Hypothetical Regarding Child Support

[Mr. Skittles]

I am calling bull ****.

You flat out stated in at least three different posts in this very thread that the mother is trampling all over the fathers rights simply because her golden vagina gave birth.

Point out where I didn't use the word imply or some other related word then come back and whine

 

[Mr. Skittles]

Unfair.

First of all, Bill should be able to see the child anytime he wants. But if Bill doesn't want the child and she says she is having the child alone, then she could reject the economic help, I mean, she is the only one that knows Bill is the father, so if she doesn't tell, he won't be forced to help economically.

The situation as you put it, is a poor man and a clever b*tch. lol

Indeed see:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh1BDzYCTEU&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Ye i definitely agree that an argument that appeals to the rights of the child is very important, and is a major fact that can legitimately trump other consideration in many scenarios. The protection of innocent and the vulnerable is indeed of paramount importance to humanity.

But there is a difference between a situation where you have a pregnancy that’s very early on and a situation where there is already a child. With respects to the rights of the embryo, is it really that wrong in principle to hold the rights of the human father as more worthy of attention at that time than that of the embryo? I mean when a woman decides upon an abortion we are allowing her freedom to do so at the expense of the rights attributed to the embryo. Its not hugely different, so long as its at an early enough stage to allow the male a similar freedom. The only difference really being that once the mother chooses to keep you can assume it will become a child that might need support down the line. But this might rather support an ethos that a female making such a decision really should be in a position to make such independent of the male. Again such only further supports my overriding position that justice could only be reasonably achieved through case by case consideration, looking at the context, circumstance and timings involved.

He is not paying for any support yet while the offspring is still in utero. Everything is still in HER realm and HER responsibility.

Once the child is born, it then is placed in the custody of the mother and the father until otherwise stated.

My point in this thread is simply to point out the capacity that exists for injustice with a blanket rule, which is the only reason for the hypothetical, to just create an accompanying illustration to support a point of possibility.
Im not really making any larger a claim than that.

I wrote down my views a couple of pages ago in a response to one of Mystics posts. Saves me spamming and re writing things again, i would be interested in what you think of things i mention in there.

I try not to get inflamed or emotionally charged in this, im just trying to reason as best and honestly as i can in the pursuit of fair conclusions.

So are we. It really is not that difficult to figure out. Bill is responsible for the child that was born with his DNA. So is the mother after a successful pregnancy and childbirth.

It's up to the both of them how to handle that responsibility for their progeny. This is not like they both invested in a car and one person decided to bail. This isn't a piece of property. It is a living and breathing human being, and Bill in spite of how he feels is the birth parent.

If he really really really really really wants out, he can and should go through any and all legal processes to relinquish his parental rights and duties. My opinion of that, however, is that any mother or father who just wants to abandon a living breathing human being that is family because they're broke or that they've built a life around their individual dreams is a real jack***.

My personal opinion is that the man or woman exercising their freedom to take away parental rights or duties are not jack***es when their presence actually hurts the child. So, if an adult is not well and under extreme physical and mental duress, and is not capable of taking care of the child, then I applaud the decision to hand custody over of the child to someone who is capable.

But if it's just because "I simply don't want to", and in this case it's Bill, then they're being a jack***.

I know I used strong language, but I wonder how many men here have been in Bill's situation personally, and then not felt overjoyed with the opportunity to become a father. Most men I know who were broke, who had a life mission of helping people, were ecstatic to find out they were going to be dads when they originally felt they didn't want any children, period.

The situation in the OP is either unrealistic, or Bill isn't a decent guy at all.

 

[Me Myself]

Yet, the complaints are that it isn't fair that a woman "gets" to make this choice of opting out of the 9 month pregnancy legally or illegally, but a man is "stuck" with making child support payments.

That man forgets that the woman is "stuck" with raising that child, which is far more taxing and exhausting than making child support payments.

That part is completely false.

The woman chose to raise the child. She literaly chose it. If she doesnt want to after having birth to the child and neither does the father, they can put it to adoption, as simple as that.

 

[Mr. Skittles]

That part is completely false.

The woman chose to raise the child. She literaly chose it. If she doesnt want to after having birth to the child and neither does the father, they can put it to adoption, as simple as that.

OMG you can't say that!!!!!!

 

[Alex_G]

He is not paying for any support yet while the offspring is still in utero. Everything is still in HER realm and HER responsibility.

Once the child is born, it then is placed in the custody of the mother and the father until otherwise stated.

But he is immediately bound to prospective support by virtue of her express decision to keep the child.

So are we. It really is not that difficult to figure out. Bill is responsible for the child that was born with his DNA. So is the mother after a successful pregnancy and childbirth.

DNA is all that is required to constitute valid consent, such that enforced child support is validated? That, without further consideration seems quite an injustice. Hencce why i think all such scenarios can only effectively be delt with case by case to ensure adequate justice and fairness.

