Why should men pay child support if they choose not to?

[blackbeltninja]

Do you really want to open that can of worms?

Yes. Yes I do.

Note use of term "successful", a nice and safely vague-enough term to protect my statement.

-d-

 

[blackbeltninja]

Treating a human life as nothing more than a financial obligation or a sperm repository is, IMO, the reason for many of the ills our societies face.

Really? You think these citizens of third world countries with starving over-populations and the GDP of a small US-neighbourhood 7-11 should think even LESS about the financial implications of having 13 children and expecting governments and foreign donations to come to the rescue?

Really?

How is that even dumb animals, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down the evolutionary and mental ladders from Man, know that breeding season only occurs during times of plenty and we as the superior beings haven't yet done the maths on that, or have and choose to ignore the obvious?

We can't even contemplate the successful navigation for the continuation of our species because we're too busy arguing over who is going to be left holding the bag.

Continuation of our species is the least of your worries. People will always be having babies, whether or not they/we/government/the planet can afford and sustain it. This single-minded need on their part to continue our species come Hell or high water will probably result in both, one way or the other.

-d-

 

[Asenath]

Double post.

 

[Asenath]

A man so opposed to shouldering his share of the economic and child-rearing duties of parenthood is free to have a vasectomy. In fact, it is an outpatient procedure, affordable and covered by most medical insurance, and does not require any kind of an age limit - as opposed to women seeking a tubal ligation who are usually refused by both doctors and insurance companies until they either have an existing child or reach an arbitrary age limit, usually in the 30s.

If a man is so opposed to being "trapped" by a woman, he should get the snip. Until then, he is legally and ethically liable for his participation in creating a child, and is no real man if he abdicates his responsibility.

 

[sixthson]

The only thing worse than the man who would not want to support the child he helped to create is the man who would not want to know his child. Whether or not he wanted the child is beside the point. The child is here now, do the right thing, not only for the child but for yourself. How could anyone not want to be involved with his own flesh and blood?

 

[Benvolio]

It is critical that both parents be obligated to support the child. If he participated by sex the father should not be able to escape that duty by demanding that she kill the child, BUT it should not be so generous as to become ex-wife support. The children should not live in poverty but if the father is wealthy the wife and child should have no legal right to share the luxury. The wife should not be given an incentive to divorce.

 

[refujiunderground]

the whole matter boils down to how much a parent loves their child enough to be around for them in their life. just because you pay child support doesn't mean that you care about your child. how much time you invest in your child is more important than how much money you invest on them. kids always remember how much time their parents are involved in their lives. they know when mommy and daddy actually gives a fuck about them and when they don't give a fuck about them. there's plenty of fathers that pay child support on time that don't even spend a minute with their kids. hell, you can even live with your kids and still not be in their life. child support goes beyond $

 

[Telstra]

There is a choice for men. If a guy chooses vaginal sex the assumption needs to be that he may be paying child support for 18 years. It makes sense to be that there's shared consequences. Let's face it if it were men who got pregnant not many of us would be here.

I disagree.
If a man or woman not living with their kids, they don't need to pay anything if they choose.
Because when the kids become adults they don't know their parents, they are not going to help their parents 1 cent.

 

[FanofFiction]

Men can have a procedure done to prevent their ability to get a girl pregnant. Think of it as a man's right to choose. It's like pre-abortion. If you don't want to use condoms, if you aren't responsible enough to make sure she is telling the truth about being on the pill, if you don't want to pull out before you jizz... get a vasectomy. That's your right to choose guys. If you don't take any precautions at all and she gets pregnant... well, it's your responsibility. I totally agree a man should have to pay child support.

 

[Telstra]

Its not black and white.
A man/woman should not have to pay for child support if they don't want to
because they have their reasons and its non of our business to judge them.


Bring in lawyers for a personal disagreement between partners is not right.

 

[backpacker]

I'll take the flip side of the issue. Why can a woman independently did to have an abortion? What if the father wants the child, but the mother doesn't? What if the father has strong beliefs against abortion? In cases where both make a voluntary decision to have sex, they both assume the risk of having a kid. Both should have to consent to an abortion. The way the law currently works provides more rights for women than men. I could careless about the argument of it being a woman's body as she assumes the risk at the time she chooses to have sex. In cases of rape, the woman should have the unilateral right to end the pregnancy.

With regard to support, I think both parents should be responsible for supporting their children. I do think the support laws should be revised to set a reasonable minimum and maximum for support. If a guy makes three million dollars per year, why should he have to pay around one million in child support? Chances are that he wouldn't spend anywhere near that amount if the child was living with him. Another issue is that some states require child support to be paid until the kid is 21 if they are in school, but the parents would have no responsibility to pay for the kid past 18 if they are married. It makes no sense why parents should be forced to support adult children. I think it's great if parents want to support their kids while in college, but I don't think it should be forced upon them.

 

[Asenath]

Backpacker, the answer to that question is summed up in one phrase: bodily autonomy.

You cannot force anyone to have a medical procedure they are not willing to have. Even in cases of criminals who are not psychiatric meds compliant it takes a specific kind of court order that is very hard to get. On the flip side, you cannot prevent someone from having a procedure on her own body.

. . .It astonishes me how much woman hating goes on in this forum.

