibilities for the support of the child, he would have the same choice as the woman now has. Whether or not this is a desierable system is another issue. equal is not always fair, but in terms of equality, our current law falls short.
Aemilius
CS law is not about turning mothers without the ability to support children into ones who can -- it's about defraying the cost of child-rearing (which are quite significant) and providing a life for the child which is more similar to the one it would have if its second parent weren't absentee.
we agree.
Aemilius
You know, that's my fault for phrasing this incorrectly. Let me explain so that even you can understand -- for women, the right to "opt out" is actually the right to control her own body. For men, the "right" to opt out is actually...the right to opt out. Of caring for a child you helped bring into existnce. Because you don't wanna.
They're two utterly different rights. Once the child is born, the two parents are legally equivalent in their responsibilties and rights. While the child is yet unborn, the woman has more choices available to her, but in truth, she has no more rights than the man, because all these choices stem from the right to control her body, which men also have.
The law is entirely the same. Both parties have the right to control their bodies. Both parties are held accountable post-birth. Women, however, get more choices as a result of biology, which is not fair, because it is not a human contstruct.
The law treats both parties equally. Women get more options for birth control. Sorry. That's nothing new. And it does not demand some legal compensation for men. Do we need legal reparations because we don't have a BC pill, too? Because that's what your argument amounts to -- women get more choices because of their biology (also way more burdens, but that's not convenient to your argument, so let's ignore that), so men should get some bonus from the government to make them feel better. That's retarded.
bolded part is where you are wrong. Women can give the child up for adoption post birth, and not be finacially responcible, men cannot do this.
the paragraph above the bold is also incorrect. The woman does in fact have more choices open to her than the man. The woman has 2 choices, carry the pregnancy to term, or abort it, the man has one choice, do whatever the woman wants. This is the natural result of biology.
drinkinstout
the law is fair: I know several women who are paying child support to the fathers. Just because there are more dead-beat dads than moms doesnt mean the law isn't fair. I know several other men that have fought for and won custody and simply do not want the child support from the mothers - is that because they make more than the women? Does that have any relavance? The law itself isn't sexist but maybe the execution, based on our society is just making it seem so.
Whether the law is fair or not is open to debate, fair is not nessasarily equal. The law is not equal in regards to choice. Part of the inequality stems from biology, the man gets no say in the choice to have an abortion or not. Another part is finacial, the woman gets to choose for both herself and the man whether they will be finacially responcible.
jclast
I'm genuinely curious why we hate this "punish those that had sex" line of thinking. All you're doing is holding the person that helped make the child responsible for its well-being. You're not punishing the deadbeat parent because s/he had sex. You're punishing the deadbeat parent because s/he is refusing to care for their child.
It's cause and effect. The sex made the pregnancy and carrying the pregnancy to term made the child. It only makes sense to hold the two people that had sex responsible for the well-being of the child that they created.
remember, we arn't argueing for a change in the law. We are agueing for aknowledgement. Women get to have sex without worrying about finacial responcibility, men do not get to do this. Whether it's fair, or makes sense is not in my (and others) arguement, we want aknowladgement that it is unequal.
sanstodo
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.
this is a different arguement that the points I made above, but I would like to address it. I'm a fan of defining freedom in negative terms, not positive. You seem to regard reproductive rights with a 'positive freedom' perspective.
We could both agree that I am free to go on a vacation, if I so choose. This does not mean that my friends or family or the state have to support me financially while I am on vacation. If I take off work and go on vacation, I stop making money as a consequence. I am free to quit school. If I do so, as a consequence, I will not recive a degree. Freedom doesn't mean freedom to do what you like without consequences, it means freedom from coersion. So long as nobody is forcing women to have children when they don't want to, they are free to have children. If they cannot support those children, That's their problem.
Sadly, it's also the child's problem, but that's a different issue.
\Granted, bitch should really go to a sperm bank, but again I don't think that necessitates reform. I mean, to be that guy would really suck hardcore, but it's not like he can be forced to bone the chick in question. He's gotta be voluntarily accepting risks, on some level. Including the risk that he's fucking some crazy woman who wants to get pregnant, regardless of what he wants.
Well, actually, he can. Granted how hard it is for a woman to report, prosecute, and convict a rapist, it's a hell of a lot harder for a man. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to imagine a man winding up having to pay child support to his rapist.
Luckily it doesn't happen very much at all, but it does happen.
In fact, a case involving this has been mentioned in this very thread. But yeah, rare. Like, super-rare.
I would pay for it if it would have all the benefits that more stable families and parental involvement should bring (lower crime rates, better overall education, to name 2). However, I doubt it would actually achieve that considering how huge a system it would be.
Why should it matter if it has all the other benefits of parental involvement/stable families? It's not like forcing a dad who wants nothing to do with his kid provides any of that either. Or are you assuming that just because a dad is being forced to pay the child support, he'll figure he might as well be involved as well? Because...well, you're utterly wrong.
I guess if we want to play crazy and unrealistic hypotheticals, I can think of a pretty decent system. The government figures out just how much extra money/support a single parent needs to raise a kid. Adjusted for local cost of living, based on ZIP code. Break it into a monthly value. The man pays either a relatively low portion of his salary (say, 10%) or this value, whichever is lower. Allow exemptions on that salary just like with taxes, so really dirt-poor dudes don't have to pay much of anything. The government foots the bill for the difference.
As for why I'd choose the lower of the two, simple fairness. The illegitimate child of a wealthy man isn't "worth" any more, nor does it cost more to take care of, than the illegitimate child of a poor man. Why should the wealthy man have a greater obligation? Actually, he already would simply because he's more likely to end up paying the full amount...but beyond that, he really shouldn't.
Note, of course, that I'd only apply such a system in the event that the father has legally stated a lack of desire to have the child prior to birth, and is willing to sign away parental rights. If he still wants parental rights, he pays child support like normal. [EDIT: Though, of course, this should be capped at some reasonable level as well...and currently often is. The state would still pay the difference.]
