|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:24 pm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/09/national/main1385124.shtml
(Yes, the article is from March x.x )
http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/business/index.ssf?/base/news-36/1153259662196200.xml&storylist=mibusiness
(More current article, case was dismissed by a district judge.)
A case was brought by Matt Dubay, supported and sought out by the National Center for Men, that challenges child support as a kind of reproductive right. If females have abortion and adoption as options, then they argue that males should have options as far as child support goes in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. It was dismissed by a district judge in Michigan, but obviously that doesn't mean the question at hand is forever settled.
The issue between the two views of it-> Would the right of men to choose not to pay child support in the case of an unwanted pregnancy be harmful (Couldn't think of a better word.) for the mother and child and the same as being able to get rid of responsibility when the father knew the risks they were taking, or is it simply equal protection under the law because of abortion rights?
In any case, how would unwanted be determined? From what I read, it's just as long as pregnancy was unwanted and unplanned beforehand. Theoretically, I guess a female would then be able to sue and claim the father also wanted a child. I don't really see how a general 'don't want it, don't pay for it' rule would work. If something like this happened, there's a lot of details and what if's to account for. Like abortion laws, there would be questions of in what situations something like this would apply.
Courts have ruled against similar suits in the past, in favor of the child's rights and getting financial support from two parents. So that's another question. If the father did not pay, then who would? Single mothers sometimes don't get child support collected anyways. Some fathers already cannot or don't pay. Mothers do get money and support from government programs. If male rights as far as child support go were expanded, would government aid programs for single mothers be expanded?
Part 2 xD
Some argue that the whole family law system is tipped too far in favor of women.
( http://www.glennsacks.com/roe_v_wade_men.htm ) An example is the difference between things like millions spent on getting back child support and sentencing 'dead beat dad's' and almost no effort from the federal government towards enforcing a father's visitation rights. A quote (from the site above) on this position- "Whether one sympathizes with Dubay or not, his lawsuit illustrates the way the family law system addresses the needs and desires of women, while turning a cold shoulder to those of men. This system represents the most egregious violation of gender equity in our society today. The plight of unwed fathers exemplifies the point. Dubay is vilified by both the pro-choice feminist left and the pro-life right as an irresponsible cad, deadbeat and whiner. Yet the millions of unmarried men who do try to be fathers to their children find that while they are frequently lectured to “take responsibility,” they’re often not permitted any meaningful role in their children’s lives. These stand-up guys usually get to spend only a few days a month with their kids, if they’re lucky. Once mom finds a new man, they’re often pushed out entirely in favor of the child’s “new dad.” And fathers who look to the family law system for help quickly find that said system has no interest in their case beyond keeping the child support checks coming. "
That, besides making me wonder about whether or not that could really be called "the most egregious violation of gender equity", brings up a question of visitation. If you say no to paying child support, what happens to your visitation rights?
Summary- Do men need more reproductive rights? If a woman has the choice to get an abortion in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, should a man be able to choose not to pay child support if the child is likewise unwanted? Also, whether or not the whole visitation, child support, and family law system is much too biased towards women's needs.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:07 pm
Everytime two people of the opposite gender have sex there is the possibility of preganacy.
When it comes down to it each person contributes to the child wether or not it was planned. If a woman has the choice to get an abortion, or give the child up to adoption, and the father doesn't want the child...than the father shouldn't have to pay if the woman chooses to not take either option.
However what if a women is unable to live with the idea of killing a child, and the idea of adopting the child out is against thier beliefs? What if they are willing to give the unwanted child a chance in the world? Why should the women mentally suffer because a man doesn't want to take up his end of the deal?
Why should a man have to trapped into doling out money to a partner who despite other options, chooses to have an unwanted baby, and not adopt it?
Does this really belong at gov't level?
If the choice is not available to have an abortion(think Anti-Abortionists getting thier way), and Adoption is out of the question(for whatever reason)...than I think the father should pay.
Either way I think the whole thing is petty. There are a lot of people who want to get out of child support. They'll find any excuse they can. When two people get together to have fun in bed they should be prepared for the consequences. If a child results they should already have a plan.
They shouldn't create the plan, or fight over the plan once the child is in the womb.
What it comes down to is there is no real way to enforce a "If the father didn't want it than he shouldn't have to pay" because it would be pitting hearsay against hearsay, and "I said" against "she said" against "we agreed".
At the same time I do feel it is wrong that men get trapped into paying out money to a partner if they openly tell the person from the beginning that they don't want children, and if the women gets pregnant that she should either abort it or adopt it out. Sometimes a women can use that to thier advantage to gain money from thier sexual partners.
However there are somes things that the Gov't really needs to stay out of. What goes on behind closed doors in a bedroom of a couple, marriage(who can marry), and two sexual partners choices and plans with the chance of a unwanted pregnacy belongs out of court and in the hands of those who soley are affected.
That means that a group of people in good paying jobs shouldn't be choosing what is right and wrong with certain things.
For me this is one of those things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 8:11 am
If two people have sex, and a child results from that...
The mother can abort if she doesn't want it... or she can put it up for adoption...