 

[Telstra]

Backpacker, the answer to that question is summed up in one phrase: bodily autonomy.

You cannot force anyone to have a medical procedure they are not willing to have. Even in cases of criminals who are not psychiatric meds compliant it takes a specific kind of court order that is very hard to get. On the flip side, you cannot prevent someone from having a procedure on her own body.

. . .It astonishes me how much woman hating goes on in this forum.

Not sure which posts are woman hating.

 

[Asenath]

That would be all the ones that imply that women have more rights than men - patently not true, especially in the current political climate - and that men are victims of rapacious, sperm crazed bitches who try and lock them up with unplanned pregnancies.

 

[bankside]

Why would anyone think their own personal deadbeat father is the standard-bearer by which all men should be judged. If I judged myself by my father's example, I'd lock myself away for the crime of being male.

Fortunately most of us are better than he is.

The thing that isn't even recognized is: "her body, her choice" sets a precedent which is just as valid for "his body, his choice." And the law skips over many examples of where that is relevant.

Nobody is saying a man has the right to tell the mother how to breathe when she's in labour. That kind of knee-jerk accusation of misogyny is just an overzealous feminist dodge to distract attention from all the misandry which is unacknowledged by our society, and disappointingly by feminist orthodoxy. Sexism appears to be a tit-for-tat game in the minds of many feminists and men are "owed their due." Shudder.

 

[Asenath]

Sorry, no. Look at the legislative bodies at the state and federal level in the United States, the list of Fortune 500 CEOs, the rosters of judges at your local courthouse. You'll notice a theme - at the highest levels of power, the levels where decisions are made, laws are decided, and financial policy is dictated, there is a dearth of women.

In every area of public life, there is essential inequality for women. Sexism is the confluence of prejudice and power - and women as a group don't have the kind of consistent power and privilege men do.

 

[blackbeltninja]

In every area of public life, there is essential inequality for women. Sexism is the confluence of prejudice and power - and women as a group don't have the kind of consistent power and privilege men do.

Yes, true. But there is change. And change takes time. You can't expect 1 or 2 generations to massively affect equality, and making these sort of comparisons is unreasonable.

If the number of women in a programme increases by 500% over 5 years at grassroots level, you can probably expect an increase in the upper echelons by say 50% over the next 10 years because of the lifetime of the post. What I mean is, a lawyer might become a judge and be a judge for 30 years. If there is only scope for x many judges, you have to wait for vacancies to open up before someone else can get promoted. If only 10% of lawyers become judges, even increasing the number of women in law programmes means that only 10% of that increased number can become judges, and it is still a fractional figure. Add the need for 20 or 30 years' legal experience prior to becoming a judge, you're NOT going to see much change for about 50 or 60 years. It's simple maths.*

Expecting significant change in a small time-frame is simply ricockulous.

Incidentally, I'm not sure how questioning a lack of fathers' rights is misogyny.

-d-
*the kind even a woman might** be able to do.
**Might. No guarantees.

 

[Telstra]

Question,
if a father don't want to have anything to do with his wife or his kids, why do he has to pay for child support?
If he wants to cut ALL ties?

Example:
Sperm donation !!!

 

[Asenath]

Question,
if a father don't want to have anything to do with his wife or his kids, why do he has to pay for child support?
If he wants to cut ALL ties?

Example:
Sperm donation !!!

Sperm donors have a legal contract exempting them from fatherhood. It also exempts them from having parental rights. It's a pre-arranged contract matter. Totally different from some guy who impregnates a woman and skips out on his responsibility.

 

[Kulindahr]

I've heard of cases like that where the guy was still forced to pay... I've also heard of cases where the woman lied about the paternity and the non-biological father was still forced to pay.

obviously, as a gay man this has no impact on my life... but it seems unfair that it's 100% the female's decision to have the baby or not. I feel like there should be an "out," wherein a guy can go on record (publicly, where his future kid can read it someday) giving up all claims to a fetus and absolving himself of any financial obligation of the female wants to carry it to term.

Yep. I've not only heard of such situations, I've known a couple. One was a woman with five kids, three fathers; she was getting nearly $5k/month in support for the first three, about $3k/mo for the fourth, and $4k/mo for the fifth -- a tidy sum close to $12k.mo. Of course she didn't have to work, and paid cheap baby sitters to watch the kids, so they effectively had no mom -- and their fathers were forbidden to visit them.

She'd learned after the first three that getting pregnant by a guy with a big income is a nice way to get checks without working, so she'd picked a couple, lied about being on the pill, and hit the victims for 1/3 of their incomes.

All that is being asked of by the group in the article, is that there is an equaliser in place, so that men who don't want to raise a child, have an option NOT to do so. Since a man cannot have any influence in an abortion, as its a womans choice, there must be something else put in place, so that guys can relinquish all responsibility, instead of having his hands tied by a woman who chooses to bring up a child regardless of his desires to not want paternal responsibility.

A woman who doesn't want a child can opt for abortion, and a guy can't do a thing about it.

Its a tad unfair for women to have all the rights. Men deserve some too.

Yes -- the woman gets to decide whether she will take responsibility, and she also gets to decide whether the guy will.

The way to equalize it is to have a "night before" pill that the guy can insist the gal take.