So the question is: how much of that previously stated $29 billion do you think the government would end up having to pay under this system? Half? Less? More?
We could both agree that I am free to go on a vacation, if I so choose. This does not mean that my friends or family or the state have to support me financially while I am on vacation. If I take off work and go on vacation, I stop making money as a consequence. I am free to quit school. If I do so, as a consequence, I will not recive a degree. Freedom doesn't mean freedom to do what you like without consequences, it means freedom from coersion. So long as nobody is forcing women to have children when they don't want to, they are free to have children. If they cannot support those children, That's their problem.
Sadly, it's also the child's problem, but that's a different issue.
Forcing mothers to not have children that they do want is coercion. Even if they technically have the choices "abort, put up for adoption, raise without father's support."
For many women, there is no choice that allows them to keep their child. A false choice is not a real choice, and by denying that mother and child support payments from the father (or the state) you're denying her the freedom to choose whether she raises her own child if she decides to carry it to term.
the law is fair: I know several women who are paying child support to the fathers. Just because there are more dead-beat dads than moms doesnt mean the law isn't fair. I know several other men that have fought for and won custody and simply do not want the child support from the mothers - is that because they make more than the women? Does that have any relavance? The law itself isn't sexist but maybe the execution, based on our society is just making it seem so.
This is exactly what I was trying to point out. The laws of CS are not necessarily sexist. The problem comes from the arguments to support them. After that, the only possible sexism comes from the fact that it is easier to conjure a scenario where a father is required to pay child support than it is one where a woman is required to do so. This is because there is no legitimate means for a father to cancel a pregnancy. This is where the arguments start to get dangerous on both sides, as some people will rightfully point out some arguments are applied to men that are not applied to women. The other side takes that to be anti-choice and then fights ensue.
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.
Wow. You just said, basically, that it is only unfair if it is unfair. Which is a truism, and indeed, it is unfair.
No, I said that the law is fair, biology is not.
No no, biology is quite fair. The current application of technology to our biology creates a situation that is not. Abortion is a type of artificial intervention.
There is a vague issue surrounding this I can't quite put my finger on. Something about a person's right to a technology. Somehow withholding abortions becomes an undesirable thing, when really delivery is the natural default state. I suppose on one hand it's like witholding a cure for a parasitic infection, but on the other it's like arguing that pharmacutical cures are a basic human right. Medicare is cool and all, but I don't think it falls into the realm of something that should be granted to every person alive by merit of it's existance. On the other side of that coin, to have a medical way to improve quality of life but openly restrict it's access goes against basic altruistic humanitarianism.
Is there precedence for restricting access to technology because of it's role of interference in human rights issues? My first impulse is to say yes to this, but I can't seem to think of a pertinant example.
Forcing mothers to not have children that they do want is coercion. Even if they technically have the choices "abort, put up for adoption, raise without father's support."
The entire reason I would avoid sentances like this is because of this simple switch. "Forcing fathers to have children that they do not want is coercion." How is that not also true? In fact, it is quite commonly talked about (not sure if it is commonly done, anyone have numbers?) for women to get pregnant trying to keep a man from leaving.
For many women, there is no choice that allows them to keep their child. A false choice is not a real choice, and by denying that mother and child support payments from the father (or the state) you're denying her the freedom to choose whether she raises her own child if she decides to carry it to term.
And I've already pointed out that for most poor families, the choices you've outlined are no different in practice, just wording: "abort, put up for adoption, raise without adequate financial support."
...After that, the only possible sexism comes from the fact that it is easier to conjure a scenario where a father is required to pay child support than it is one where a woman is required to do so. This is because there is no legitimate means for a father to cancel a pregnancy. This is where the arguments start to get dangerous on both sides, as some people will rightfully point out some arguments are applied to men that are not applied to women. The other side takes that to be anti-choice and then fights ensue.
yeah I understand but that is arguing biology again which is like... fruitless.
Prior to the law, the differences in sexes create a situation in which each sex has different options.
After the law, we have a situation where each sex has different options.
This is because the law is equal here and applying equality to an unequal situation will yield yet another unequal situation... BUT there is no way (that I can imagine or that I have seen offered) to change the law to create an equal situation that doesn't itself create a worse scenario for the couple or society at large.
Solution? if a baby is born and you were involved in creating it, take care of it like a responsible human being.
Why should it matter if it has all the other benefits of parental involvement/stable families? It's not like forcing a dad who wants nothing to do with his kid provides any of that either. Or are you assuming that just because a dad is being forced to pay the child support, he'll figure he might as well be involved as well? Because...well, you're utterly wrong.
I guess if we want to play crazy and unrealistic hypotheticals, I can think of a pretty decent system. The government figures out just how much extra money/support a single parent needs to raise a kid. Adjusted for local cost of living, based on ZIP code. Break it into a monthly value. The man pays either a relatively low portion of his salary (say, 10%) or this value, whichever is lower. Allow exemptions on that salary just like with taxes, so really dirt-poor dudes don't have to pay much of anything. The government foots the bill for the difference.
As for why I'd choose the lower of the two, simple fairness. The illegitimate child of a wealthy man isn't "worth" any more, nor does it cost more to take care of, than the illegitimate child of a poor man. Why should the wealthy man have a greater obligation? Actually, he already would simply because he's more likely to end up paying the full amount...but beyond that, he really shouldn't.
Note, of course, that I'd only apply such a system in the event that the father has legally stated a lack of desire to have the child prior to birth, and is willing to sign away parental rights. If he still wants parental rights, he pays child support like normal. [EDIT: Though, of course, this should be capped at some reasonable level as well...and currently often is. The state would still pay the difference.]
So the question is: how much of that previously stated $29 billion do you think the government would end up having to pay under this system? Half? Less? More?
