Hypothetical Regarding Child Support

[Alex_G]

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.

'Since so many men have trouble grasping...?' i completely understand that conception and the 9 month pregnancy to term occurs within the body of the female, thus justifying her as the only person who should have a say over matters concerning such. Im familiar with all aspects of it from physical complications to the emotional struggles short of being pregnant myself. I mean ive delivered 5 babies and seen plenty more women through the process. Not grasping really isnt a problem here. Those rights of a female over her own person is unchallenged i mean i used it as a comparison to demonstrate that the same principles allowing her such freedoms and rights should for all intent and purposes be applied to things that are part of the man's self and identity. To illegitimately deny either their said rights is what i had previously described as a form of slavery in principle.

That said, its true that there is no child for support to go to until he/she is born. But is he not locked into such prospective support by virtue her express decision to keep? It would be a mistake to pretend that 'private medical decisions affecting her own body' don’t directly affect other people too. All im arguing for in the thread is that with a blanket rule for enforced care, there is clear possibility for injustice to occur. There are hundreds of situations where i think a man really should pay child support, but im just saying that an overriding rule leads to some unfairness to some, which seems like a reasonable claim..

Your post above strikes me as a borderline ad hominum mixed with a bit of a red herring. An appeal to ridicule to weaken credibility of any arguments that might come in opposition. Thats 'dirty politics' tactics and not a very honest or honourable way to discuss a topic!

 

[Willamena]

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.

Every pregnancy is a health risk, and every abortion is a heath risk. There aren't any that aren't.

 

[Alex_G]

*breaks out can opener and handy rod and reel*

Well, I am guided by a few basic principles here:
1) Only a woman can become pregnant (at least today).
2) Adult consensual sex is legal most everywhere, for good reason
3) Contraceptive use is, well See: #2
4) No man should ever have final say, ever, about whether a not a woman chooses to keep or terminate her unwanted/unintended pregnancy…under any circumstances. Any. Ever. It’s never a man’s call. Period (new thread coming soon to an REF board near you).
5) Progeny are not property…but are a responsibility.
6) Despite any and all best efforts by all parties involved, sometimes the feces unexpectedly interacts with the oscillating rotary blade air mover… and casualties ensue… (passes the paper towel).

In your unique and specified scenario regarding “Bill”, I’d say he has been dealt a bad hand with no good options to either check, raise, or fold..

..it’s unfair to poor Bill, and here’s why:

Neither Bill nor his one-nighter bouncy partner expressed any notion of an intended procreation, and both parties took steps to prevent any likelihood of that occurrence to the safest degrees available in barrier prevention, which in and of itself indicates a consensual agreement a priori. If Bill’s “brief encounter” had other motives, there is no notion that Bill would have been privy to any deception or motivations to the contrary. Just like millions of people every hour of every day, Bill and his co-conspirator in jointly “getting their freak on”, both conscious of the consequences, but taking all available steps to avoid the most obvious unwanted outcomes of all contingencies (besides “coyote date syndrome” , and/or “morning bad hair affliction”, or the always dreaded “walk of shame”).

Your theoretical “Bill” (aka, “I have a friend that…”) may have a legitimate legal grievance to file in avoidance of any monetary obligations of providing child support to his unintended, unwelcome, and unexpected lottery ticket winner.

But as it often boils down to a decent glazing sauce, Bill can tell it to the judge, and some detached third party will decide.

When laws are drafted to treat unintended pregnancies between otherwise consenting adults as accident… instead of punishment or a “wage of sin” retribution for immorality in the scope of any religious context…

…perhaps then poor Bill might expect to fold his hand gracefully with no loss other than what he invested in a singular hand dealt and played out.

But until that day, Bill has my sympathies, and maybe bi-annual visitations if he wants...

Hey sorry i havent responded to ur post. Im not exactly great at juggling loads of responses, i cant seem to get the time to adequately answer everything. Hopefully i'll get better at it in time. Cheers for the patients regarding my n00b forum skills.

I agree with a lot of what u say, its quite sensible. Point 4 interests me because if you ask yourself what actually justifies or validates a woman’s right to have express say over her own person, (which i whole heartedly agree with) you might find a similar justification for a man to have equal say over his person and identity, which includes his assets.