It's up to the both of them how to handle that responsibility for their progeny. This is not like they both invested in a car and one person decided to bail. This isn't a piece of property. It is a living and breathing human being, and Bill in spite of how he feels is the birth parent.

There is a big difference between a man who felt he never agreed or provided consent to fathering a child and supporting it through to adulthood at the beginning, early in pregnancy, and a man who already has a child and then subsequently decides to bail. This thread is about the former, which simply highlights the potential for some situations of forced care provision to be unfair on the man.

If he really really really really really wants out, he can and should go through any and all legal processes to relinquish his parental rights and duties. My opinion of that, however, is that any mother or father who just wants to abandon a living breathing human being that is family because they're broke or that they've built a life around their individual dreams is a real jack***.

My personal opinion is that the man or woman exercising their freedom to take away parental rights or duties are not jack***es when their presence actually hurts the child. So, if an adult is not well and under extreme physical and mental duress, and is not capable of taking care of the child, then I applaud the decision to hand custody over of the child to someone who is capable.

But if it's just because "I simply don't want to", and in this case it's Bill, then they're being a jack***.

I know I used strong language, but I wonder how many men here have been in Bill's situation personally, and then not felt overjoyed with the opportunity to become a father. Most men I know who were broke, who had a life mission of helping people, were ecstatic to find out they were going to be dads when they originally felt they didn't want any children, period.

The situation in the OP is either unrealistic, or Bill isn't a decent guy at all.

The post of mine you've answered is really not my argument rich post. I would love it if you'd address the things i put in the previous post that was in reply to you, thats where the lions share of it is for you to respond to. (page 12). I just dont want it to be left and ignored as this discussion marches on page by page

 

[MysticSang'ha]

That part is completely false.

The woman chose to raise the child. She literaly chose it. If she doesnt want to after having birth to the child and neither does the father, they can put it to adoption, as simple as that.

What I meant is that she is "stuck" just as much as he is "stuck" with the welfare of the baby. Once that baby is born, both of them are "stuck" with the baby.

 

[Me Myself]

What I meant is that she is "stuck" just as much as he is "stuck" with the welfare of the baby. Once that baby is born, both of them are "stuck" with the baby.

The thing is that this is not fair if only one of them wants the baby.

Thats all I am saying.

 

[McBell]

Point out where I didn't use the word imply or some other related word then come back and whine

Here you go:

I am not downplaying it, but in a debate if that argument is used as if the woman has some sort of superiority especially in child rearing I need to call a spade a spade. Too often women tend to say in so many words "hey look at me I gave birth" if this argument is made to justify the infringing of the father's rights I am not going for it.

I have in both feminist class. I PO'd a lot of women. I am sorry having a vagina does not make you special. Giving birth does not make you special and if you or any woman believes that a vagina and a baby coming out of one warrants a father's rights to be trampled over then you have another thing coming.

In all honesty I do not care for your attention, its called being opinionated. Unlike the others I as a healthcare worker who have seen some horrific mothers refuse to put a woman's vagina on a pedestal.

As a healthcare worker I have seen the whole gamit. From drug addicts to cancer patients to patients who pass away. I have heard the argument of "my vagina is greater than your rights because I pushed out a human child." Carrying a child to term does not mean in a custody situation a woman's rights are greater than a man's rights. I can appreciate a woman enduring labor pains, however if the argument is made in such a way that this repetitive argument of "my golden vagina trumps men's rights" continue, then I can do nothing but show what the real world is actually like.

I judge motherhood on the capability of the mother not because of her anatomy as I have clearly said before, mothers strung out on heroin give birth to, but clearly as a drug addict they are not being responsible to themselves and their child. So sorry I don't buy into the "golden vagina" argument.

We are talking about custody and child support right? Well I was merely stating (aside from the obvious biases of our judicial system) in that it appears the emphasis using the argument of the "golden vagina" appears to indeed trample the rights of men. As I said even if it was not said it was implied. Or do you prefer me to point out specifics? Not sure if I answered you...

Edit****

When I am talking about rights I am referring to paying child support and/or custody issues such as which parent does the child stay with? Most certainly the courts favor the mother (if all things being equal) because there seem to be this emphasis that the child needs to be with the mother.

 

[McBell]

I'm sorry for the last decade since getting my undergraduate degree, I have been in many cases. Not for fifteen minutes mind you. Sorry being a paralegal in my book is not sufficient. If you were an actual lawyer who sat in on cades perhaps, but no.

ah, so now you are a lawyer who sits in on cases?
Perhaps it would be a good idea to look up what a paralegal does so that you do not do even more damage to your already suffering credibility.

 

[McBell]

That part is completely false.