That's a very complex system because people would always be claiming that the cost of raising a child is more than what the state would want to provide. Also, raising a child in an area with better public schools does actually cost more since the child's direct competitors would have access to things like private tutoring and the like. But I digress.
I think the government would probably end up paying more than expected because of lawsuits. The current system already backs up courts since one side wants to pay less/nothing while the other wants to be paid more. They wrangle for years about it. I don't think this would solve the issue, simply change it a little.
I do think it would be less than the $29 billion figure but not substantially less.
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.
Heh. I look at it just like a look at STDs. If you're careful about who you fuck, and use protection, you have a very low risk of getting what you don't want (baby/AIDS - same thing). Sure, I could slightly lower that risk by keeping my dick in a box (real one), but the fun relationships and sex outweighs the gain of that small improvement.
Forcing mothers to not have children that they do want is coercion. Even if they technically have the choices "abort, put up for adoption, raise without father's support."
The entire reason I would avoid sentances like this is because of this simple switch. "Forcing fathers to have children that they do not want is coercion." How is that not also true? In fact, it is quite commonly talked about (not sure if it is commonly done, anyone have numbers?) for women to get pregnant trying to keep a man from leaving.
For many women, there is no choice that allows them to keep their child. A false choice is not a real choice, and by denying that mother and child support payments from the father (or the state) you're denying her the freedom to choose whether she raises her own child if she decides to carry it to term.
And I've already pointed out that for most poor families, the choices you've outlined are no different in practice, just wording: "abort, put up for adoption, raise without adequate financial support."
The switch only works if biology gets reversed as well.
For the other part, it's not an adequate analogy because we are talking about individual rights which are expressly different than the rights of a family. Also, families often do receive governmental assistance and child-rearing responsibilities can be balanced between both parents. It is far easier to balance such a load with 2 parents than with 1, all else being equal.
Forcing mothers to not have children that they do want is coercion. Even if they technically have the choices "abort, put up for adoption, raise without father's support."
The entire reason I would avoid sentances like this is because of this simple switch. "Forcing fathers to have children that they do not want is coercion." How is that not also true? In fact, it is quite commonly talked about (not sure if it is commonly done, anyone have numbers?) for women to get pregnant trying to keep a man from leaving.
For many women, there is no choice that allows them to keep their child. A false choice is not a real choice, and by denying that mother and child support payments from the father (or the state) you're denying her the freedom to choose whether she raises her own child if she decides to carry it to term.
And I've already pointed out that for most poor families, the choices you've outlined are no different in practice, just wording: "abort, put up for adoption, raise without adequate financial support."
You're right, but right now the state doesn't step in unless the father can't pay. You even quoted me saying "...by denying that mother and child support payments from the father (or the state) you're denying her the freedom to choose whether she raises her own child if she decides to carry it to term."
I only put "or the state" in parentheses because going after the deadbeat parent is currently our first course of action.
Also, I'm not sure I see a woman having a child that the man doesn't want as coercion. He knew that there was a chance he'd become a father when he had sex with her. The baby grows inside of her; it's her choice whether she delivers it. Not his.
If he didn't want to support a child he should have either been more careful or not been having sex at all because the way our system works he's liable for any life he creates.
Forcing mothers to not have children that they do want is coercion. Even if they technically have the choices "abort, put up for adoption, raise without father's support."
The entire reason I would avoid sentances like this is because of this simple switch. "Forcing fathers to have children that they do not want is coercion." How is that not also true? In fact, it is quite commonly talked about (not sure if it is commonly done, anyone have numbers?) for women to get pregnant trying to keep a man from leaving.
For many women, there is no choice that allows them to keep their child. A false choice is not a real choice, and by denying that mother and child support payments from the father (or the state) you're denying her the freedom to choose whether she raises her own child if she decides to carry it to term.
And I've already pointed out that for most poor families, the choices you've outlined are no different in practice, just wording: "abort, put up for adoption, raise without adequate financial support."
You're right, but right now the state doesn't step in unless the father can't pay. You even quoted me saying "...by denying that mother and child support payments from the father (or the state) you're denying her the freedom to choose whether she raises her own child if she decides to carry it to term."
I only put "or the state" in parentheses because going after the deadbeat parent is currently our first course of action.
Also, I'm not sure I see a woman having a child that the man doesn't want as coercion. He knew that there was a chance he'd become a father when he had sex with her. The baby grows inside of her; it's her choice whether she delivers it. Not his.
If he didn't want to support a child he should have either been more careful or not been having sex at all because the way our system works he's liable for any life he creates.
But you can't just keep putting all of that on the man. You could use the EXACT SAME logic on the woman. If she knew she wasn't able to support a child on her own, then she shouldn't be having sex. The potential you are missing is simply this, a woman has the opportunity of knowing she could live a better richer life if she gets pregnant by a rich sports/rap star. This is because we try and make sure the child lives a better life -- which I agree with -- but it can still be used by a woman.
Another interesting scenario I thought of. How does any of this apply to prostitution? I'm assuming if a prostitute someone becomes involved in a pregnancy, then he/she is solely responsible? Is this not the case?
Forcing mothers to not have children that they do want is coercion. Even if they technically have the choices "abort, put up for adoption, raise without father's support."
For many women, there is no choice that allows them to keep their child. A false choice is not a real choice, and by denying that mother and child support payments from the father (or the state) you're denying her the freedom to choose whether she raises her own child if she decides to carry it to term.
Am I being coerced into staying in school? coerced into not quitting my job? You are suggesting that parenthood is a universal right. Where, in our laws or tradition, is that true? I don't see it anywhere in the declaration of Independance or the Constitution. You get life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, then you get the bill of rights. That's all that's explicit, and even those are often curtailed.
Forcing mothers to not have children that they do want is coercion. Even if they technically have the choices "abort, put up for adoption, raise without father's support."