Point 5 is also interesting, because it hints at an argument from the perspective of the child’s rights, which is a powerful point. But responsibility is the very thing of contention in this thread i think, with my position just being to point out that a blanket rule that would enforce child support from all men regardless of circumstance will generate casualties of justice.

I’m unsure that 'excrement hits the fan' is a legitimate way of dealing with difficult issues; it rather strikes me as one of those 'thought-terminating clichés' like 'boys will be boys' or 'what goes around comes around' etc that so often crop up. I wonder what it would be like if all matters of justice followed such a motto.

oh ps, Bill is completely fabricated by the way, just me creating a situation that highlights the potential for unjust outcomes.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

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?

She isn't. It isn't the same thing. It would be the same thing if she were to abandon the baby in a dumpster, or even just abandon the baby on the father's doorstep. Abortion is happening inside of her body.

Yes, it IS ridiculous that you are not getting and continue to equate abortion with abandonment.

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.

A woman terminates a pregnancy. The emotionally charged "killing a human being" phrase that you and other pro-lifers use - remember *I* was one once - isn't accurate nor helpful.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

*cough*

Not ALL the boys. :sarcastic

The boys continue to insist they should be able to walk away from a living breathing child.

The men understand responsibilities to their next of kin.

 

[jarofthoughts]

The boys continue to insist they should be able to walk away from a living breathing child.

The men understand responsibilities to their next of kin.

Granted.

And thanks for noting the difference.

 

[Alex_G]

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.



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.

I dont think its really fair to use the derogatory term 'deadbeat' so liberally. All it does is constitute an 'appeal to emotion', specifically negative towards the opposing side of the discussion, in what seems to clearly be an attempt to undermine reasonable arguments from the other side. But saying that, it seems we agree somewhat here, seeing as my claim in this thread extends only as far as highlighting the possibility for unjust outcomes when consideration of context and circumstance is overlooked.

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.

I agree that its an unfortunate fact of nature that such risks, complications and side effects are associated with pregnancy, to which only females endure. But am i wrong to assume that the decision to keep is a free one made by the woman in question? Or at least that there is scope for a situation whereby she finds out early enough, and that a decision between keeping the pregnancy to term or to have an early termination is not subject to any personal or cultural or practical difficulties that would suggest otherwise? If that’s so, and its an informed decision to keep on her part, her carrying the burdens that go along with such a decision becomes fair. Not in the sense that such burdens exists at all as part of nature, that’s still unfair, but given that state of nature, her decision to keep of her own volition makes it fair in terms of freedom and autonomy.

That’s why when i speak of male rights to similar freedoms and autonomy, it makes no sense to use the unfairness of the 'nature of pregnancy' as a challenging comparison, because that unfairness doesn’t not relate to compromised autonomy, of which is being spoken about in the male.

In an example where it can be shown that a pregnant woman did not have a free choice to terminate, (free being the key word) and is 'stuck' with the pregnancy, then she experienced a compromise of autonomy and freedom that makes her prospective burden a fair point to raise in arguing that the man should support despite his similar lack of freedom.

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.

Yes im not disputing that the role of being an active parent is a hugely larger task and sacrifice than simple child support payments. That unchallenged. The pertinent issue is that there are examples where the acceptance of this responsibility of parenthood is by virtue of a free and express decision on the part of a female. Such that, similar to the argument i make above, the unfairness that relates to the difficulties of parenthood as a fact of reality is not the same type of unfairness as one that relates to autonomy if its indeed something arrived at by free and informed choice.

So as an example it makes no sense to compare the factual difference in risk that skydiving has compared with just accompanying them in the plane if what is being discussed is the freedom of choice of a person to be in the plane to being with. As we assume the skydiver, although experiencing greater risks than the person only accompanying him in the plane, made the decision to go through with it of his own volition. Quoting that greater risk bears little on the discussion of whether the other person whas free to choose to be in the plane to begin with.
Im not sure if that example helps illustrate it or not, but i'll leave it in.

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?

Not necessarily, but even so one has to be comparing the right thing, as i mentioned above.

"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."

Being foolish and experience injustice are not mutually exclusive.

In the use of 'promissory esstopel' the 'justifiable reliance' relates to whether you can reasonable show that you had some real, tangible reliance on the said promise. A woman 'relying' on a man to call her the next day doesn’t really demonstrate any evidence that she 'relied' on that rather than just wanted it. So as an example, say he promised her a job, and then she quit her current job only to have him then say no, that’s justifiable reliance as opposed to just 'wanting it'.