The woman chose to raise the child. She literaly chose it. If she doesnt want to after having birth to the child and neither does the father, they can put it to adoption, as simple as that.

OMG you can't say that!!!!!!

Do either of you know anything at all about the adoption business?
Based on how casually you toss it out, I would have to say that neither one of you know a thing about it.

Simple indeed...

 

[Alceste]

Ye i definitely agree that an argument that appeals to the rights of the child is very important, and is a major fact that can legitimately trump other consideration in many scenarios. The protection of innocent and the vulnerable is indeed of paramount importance to humanity.

But there is a difference between a situation where you have a pregnancy that’s very early on and a situation where there is already a child. With respects to the rights of the embryo, is it really that wrong in principle to hold the rights of the human father as more worthy of attention at that time than that of the embryo? I mean when a woman decides upon an abortion we are allowing her freedom to do so at the expense of the rights attributed to the embryo. Its not hugely different, so long as its at an early enough stage to allow the male a similar freedom. The only difference really being that once the mother chooses to keep you can assume it will become a child that might need support down the line. But this might rather support an ethos that a female making such a decision really should be in a position to make such independent of the male. Again such only further supports my overriding position that justice could only be reasonably achieved through case by case consideration, looking at the context, circumstance and timings involved.

My point in this thread is simply to point out the capacity that exists for injustice with a blanket rule, which is the only reason for the hypothetical, to just create an accompanying illustration to support a point of possibility.
Im not really making any larger a claim than that.

I wrote down my views a couple of pages ago in a response to one of Mystics posts. Saves me spamming and re writing things again, i would be interested in what you think of things i mention in there.

I try not to get inflamed or emotionally charged in this, im just trying to reason as best and honestly as i can in the pursuit of fair conclusions.

I think for the sake of arguments about custody and child support, since so many men are having trouble grasping the fact that pregnancy happens inside a woman's body, we might as well just presume that infants are just brought in by the stork while the parents-to-be are enjoying their post-coital cigarette. Pregnancy and abortion have absolutely nothing to do with it.

Once the child is born - I mean brought by the stork - both parents have equal right to relinquish their responsibilities by putting the child up for adoption. Before then, there's no child to support: there's only woman making private medical decisions affecting her own body.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

The thing is that this is not fair if only one of them wants the baby.

Thats all I am saying.

The baby is not a commodity. It is not property.

It is a living and breathing human being with its own birth certificate and social security number. It has the DNA of it's birth parents.

It's so weird and uncanny how the boys in this debate keep talking about the baby like it's a car or something.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Listen, the problems I highlight relate to a system that would see it justified to blanket enforce child care from biological fathers simply due to that fact alone, that they be biological fathers.

Yes. They are immediately the first and best support system for this new human citizen of their community. Just like the birth mother after a successful pregnancy and childbirth.

I sincerely believe that such a thing would lead to many unjust outcomes, and that a subject such as this could therefore only be effectively handled on a case by case basis. The made up hypothetical of this thread is simply there as a tool to illustrate how contextual information is of paramount importance in seeing reasonable justice realised. It’s much more than some doomed egotistic gender battle… It’s about what fundamentally justifies freedom, choices and responsibilities.

Yes. I totally agree. And Bill is the biological father with a child's DNA. He should decide if he wants to relinquish his responsibilities as the child's father and be a deadbeat while passing off the financial burden onto the public.

It does suck that it’s an unchangeable fact of nature that women must bear the burdens of childbirth, the complications and emotional challenges. In a similar sense it could be argued however that they are lucky to be able to experience such a thing, to create life and to share a special bond to their child that men cannot claim equivalence on.

I agree. But it doesn't change the fact that pregnancy and childbirth have specific risks and complications that come with it. I value the time I was pregnant. It also fundamentally changed my body physiologically. That was not the result of a meditation session, but of my body being utilized by a fetus multiple times to gestate.

None of this is really relevant to the point I make in this thread, that given certain circumstances the male can be forced into child support off the back of ‘engaging in protected sex for pleasure purposes’ being seen as sufficient consent and agreement to support a child to adulthood, which strikes me as quite shaky. The same values that defend a woman’s right to have absolute say over her own self, body and future is that those are hers and hers alone to decide upon, which if breached would constitute a form of slavery to the will of others. On a philosophical level, the money/time or assets of the man constitutes a part of himself just like with the woman, and to be illegitimately or arbitrarily forced to part with said assets is to commit the same moral crime in principle as forcing a female to abort or keep a pregnancy against her will.

And here is where you and I fundamentally disagree, Alex. It isn't the same. I must give up my money and time and assets to care for a child by raising said child much more than the father is responsible for the support payments. That right there tells us that the parent who maintains custody of the child is sacrificing MUCH more than the non-custodial parent who is giving support payments.

Child support does not equate to 9 months of pregnancy. Child support also does not equate to raising the child. It's called "support" for a reason.