For many women, there is no choice that allows them to keep their child. A false choice is not a real choice, and by denying that mother and child support payments from the father (or the state) you're denying her the freedom to choose whether she raises her own child if she decides to carry it to term.
Am I being coerced into staying in school? coerced into not quitting my job? You are suggesting that parenthood is a universal right. Where, in our laws or tradition, is that true? I don't see it anywhere in the declaration of Independance or the Constitution. You get life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, then you get the bill of rights. That's all that's explicit, and even those are often curtailed.
There's also no right to father/mother children and not be responsible for them. What's you point?
No no, biology is quite fair. The current application of technology to our biology creates a situation that is not. Abortion is a type of artificial intervention.
There is a vague issue surrounding this I can't quite put my finger on. Something about a person's right to a technology. Somehow withholding abortions becomes an undesirable thing, when really delivery is the natural default state.
On the other hand, the "default" result of anyone's life, without intervention, is death. Our entire lives are spent trying to fend off death. Its why we eat. Its why we sleep. Its why most of us work and try to make money, to prevent death.
Since none of us would be here if we didn't constanly, at least several times a day, decide to fend off the default state (by doing the things that prevent the default action - which is death), it could be argued pretty successfully that our entire lives are forefit if we stop preventing the default state of life.
EDIT: I said all that to answer any arguments about the default state somehow being the superior thing to have.
I suppose on one hand it's like witholding a cure for a parasitic infection, but on the other it's like arguing that pharmacutical cures are a basic human right.
At the risk of a threadjack, I wish we lived in a system that believed that pharmacutical cures are a basic human right.
Is there precedence for restricting access to technology because of it's role of interference in human rights issues? My first impulse is to say yes to this, but I can't seem to think of a pertinant example.
Forcing mothers to not have children that they do want is coercion. Even if they technically have the choices "abort, put up for adoption, raise without father's support."
For many women, there is no choice that allows them to keep their child. A false choice is not a real choice, and by denying that mother and child support payments from the father (or the state) you're denying her the freedom to choose whether she raises her own child if she decides to carry it to term.
Am I being coerced into staying in school? coerced into not quitting my job? You are suggesting that parenthood is a universal right. Where, in our laws or tradition, is that true? I don't see it anywhere in the declaration of Independance or the Constitution. You get life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, then you get the bill of rights. That's all that's explicit, and even those are often curtailed.
Not analogous situations. Yes, you are being coerced into staying in school because public education has been deemed critical to the public good. You can quit your job and perhaps get along for a while but economic necessity will force you to find another one if you wish to maintain your standard of living. Having an active workforce is again deemed a public good.
Do we think that coercing a woman into having an abortion or putting the child up for adoption serves the public good? I would certainly disagree and would like to see an argument for why you would think this.
Do we think that coercing a woman into having an abortion or putting the child up for adoption serves the public good? I would certainly disagree and would like to see an argument for why you would think this.
Have you read Freakonomics? In that he basically stated that a rise in abortions lead to a drop in crime. If preventing more children being born in poverty could really produce a better world, then there could follow arguments saying only certain people can have children. I personally wouldn't like any of those arguments, but it might be hard to ignore them.
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.
Heh. I look at it just like a look at STDs. If you're careful about who you fuck, and use protection, you have a very low risk of getting what you don't want (baby/AIDS - same thing). Sure, I could slightly lower that risk by keeping my dick in a box (real one), but the fun relationships and sex outweighs the gain of that small improvement.
Five points to Elkamil House for equating babies to AIDS in a manner reasonable and consistant with the terms of the discussion.
Do we think that coercing a woman into having an abortion or putting the child up for adoption serves the public good? I would certainly disagree and would like to see an argument for why you would think this.
Have you read Freakonomics? In that he basically stated that a rise in abortions lead to a drop in crime. If preventing more children being born in poverty could really produce a better world, then there could follow arguments saying only certain people can have children. I personally wouldn't like any of those arguments, but it might be hard to ignore them.
The point he makes is not that crime dropped because of an overall drop in the overall number of children being born, it was that it led to a drop in the number of unwanted children being born which makes sense given the voluntary nature of abortions. The pregnancies we're discussing be desired by at least one parent so no, those arguments don't really apply.
Do we think that coercing a woman into having an abortion or putting the child up for adoption serves the public good? I would certainly disagree and would like to see an argument for why you would think this.
Have you read Freakonomics? In that he basically stated that a rise in abortions lead to a drop in crime. If preventing more children being born in poverty could really produce a better world, then there could follow arguments saying only certain people can have children. I personally wouldn't like any of those arguments, but it might be hard to ignore them.
The point he makes is not that crime dropped because of an overall drop in the overall number of children being born, it was that it led to a drop in the number of unwanted children being born which makes sense given the voluntary nature of abortions. The pregnancies we're discussing be desired by at least one parent so no, those arguments don't really apply.
Two things:
Often times the main reason people do not want a child is because they are not financially able/ready to take care of them.
And wouldn't the same numbers show that crime drop is correlated to the drop in the number of children born into poverty? Now, the reason that happened was highly correlated to abortions.
I'm just playing devil's advocate on this one. If there is any truth in there, though, then there would be good reason to prevent certain populations from having children. I hope that that never happens, though.
I suppose on one hand it's like witholding a cure for a parasitic infection, but on the other it's like arguing that pharmacutical cures are a basic human right.
At the risk of a threadjack, I wish we lived in a system that believed that pharmacutical cures are a basic human right.
Is there precedence for restricting access to technology because of it's role of interference in human rights issues? My first impulse is to say yes to this, but I can't seem to think of a pertinant example.
Terry Schiavo?
Yah, that's closer to the mark anyways. The ability for other people to prevent medical intervention or interference in a situation to allow for the natural progression of an event. I suppose this bends back around into the 'her body, her choice' argument cycle though, so it's probably a dead end in terms of legal recourse.