In this thread's case, knowing what pregnancy means if it leads to a child, both in emotional weight, financial and time commitments, easily foreseeable as associated with having a child, its much stronger in defining a 'justifiable reliance' on a decision that stated an express aversion to getting pregnant on her part. And i use it because as its used in the law, the motives for its existence is clearly to deliver justice, and so in applying it to this situation it helps support a position that some degree of injustice to the male can occur if it can be described in the language of promissory esstopel.

Remember of course that my overriding argument is simply that with a blanket rule that doesn’t consider context and circumstance injustice can arise. That’s all.

 

[Alex_G]

The boys continue to insist they should be able to walk away from a living breathing child.

The men understand responsibilities to their next of kin.

Again loaded language only intended to insult and coerce. To try and discredit anyone who's argument challenges your own position. Dirty tactics.
Thats not very constructive or admirable...
Your welcome to defend the merits of the statement too Jarofthoughts as you seem to endorse it.

And also, walking away from a 'living breathing child' is hugely different to walking away from an embryo. I thought that was quite obvious... Thats just seems to be a bit of a red herring to make your argument sound stronger.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I dont think its really fair to use the derogatory term 'deadbeat' so liberally. All it does is constitute an 'appeal to emotion', specifically negative towards the opposing side of the discussion, in what seems to clearly be an attempt to undermine reasonable arguments from the other side. But saying that, it seems we agree somewhat here, seeing as my claim in this thread extends only as far as highlighting the possibility for unjust outcomes when consideration of context and circumstance is overlooked.




I agree that its an unfortunate fact of nature that such risks, complications and side effects are associated with pregnancy, to which only females endure. But am i wrong to assume that the decision to keep is a free one made by the woman in question? Or at least that there is scope for a situation whereby she finds out early enough, and that a decision between keeping the pregnancy to term or to have an early termination is not subject to any personal or cultural or practical difficulties that would suggest otherwise? If that’s so, and its an informed decision to keep on her part, her carrying the burdens that go along with such a decision becomes fair. Not in the sense that such burdens exists at all as part of nature, that’s still unfair, but given that state of nature, her decision to keep of her own volition makes it fair in terms of freedom and autonomy.

That’s why when i speak of male rights to similar freedoms and autonomy, it makes no sense to use the unfairness of the 'nature of pregnancy' as a challenging comparison, because that unfairness doesn’t not relate to compromised autonomy, of which is being spoken about in the male.

In an example where it can be shown that a pregnant woman did not have a free choice to terminate, (free being the key word) and is 'stuck' with the pregnancy, then she experienced a compromise of autonomy and freedom that makes her prospective burden a fair point to raise in arguing that the man should support despite his similar lack of freedom.




Yes im not disputing that the role of being an active parent is a hugely larger task and sacrifice than simple child support payments. That unchallenged. The pertinent issue is that there are examples where the acceptance of this responsibility of parenthood is by virtue of a free and express decision on the part of a female. Such that, similar to the argument i make above, the unfairness that relates to the difficulties of parenthood as a fact of reality is not the same type of unfairness as one that relates to autonomy if its indeed something arrived at by free and informed choice.

So as an example it makes no sense to compare the factual difference in risk that skydiving has compared with just accompanying them in the plane if what is being discussed is the freedom of choice of a person to be in the plane to being with. As we assume the skydiver, although experiencing greater risks than the person only accompanying him in the plane, made the decision to go through with it of his own volition. Quoting that greater risk bears little on the discussion of whether the other person whas free to choose to be in the plane to begin with.
Im not sure if that example helps illustrate it or not, but i'll leave it in.




Not necessarily, but even so one has to be comparing the right thing, as i mentioned above.




Being foolish and experience injustice are not mutually exclusive.

In the use of 'promissory esstopel' the 'justifiable reliance' relates to whether you can reasonable show that you had some real, tangible reliance on the said promise. A woman 'relying' on a man to call her the next day doesn’t really demonstrate any evidence that she 'relied' on that rather than just wanted it. So as an example, say he promised her a job, and then she quit her current job only to have him then say no, that’s justifiable reliance as opposed to just 'wanting it'.