(And just to note, comparing the scope/importance and value of a simple regular child support payment to the larger role of being a full time parent has absolutely nothing to do with the central issue.)

Because it's relevent? You're wanting to make it a point of what is "fair". That implies some type of scoring, doesn't it?

To engage in protected sex for the clear purposes of pleasure alone strikes me as an implicit agreement in opposition to pregnancy, one supported by both a lack of motive and clear action taken to prevent such a thing through contraception. I think it’s reasonable for a man, given no circumstantial evidence of personal or cultural preference on the part of the female, to assume that if an accident occurred that the default course would be to rectify it, especially in a country where such freedom of choice is a real possibility. The fact the female changes her mind to keep is quite radical, and seeing as the outcome of pregnancy was hardly the principle outcome of the sex, it was incidental, (not the aim of sex in this case) and that its reasonable for him to have not anticipated this change of heart of hers, it can’t really be argued that through these actions of his he has given strong enough evidence to demonstrate his agreement to be support a prospective child, enough so to warrant a rule that can enforce such care on all biological males.

In law 'Promissory Estoppel' refers to the ability to sue a party to have enforced a broken promise on their part provided that it induced justifiable reliance, which seems a reasonable thing to be able to do.

If we manipulate the principles of this for the purposes of this case, i could argue that through the actions of protected sex, under solely pleasure motives and voiced desires to avoid pregnancy at all costs, could constitute a promise that the male justifiably relied upon being maintained in the event of an accident occurring. For the woman to then change her mind to keep the accidental pregnancy breaks the promise the male relied upon, especially given his inability to have control over the decision once she did get pregnant. Of course i don’t think he could then justifiably get the abortion enforced as with traditional promissory estoppel for quite obvious reasons, but it could support him in principle in being able to deny a potential enforced child support rule.

What do you make of that angle on the issue?

"Justifiably relying" on a promise to an abortion is not smart. That would be like a woman who "justifiably" relies on a man to call her the next day after sex because he told her he loved her. You know what we call women like her?

Foolish.

I'm sorry, Alex, but Bill is acting like a fool, no matter how much you want to dress him up to look nice. He is not a decent guy if he wants to shirk his responsibility to another human being with his DNA, even if he is "saving the world."

 

[Me Myself]

The baby is not a commodity. It is not property.

It is a living and breathing human being with its own birth certificate and social security number. It has the DNA of it's birth parents.

It's so weird and uncanny how the boys in this debate keep talking about the baby like it's a car or something.

I am aware he is living, but I do not see your point.

If only one of them wants the baby then only one of them should bare the duties that go with it.

 

[NIX]

"Justifiably relying" on a promise to an abortion is not smart. That would be like a woman who "justifiably" relies on a man to call her the next day after sex because he told her he loved her. You know what we call women like her?

Foolish.

I'm sorry, Alex, but Bill is acting like a fool, no matter how much you want to dress him up to look nice. He is not a decent guy if he wants to shirk his responsibility to another human being with his DNA, even if he is "saving the world."

:clap

And beyond that, more so in days past maybe, but still in many cases today, how many men have not only told some woman not only that he loves her, but that he plans/promises to marry her and build a future with her- be faithful and committed to her- even support her.

And in some cases, the promise to the current lover, to leave the current wife or husband.

Without these promises the woman would not be having sex with this man. She believes him. She loves him. She believes he loves her. She believes he is currently making plans to build a life they have agreed on.

Should she be awarded legal (monetary) compensation/damages/duress if the man doesn't turn out true to his word?

 

[Me Myself]

I'm sorry, Alex, but Bill is acting like a fool, no matter how much you want to dress him up to look nice. He is not a decent guy if he wants to shirk his responsibility to another human being with his DNA, even if he is "saving the world."

This si ridiculous, how many times will you say something this hypocritical when you by the same token think a woman making an abortion of a pregnancy that is not a health risk to her at all is doing nothing wrong?

A woman kills another human being with her DNA. Thats the most active way of not taking the responsibility you can make. One or 2 happy pills and magical miscarriage and nothing happened.

 

[s2a]

Well, ok, that's the last time I take the bait of work on this sort of hook... I knew better, and I must now wash away my shame with more cognac...

 

[jarofthoughts]

The baby is not a commodity. It is not property.

It is a living and breathing human being with its own birth certificate and social security number. It has the DNA of it's birth parents.

It's so weird and uncanny how the boys in this debate keep talking about the baby like it's a car or something.

*cough*

Not ALL the boys. :sarcastic

 

[jarofthoughts]

I'm sorry, but Bill is acting like a fool, no matter how much you want to dress him up to look nice. He is not a decent guy if he wants to shirk his responsibility to another human being with his DNA, even if he is "saving the world."

I completely agree and I've agreed all along.