That's a very complex system because people would always be claiming that the cost of raising a child is more than what the state would want to provide. Also, raising a child in an area with better public schools does actually cost more since the child's direct competitors would have access to things like private tutoring and the like. But I digress.
They can claim all they want, but really a majority of the costs of raising a "normal" child* are pretty easily quantified. Some things vary, such as costs of both housing and childcare, but the differences in the former are already well documented and I'd not be surprised if the latter are fairly decently documented, too.
As far as shit like tutoring goes, I guess at that point we have to decide what exactly a child has a "right" to. I know plenty of kids in stable two-parent homes whose parents can't afford things like that...and it's not like your future is crushed without them. I've never known anybody who failed to get into community college because they weren't in the top 10% (or top half) of their class, and I've known kids who've gotten into state universities after ending up in the bottom 10% of their class.
Besides, in most families where the absent parent does pay child support it's not like they have fistfuls of cash leftover for tutors anyway...so you're talking about a problem that already exists now.
I think the government would probably end up paying more than expected because of lawsuits. The current system already backs up courts since one side wants to pay less/nothing while the other wants to be paid more. They wrangle for years about it. I don't think this would solve the issue, simply change it a little.
I do think it would be less than the $29 billion figure but not substantially less.
I dunno. I'd like to think if we took the time to come up with a reasonable number and peg it to inflation it'd be relatively lawsuit-proof. Would stop a few from trying, but after they lost I think the rest would get the hint. I think it would actually clog our courts up less, since it would no longer matter what the absent parent made...the custodial parent would end up with the same amount of money regardless. No more need to argue with each other at that point.
But yeah, it's a fairly complicated solution and one that will only exist as a hypothetical. We like simple solutions better, like "make that bastard pay for his own kid." Regardless of whether they end up seriously fucking some people over. EDIT: My point being that while due to the (relative) complexity of such a solution, and the fact that it will never happen if only because of our aversion to social welfare programs in general, I think most of the problems you point out are actually a bit overstated.
* - For children whose needs are greater than "normal" (disabled, medical problems, etc.) I think we should have a better healthcare/education system to deal with that anyway...and as such it should be separate from this discussion.
Alternately, there could be a libertarian approach as well: "baby daddy insurance."
You know, require all the same kinds of criteria (waiver of parental rights before birth) in order for it to pay out. But basically have a claim cover a vast majority of an unwanted pregnancy (such as child-support payments).
Then again, I imagine if this was economically feasible it would already exist. Probably because the risk factors are too hard to both quantify and track. Car insurance companies know what kind of car you drive, but there's no way a baby daddy insurance company would know if you bother to use condoms.
Really though, I guess I'm just fucking around at this point. Ya'll continue. My previous idea was actually serious, though.
Posts
I'm genuinely curious why we hate this "punish those that had sex" line of thinking. All you're doing is holding the person that helped make the child responsible for its well-being. You're not punishing the deadbeat parent because s/he had sex. You're punishing the deadbeat parent because s/he is refusing to care for their child.
It's cause and effect. The sex made the pregnancy and carrying the pregnancy to term made the child. It only makes sense to hold the two people that had sex responsible for the well-being of the child that they created.
Those people are wrong/fuckwits/patriarchal assholes.
Good, because it has no validity and it reeks of patriarchal thinking/selfishness/retardation.
That's not exactly what I said, though I don't blame you for seeing that. I guess what I was trying to say is that women still need to be conscious of consequences re: sex. It's not like it's some happy dandy worry-free experience to get pregnant and get an abortion. And also I was trying to refute the idea that there is somehow something wrong with women having more overall choice. The latter was actually my biggest point.
Well, then the state should step in, which they already do, usually.
Granted, bitch should really go to a sperm bank, but again I don't think that necessitates reform. I mean, to be that guy would really suck hardcore, but it's not like he can be forced to bone the chick in question. He's gotta be voluntarily accepting risks, on some level. Including the risk that he's fucking some crazy woman who wants to get pregnant, regardless of what he wants.
However, I think overall it probably would be worth making a legal allowance for cases like this. Because it's essentially fraud, no different from any other. She's lying to him, and he's only accepting risks that are being presented to him (i.e., the risk of failing contraceptives), when in fact the risk is far greater. However, this doesn't mean we have to overhaul the very premise of CS because of a few manipulative bitches out there. It means that we need to add legislation that makes an allowance for men who are the victims of fraud.
This does not somehow invalidate the premise of CS, though it is definitely something worth taking action on.
Punishment != responsibility. And why should society get "punished" instead? I mean, there's even less grounds for that than there is for making the dude pay.
What do you mean? Like if there's a dead parent, or something? Well, in many cases already, the state does step in, and wherever that isn't true, it should be.
That choice exists, though, and your line of reasoning only works if you remove it.
Only if babies are inevitable - but they aren't.
Wow. You just said, basically, that it is only unfair if it is unfair. Which is a truism, and indeed, it is unfair.
And keeping a child is a different right, basically, than having one. If you can't afford the first on your own merits, you should consider not going through with the second.
Wow. WOW. Just LOOK at that. You managed to say that the legal system treats people equally, and then without even taking a breath, you highlight how it does NOT.
That's... stunning.
And to think, I used to wonder why we lived in a world wherein men make more money for the same work, and got to vote way earlier than women did.
But that's just not true.
I am free to do - or attempt to do - a whole lot of things I cannot afford. No one is arguing, or is likely to argue, the angle that I should be afforded money from someone to do those things based simply on the virtue of the fact that I want to do them.
Well... OK. Some people here are arguing just that. But I don't think it is very wise.
If our goal is 'equality' that pays absolutely no attention to financial costs, or any other practical consideration, because like you said "this isn't about the price tag," then the solution is pretty simple.
100% tax.
And the reason we don't have it isn't that society is too stupid to comprehend your brilliant plan.
Raising the child isn't a greater responsibility?
There's a difference between taking a smaller responsibility, and no responsibility.