In this thread's case, knowing what pregnancy means if it leads to a child, both in emotional weight, financial and time commitments, easily foreseeable as associated with having a child, its much stronger in defining a 'justifiable reliance' on a decision that stated an express aversion to getting pregnant on her part. And i use it because as its used in the law, the motives for its existence is clearly to deliver justice, and so in applying it to this situation it helps support a position that some degree of injustice to the male can occur if it can be described in the language of promissory esstopel.

Remember of course that my overriding argument is simply that with a blanket rule that doesn’t consider context and circumstance injustice can arise. That’s all.

A blanket rule is something I disagree with too.

If Bill is of sound mind and body, then it's just and fair to the living breathing child that he take responsibility to care for his next of kin and not pass it on to the state. The same would be said of the mother for not abandoning the same living breathing child as well. The same would be said if Bill was granted custody of his mother who is suffering from dementia and if widowed. The same would be said if Bill had to care for his special needs sister when their parents died.

But the blanket rule for everyone disregards those cases where Bill is NOT of sound mind and body. If he is suffering from severe mental disorders, if he is rehabilitating from severe inuries, is in a coma, you get the drift. That is an unfair burden on the child since he or she cannot be adequately cared for under that form of custody.

This isn't about men's rights in this scenario. Men's "rights" to be absolved from citizen responsibilities like this is the same as a woman's "rights" to be able to abandon her child on the doorstep of the father without another word and without recourse.

If there is the desire for equality here, let's level the playing field on the level of when the child is actually BORN, and to suggest that forcing a woman to raise or support that child is exactly the same as forcing a man to raise or support that child.

It is not the same as a woman's right to get a safe and legal abortion.

 

[Willamena]

I agree with a lot of what u say, its quite sensible. Point 4 interests me because if you ask yourself what actually justifies or validates a woman’s right to have express say over her own person, (which i whole heartedly agree with) you might find a similar justification for a man to have equal say over his person and identity, which includes his assets.

A child isn't "his assets." It isn't anybody's assets.

 

[Alex_G]

A blanket rule is something I disagree with too.

If Bill is of sound mind and body, then it's just and fair to the living breathing child that he take responsibility to care for his next of kin and not pass it on to the state. The same would be said of the mother for not abandoning the same living breathing child as well. The same would be said if Bill was granted custody of his mother who is suffering from dementia and if widowed. The same would be said if Bill had to care for his special needs sister when their parents died.

But the blanket rule for everyone disregards those cases where Bill is NOT of sound mind and body. If he is suffering from severe mental disorders, if he is rehabilitating from severe inuries, is in a coma, you get the drift. That is an unfair burden on the child since he or she cannot be adequately cared for under that form of custody.

This isn't about men's rights in this scenario. Men's "rights" to be absolved from citizen responsibilities like this is the same as a woman's "rights" to be able to abandon her child on the doorstep of the father without another word and without recourse.

If there is the desire for equality here, let's level the playing field on the level of when the child is actually BORN, and to suggest that forcing a woman to raise or support that child is exactly the same as forcing a man to raise or support that child.

It is not the same as a woman's right to get a safe and legal abortion.

You know i think we've prob reached as far as the debate is going to take us, i dont think given all that’s been said so far, that either position is going to be changed much further.

But i will just say here, that a woman dropping off a baby on the doorstep is different, because at some point she will have decided to keep the child, (assuming it was a free choice of hers) at which moment she expressly agrees to the adoption of responsibility of that child until its an adult. When she dumps the child, that is a clear breech of her agreed responsibility. Thats definitely not on. Similar argument for a man who decides he does want to be a parent and a dad to the child, but then later decides to bail. Thats not on. I had a case once where a man tried to bail on all responsibility once finding out that the child born had some disabilities. Thats absolutely disgraceful.

The question of what is exactly required to legitimately demonstrate fair consent on the part of the male to accept responsibly is sometimes a difficult question, the very question that leads me to the conclusion that such things can only be justly dealt with case by case, looking at context and circumstance. Because when it comes to these men (albeit an overwhelming minority), its hard to blame them so easily for bailing on a responsibility prior to adequately showing them to have been in a position that inherently had such a responsibility to begin with that he could indeed bail on. It can be complicated and I was simply trying to demonstrate a situation where such complexity arises along with the subsequent potential for injustice from a blanket rule that did not consider the details.

 

[Alex_G]

A child isn't "his assets." It isn't anybody's assets.