They're not her rights, though. They're paid to the woman, sure, but they're for the child.
You can't waive someone else's rights.
No, I said that the law is fair, biology is not.
CS law is not about turning mothers without the ability to support children into ones who can -- it's about defraying the cost of child-rearing (which are quite significant) and providing a life for the child which is more similar to the one it would have if its second parent weren't absentee.
You know, that's my fault for phrasing this incorrectly. Let me explain so that even you can understand -- for women, the right to "opt out" is actually the right to control her own body. For men, the "right" to opt out is actually...the right to opt out. Of caring for a child you helped bring into existnce. Because you don't wanna.
They're two utterly different rights. Once the child is born, the two parents are legally equivalent in their responsibilties and rights. While the child is yet unborn, the woman has more choices available to her, but in truth, she has no more rights than the man, because all these choices stem from the right to control her body, which men also have.
The law is entirely the same. Both parties have the right to control their bodies. Both parties are held accountable post-birth. Women, however, get more choices as a result of biology, which is not fair, because it is not a human contstruct.
The law treats both parties equally. Women get more options for birth control. Sorry. That's nothing new. And it does not demand some legal compensation for men. Do we need legal reparations because we don't have a BC pill, too? Because that's what your argument amounts to -- women get more choices because of their biology (also way more burdens, but that's not convenient to your argument, so let's ignore that), so men should get some bonus from the government to make them feel better. That's retarded.
Maybe I'm reading it incorrectly, but your argument seems to be that the law theoretically treats both sexes equally, so the law is fair, even though differences between the sexes in biology means that the actual implementation of the law is not equal. Surely laws should be framed so that they are just in the ways they actually function, not just in some idealised world entirely free of context?
Puzzle League: 073119-160185
The number I found earlier was about $29 billion a year.
Fuck no I won't pay for that, and it's as politically feasible as a 100% tax.
I don't like the punish the people having sex argument, because it completely ignores the child. Remember child support is about supporting the child, not punishing the parent. If you are ok with saying child support is about punishing the parent, then so be it. I have no further debate on that topic.
We are not discussing 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." We are discussing the rights of one parent to state that a child is unwanted when the other parent wants to have it. In most cases (damned near all, I would guess) this leads to a mother wanting a child and a father not. In this case, the mother can choose to not have the child and have no financial obligation afterwards. A father does not have anything even close to this choice. Now.... that is about as far as i can take that, as I have been trying to stay out of the whole "man vs woman" thing.
Now... I have always been trying to shift the argument to show that it isn't about a man's responsibilities after childbirth any more than it is a woman's. Either parent should be able to say they don't want a child. And under current laws this is mostly taken care of with CS. The only things that hurt this are instances where the system is seen as abusable. That aside, my main point was that the sole argument for CS should be for providing support to the child. This being the case, whatever rights men or women have don't really enter into it.
**Dangit... I'll just post this as is for now. Work has flared up.
the law is fair: I know several women who are paying child support to the fathers. Just because there are more dead-beat dads than moms doesnt mean the law isn't fair. I know several other men that have fought for and won custody and simply do not want the child support from the mothers - is that because they make more than the women? Does that have any relavance? The law itself isn't sexist but maybe the execution, based on our society is just making it seem so.
stout's Amazon Wishlist | my lastFM
I'd say the current law is just. Everyone involved is treated equally under the eyes of the law. I think that's really all we can ever hope law will be. Remember, also, that women get forced to pay CS, too. Not just men.
And again, I really don't see why men deserve legal reparations just because we don't have a 100% effective BC option of our own. That just doesn't make sense to me.
Well, actually, he can. Granted how hard it is for a woman to report, prosecute, and convict a rapist, it's a hell of a lot harder for a man. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to imagine a man winding up having to pay child support to his rapist.
Luckily it doesn't happen very much at all, but it does happen.
I would pay for it if it would have all the benefits that more stable families and parental involvement should bring (lower crime rates, better overall education, to name 2). However, I doubt it would actually achieve that considering how huge a system it would be.
Also, I agree that's it's not politically feasible, not at all.
While everyone else is arguing about some fantasy-worlds, how about we address the issue of money and efficacy?
Aemilius
But the inequality could be corrected for. In our current system, women get to have sex without having to worry about the finacial responcibility of raising a child. Even if they get pregnant, they can choose not to carry the child to term. This is a choice the man does not get, hence, the system is unequal. The system cannot be absolutely equal without violating a woman's right to do what she likes with her body. Men cannot be given the choice whether or not to carry the child to term without violating a woman's rights, but regarding the finacial support for the child, the system is also unequal, the woman can give it up for adoption, and not be responcible, the man cannot.
if the man could, in fact, give up both rights and responcibilities for the support of the child, he would have the same choice as the woman now has. Whether or not this is a desierable system is another issue. equal is not always fair, but in terms of equality, our current law falls short.
Aemilius
we agree.
Aemilius
bolded part is where you are wrong. Women can give the child up for adoption post birth, and not be finacially responcible, men cannot do this.
the paragraph above the bold is also incorrect. The woman does in fact have more choices open to her than the man. The woman has 2 choices, carry the pregnancy to term, or abort it, the man has one choice, do whatever the woman wants. This is the natural result of biology.
drinkinstout
Whether the law is fair or not is open to debate, fair is not nessasarily equal. The law is not equal in regards to choice. Part of the inequality stems from biology, the man gets no say in the choice to have an abortion or not. Another part is finacial, the woman gets to choose for both herself and the man whether they will be finacially responcible.
jclast
remember, we arn't argueing for a change in the law. We are agueing for aknowledgement. Women get to have sex without worrying about finacial responcibility, men do not get to do this. Whether it's fair, or makes sense is not in my (and others) arguement, we want aknowladgement that it is unequal.
sanstodo
this is a different arguement that the points I made above, but I would like to address it. I'm a fan of defining freedom in negative terms, not positive. You seem to regard reproductive rights with a 'positive freedom' perspective.
We could both agree that I am free to go on a vacation, if I so choose. This does not mean that my friends or family or the state have to support me financially while I am on vacation. If I take off work and go on vacation, I stop making money as a consequence. I am free to quit school. If I do so, as a consequence, I will not recive a degree. Freedom doesn't mean freedom to do what you like without consequences, it means freedom from coersion. So long as nobody is forcing women to have children when they don't want to, they are free to have children. If they cannot support those children, That's their problem.
Sadly, it's also the child's problem, but that's a different issue.
In fact, a case involving this has been mentioned in this very thread. But yeah, rare. Like, super-rare.
Why should it matter if it has all the other benefits of parental involvement/stable families? It's not like forcing a dad who wants nothing to do with his kid provides any of that either. Or are you assuming that just because a dad is being forced to pay the child support, he'll figure he might as well be involved as well? Because...well, you're utterly wrong.
I guess if we want to play crazy and unrealistic hypotheticals, I can think of a pretty decent system. The government figures out just how much extra money/support a single parent needs to raise a kid. Adjusted for local cost of living, based on ZIP code. Break it into a monthly value. The man pays either a relatively low portion of his salary (say, 10%) or this value, whichever is lower. Allow exemptions on that salary just like with taxes, so really dirt-poor dudes don't have to pay much of anything. The government foots the bill for the difference.
As for why I'd choose the lower of the two, simple fairness. The illegitimate child of a wealthy man isn't "worth" any more, nor does it cost more to take care of, than the illegitimate child of a poor man. Why should the wealthy man have a greater obligation? Actually, he already would simply because he's more likely to end up paying the full amount...but beyond that, he really shouldn't.
Note, of course, that I'd only apply such a system in the event that the father has legally stated a lack of desire to have the child prior to birth, and is willing to sign away parental rights. If he still wants parental rights, he pays child support like normal. [EDIT: Though, of course, this should be capped at some reasonable level as well...and currently often is. The state would still pay the difference.]
So the question is: how much of that previously stated $29 billion do you think the government would end up having to pay under this system? Half? Less? More?
Forcing mothers to not have children that they do want is coercion. Even if they technically have the choices "abort, put up for adoption, raise without father's support."
For many women, there is no choice that allows them to keep their child. A false choice is not a real choice, and by denying that mother and child support payments from the father (or the state) you're denying her the freedom to choose whether she raises her own child if she decides to carry it to term.
This is exactly what I was trying to point out. The laws of CS are not necessarily sexist. The problem comes from the arguments to support them. After that, the only possible sexism comes from the fact that it is easier to conjure a scenario where a father is required to pay child support than it is one where a woman is required to do so. This is because there is no legitimate means for a father to cancel a pregnancy. This is where the arguments start to get dangerous on both sides, as some people will rightfully point out some arguments are applied to men that are not applied to women. The other side takes that to be anti-choice and then fights ensue.
No no, biology is quite fair. The current application of technology to our biology creates a situation that is not. Abortion is a type of artificial intervention.
There is a vague issue surrounding this I can't quite put my finger on. Something about a person's right to a technology. Somehow withholding abortions becomes an undesirable thing, when really delivery is the natural default state. I suppose on one hand it's like witholding a cure for a parasitic infection, but on the other it's like arguing that pharmacutical cures are a basic human right. Medicare is cool and all, but I don't think it falls into the realm of something that should be granted to every person alive by merit of it's existance. On the other side of that coin, to have a medical way to improve quality of life but openly restrict it's access goes against basic altruistic humanitarianism.
Is there precedence for restricting access to technology because of it's role of interference in human rights issues? My first impulse is to say yes to this, but I can't seem to think of a pertinant example.
The entire reason I would avoid sentances like this is because of this simple switch. "Forcing fathers to have children that they do not want is coercion." How is that not also true? In fact, it is quite commonly talked about (not sure if it is commonly done, anyone have numbers?) for women to get pregnant trying to keep a man from leaving.
And I've already pointed out that for most poor families, the choices you've outlined are no different in practice, just wording: "abort, put up for adoption, raise without adequate financial support."
yeah I understand but that is arguing biology again which is like... fruitless.
Prior to the law, the differences in sexes create a situation in which each sex has different options.
After the law, we have a situation where each sex has different options.
This is because the law is equal here and applying equality to an unequal situation will yield yet another unequal situation... BUT there is no way (that I can imagine or that I have seen offered) to change the law to create an equal situation that doesn't itself create a worse scenario for the couple or society at large.
Solution? if a baby is born and you were involved in creating it, take care of it like a responsible human being.
stout's Amazon Wishlist | my lastFM
That's a very complex system because people would always be claiming that the cost of raising a child is more than what the state would want to provide. Also, raising a child in an area with better public schools does actually cost more since the child's direct competitors would have access to things like private tutoring and the like. But I digress.
I think the government would probably end up paying more than expected because of lawsuits. The current system already backs up courts since one side wants to pay less/nothing while the other wants to be paid more. They wrangle for years about it. I don't think this would solve the issue, simply change it a little.
I do think it would be less than the $29 billion figure but not substantially less.
Heh. I look at it just like a look at STDs. If you're careful about who you fuck, and use protection, you have a very low risk of getting what you don't want (baby/AIDS - same thing). Sure, I could slightly lower that risk by keeping my dick in a box (real one), but the fun relationships and sex outweighs the gain of that small improvement.
The switch only works if biology gets reversed as well.
For the other part, it's not an adequate analogy because we are talking about individual rights which are expressly different than the rights of a family. Also, families often do receive governmental assistance and child-rearing responsibilities can be balanced between both parents. It is far easier to balance such a load with 2 parents than with 1, all else being equal.
You're right, but right now the state doesn't step in unless the father can't pay. You even quoted me saying "...by denying that mother and child support payments from the father (or the state) you're denying her the freedom to choose whether she raises her own child if she decides to carry it to term."