Not the child, i was referring to the child support money being part of his assets to which he has similar claim of ownership as the woman does with her body, thus justifying each to autonomy concerning such things. Perhaps i didnt really write very clearly there.

 

[Willamena]

Not the child, i was referring to the child support money being part of his assets to which he has similar claim of ownership as the woman does with her body, thus justifying each to autonomy concerning such things. Perhaps i didnt really write very clearly there.

So, you're saying she has the right to do what she wants with her body, including the fetus, and he has the right to do what he wants with his body, including his money?

 

[Willamena]

I dont think its really fair to use the derogatory term 'deadbeat' so liberally. All it does is constitute an 'appeal to emotion', specifically negative towards the opposing side of the discussion, in what seems to clearly be an attempt to undermine reasonable arguments from the other side. But saying that, it seems we agree somewhat here, seeing as my claim in this thread extends only as far as highlighting the possibility for unjust outcomes when consideration of context and circumstance is overlooked.




I agree that its an unfortunate fact of nature that such risks, complications and side effects are associated with pregnancy, to which only females endure. But am i wrong to assume that the decision to keep is a free one made by the woman in question? Or at least that there is scope for a situation whereby she finds out early enough, and that a decision between keeping the pregnancy to term or to have an early termination is not subject to any personal or cultural or practical difficulties that would suggest otherwise? If that’s so, and its an informed decision to keep on her part, her carrying the burdens that go along with such a decision becomes fair. Not in the sense that such burdens exists at all as part of nature, that’s still unfair, but given that state of nature, her decision to keep of her own volition makes it fair in terms of freedom and autonomy.

That’s why when i speak of male rights to similar freedoms and autonomy, it makes no sense to use the unfairness of the 'nature of pregnancy' as a challenging comparison, because that unfairness doesn’t not relate to compromised autonomy, of which is being spoken about in the male.

In an example where it can be shown that a pregnant woman did not have a free choice to terminate, (free being the key word) and is 'stuck' with the pregnancy, then she experienced a compromise of autonomy and freedom that makes her prospective burden a fair point to raise in arguing that the man should support despite his similar lack of freedom.

"Child support" isn't about the rights or liberties of either of the parents, it is about the rights of the child. It is in place to maximize the state that "no child gets left behind," so to speak. Whatever rights the parents have legally take second place to the rights of that person who cannot speak for itself.

 

[Willamena]

It is ONLY about the rights of the child.

Making it out to be about anyone else's rights misses the point of it.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Not the child, i was referring to the child support money being part of his assets to which he has similar claim of ownership as the woman does with her body, thus justifying each to autonomy concerning such things. Perhaps i didnt really write very clearly there.

Listen to Willamena. It's been said over and over again.

A child is not property. Assets are. And I personally do not equate a woman's body as property of any kind that she controls. Which is what I think is being done here.

The question is this: Is a woman willing to risk her health that naturally comes with pregnancy? It's the same as a military draft, of which the argument leads to whether or not does a man have the right to absolve himself from the risk of bodily harm. I believe in an all-voluntary military. I also believe in an all-voluntary pregnancy.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Your welcome to defend the merits of the statement too Jarofthoughts as you seem to endorse it.

I have done so throughout this thread.
The priority is the well-being of the child, irregardless of whether the mother broke her promise, the contraception failed or whatever circumstances anyone tries to think up.
And as a man who has fathered a child, he should step up and take responsibility; economically, emotionally and otherwise.
To do anything else would, in my view, be despicable, spineless and immature.

 

[McBell]

I have done so throughout this thread.
The priority is the well-being of the child, irregardless of whether the mother broke her promise, the contraception failed or whatever circumstances anyone tries to think up.
And as a man who has fathered a child, he should step up and take responsibility; economically, emotionally and otherwise.
To do anything else would, in my view, be despicable, spineless and immature.

but...
but...

IT'S NOT FAIR!!!

 

[Mr. Skittles]

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.

Just got home and very tired....This little exchange between you and I is going nowhere. For your information I am an LCSW (go ahead and google it since you arrogantly wanted me to look up your profession).

 

[Alex_G]

but...
but...

IT'S NOT FAIR!!!

I actually agree that the rights of the child are the most important. All I've been doing in this thread is highlighting a potential for unfair circumstances that can be experienced by some men and how such can be missed if you dont consider the detail of the various scenarios. I dont see how thats an unreasonable claim.