I only put "or the state" in parentheses because going after the deadbeat parent is currently our first course of action.
Also, I'm not sure I see a woman having a child that the man doesn't want as coercion. He knew that there was a chance he'd become a father when he had sex with her. The baby grows inside of her; it's her choice whether she delivers it. Not his.
If he didn't want to support a child he should have either been more careful or not been having sex at all because the way our system works he's liable for any life he creates.
But you can't just keep putting all of that on the man. You could use the EXACT SAME logic on the woman. If she knew she wasn't able to support a child on her own, then she shouldn't be having sex. The potential you are missing is simply this, a woman has the opportunity of knowing she could live a better richer life if she gets pregnant by a rich sports/rap star. This is because we try and make sure the child lives a better life -- which I agree with -- but it can still be used by a woman.
Another interesting scenario I thought of. How does any of this apply to prostitution? I'm assuming if a prostitute someone becomes involved in a pregnancy, then he/she is solely responsible? Is this not the case?
Am I being coerced into staying in school? coerced into not quitting my job? You are suggesting that parenthood is a universal right. Where, in our laws or tradition, is that true? I don't see it anywhere in the declaration of Independance or the Constitution. You get life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, then you get the bill of rights. That's all that's explicit, and even those are often curtailed.
There's also no right to father/mother children and not be responsible for them. What's you point?
On the other hand, the "default" result of anyone's life, without intervention, is death. Our entire lives are spent trying to fend off death. Its why we eat. Its why we sleep. Its why most of us work and try to make money, to prevent death.
Since none of us would be here if we didn't constanly, at least several times a day, decide to fend off the default state (by doing the things that prevent the default action - which is death), it could be argued pretty successfully that our entire lives are forefit if we stop preventing the default state of life.
EDIT: I said all that to answer any arguments about the default state somehow being the superior thing to have.
At the risk of a threadjack, I wish we lived in a system that believed that pharmacutical cures are a basic human right.
Terry Schiavo?
Not analogous situations. Yes, you are being coerced into staying in school because public education has been deemed critical to the public good. You can quit your job and perhaps get along for a while but economic necessity will force you to find another one if you wish to maintain your standard of living. Having an active workforce is again deemed a public good.
Do we think that coercing a woman into having an abortion or putting the child up for adoption serves the public good? I would certainly disagree and would like to see an argument for why you would think this.
Universal healthcare anyone?
Have you read Freakonomics? In that he basically stated that a rise in abortions lead to a drop in crime. If preventing more children being born in poverty could really produce a better world, then there could follow arguments saying only certain people can have children. I personally wouldn't like any of those arguments, but it might be hard to ignore them.
Five points to Elkamil House for equating babies to AIDS in a manner reasonable and consistant with the terms of the discussion.
The point he makes is not that crime dropped because of an overall drop in the overall number of children being born, it was that it led to a drop in the number of unwanted children being born which makes sense given the voluntary nature of abortions. The pregnancies we're discussing be desired by at least one parent so no, those arguments don't really apply.
Two things:
Often times the main reason people do not want a child is because they are not financially able/ready to take care of them.
And wouldn't the same numbers show that crime drop is correlated to the drop in the number of children born into poverty? Now, the reason that happened was highly correlated to abortions.
I'm just playing devil's advocate on this one. If there is any truth in there, though, then there would be good reason to prevent certain populations from having children. I hope that that never happens, though.
"Life is a sexually transmitted disease."
Yah, that's closer to the mark anyways. The ability for other people to prevent medical intervention or interference in a situation to allow for the natural progression of an event. I suppose this bends back around into the 'her body, her choice' argument cycle though, so it's probably a dead end in terms of legal recourse.
They can claim all they want, but really a majority of the costs of raising a "normal" child* are pretty easily quantified. Some things vary, such as costs of both housing and childcare, but the differences in the former are already well documented and I'd not be surprised if the latter are fairly decently documented, too.
As far as shit like tutoring goes, I guess at that point we have to decide what exactly a child has a "right" to. I know plenty of kids in stable two-parent homes whose parents can't afford things like that...and it's not like your future is crushed without them. I've never known anybody who failed to get into community college because they weren't in the top 10% (or top half) of their class, and I've known kids who've gotten into state universities after ending up in the bottom 10% of their class.
Besides, in most families where the absent parent does pay child support it's not like they have fistfuls of cash leftover for tutors anyway...so you're talking about a problem that already exists now.
I dunno. I'd like to think if we took the time to come up with a reasonable number and peg it to inflation it'd be relatively lawsuit-proof. Would stop a few from trying, but after they lost I think the rest would get the hint. I think it would actually clog our courts up less, since it would no longer matter what the absent parent made...the custodial parent would end up with the same amount of money regardless. No more need to argue with each other at that point.
But yeah, it's a fairly complicated solution and one that will only exist as a hypothetical. We like simple solutions better, like "make that bastard pay for his own kid." Regardless of whether they end up seriously fucking some people over. EDIT: My point being that while due to the (relative) complexity of such a solution, and the fact that it will never happen if only because of our aversion to social welfare programs in general, I think most of the problems you point out are actually a bit overstated.
* - For children whose needs are greater than "normal" (disabled, medical problems, etc.) I think we should have a better healthcare/education system to deal with that anyway...and as such it should be separate from this discussion.
You know, require all the same kinds of criteria (waiver of parental rights before birth) in order for it to pay out. But basically have a claim cover a vast majority of an unwanted pregnancy (such as child-support payments).
Then again, I imagine if this was economically feasible it would already exist. Probably because the risk factors are too hard to both quantify and track. Car insurance companies know what kind of car you drive, but there's no way a baby daddy insurance company would know if you bother to use condoms.
Really though, I guess I'm just fucking around at this point. Ya'll continue. My previous idea was actually serious, though.