The father has no such ability. He's stuck with parental responsibility, without necessarily gaining the parental rights that go to the mother automaticially.
MORE than a little unfair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 2:44 pm
If you don't pay child support payments you go to jail. My mom is a public defender for those that don't pay child support.
The courts, indeed, are not fair to men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 11:12 pm
Personally, I figure that if a guy has a kid with a girl and he doesn't want to be involved, then... sever his parental rights to the child, deny him visitation, etc, and don't make him pay support. This seems perfectly simple to me. If the father doesn't want to be a part of the child's life in any way, including the payment of support, then DON'T MAKE HIM.
The courts and reproduction in general are indeed very unfair to men. I just recently was told a story about a man who was sleeping with a girl who assured him that she couldn't get pregnant because she had had a hysterectomy and after about a year of them sleeping together she got pregnant because he'd stopped using condoms since, hey, there's no way she can get pregnant if she doesn't have a uterus, right? And the guy will very probably end up having to pay child support for a kid he didn't think it was possible to even conceive. :/
And people wonder why the #1 cause of death in pregnant women is murder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 3:26 pm
I do think measures need to be taken to protect the interests of the father. I do think there should be some kind of contract that will allow a man to absolve himself from the child if the child is unwanted, and the woman decides she wants to keep it.
And before anyone starts yelling that abortion is murder, and that if both are willing to engadge in sex, then both should take responsibility for the child, I'd like to say that if a woman is with child she can abort without the father's consent. If the mother can decide to abort against the father's will, she is claiming the child is hers and hers alone. Therefore, keeping the child is her choice and hers alone. If a man is truely powerless in the descision of whether the child lives or dies, why should he be forced to be responsible for a life he has no power over?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 12:21 pm
This is just me, but I think abortion is wrong. If I got pregnant, I would not abort the child under any circumstances. No, the father's rights are not protected. Therefore, I could legally get the father to pay me for having a child until said child is 18, and refuse to let him have anything to do with his child except for the money. This is wrong. But, on the flip side of the coin, if he were the one choosing the child's fate, he could force me to abort (murder) it, which would be violating my rights. Fathers should get visitation rights. If they want it, they should have the right to partial custody. The only exceptions to these rights would be abusive fathers, and children born of rape (however improbable it would be that the rapist would want the child). However, there is no way that this issue can be resolved without both parents agreeing on something, and it should not be under a general law for everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 3:55 pm
Laitha This is just me, but I think abortion is wrong. If I got pregnant, I would not abort the child under any circumstances. No, the father's rights are not protected. Therefore, I could legally get the father to pay me for having a child until said child is 18, and refuse to let him have anything to do with his child except for the money. This is wrong. But, on the flip side of the coin, if he were the one choosing the child's fate, he could force me to abort (murder) it, which would be violating my rights. Fathers should get visitation rights. If they want it, they should have the right to partial custody. The only exceptions to these rights would be abusive fathers, and children born of rape (however improbable it would be that the rapist would want the child). However, there is no way that this issue can be resolved without both parents agreeing on something, and it should not be under a general law for everyone.
You wouldn't have an abortion, that's up to you. As long as you don't try and violate the rights of other women by telling them they can't control what goes on in their own bodies, that they shouldn't be allowed to decide in whether they keep an unwanted child or not.
However, i'm not here to debate abortion.
It depends. I think it's a father's moral duty to support his child financially, whether wanted or not. However, should it be his legal duty? If he cared, then it wouldn't be unwanted, therefore the moral of supporting his child would not affect him. But is this a reason keep it legal for income support to be paid? Perhaps it should be looked at on a case-by-case basis, for example the man himself may be on benefits/unemployed and can barely afford to feed himself. In that case, it would not be fair on him to make him pay support.
In most cases, the father is not poor. But if he wanted to abort the child and the mother was intent on keeping it, she's made the choice for her to keep it. She had the option of abortion, and not having the expense of a child, and she turned it down. You could say she chose to have to spend a lot of money when she chose to keep that child.
On the other hand, if a guy is going to have sex he should realise what could entail from it and be prepared to pay for the consequences if they arise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 8:19 am
Well, lets just get out of the way that I'm against abortion. I doubt anyone is looking for an abortion debate, so we'll just leave it at that and not mention the topic again in this post.
Now, if the father were to keep the child instead of the mother, which does happen, she would have to pay support also. Child support is not something that only occurs with males, mothers do indeed have to pay it too. Hell, when I was a child I was raised by my Grandparents and both parents were ordered to pay support. Of course, neither of them did, people who abandon their children usually aren't the most responsible of human beings. What I'm getting at here is that if males were to be able to choose if they wanted to pay support either parent should be since it isn't just a male issue. Either parent who doesn't want to raise the child should be able to opt. out without having to completely lose the child for the other parent if that law was passed.
However, I do think males lack rights in the area of pregnancy and children. Some of that can't really be helped. The woman is the one who has to deal with the pregnancy, so you can't really expect her to totally share the decisions about that time with the male. Once the child pops out, though, you'd think things would be split up easier. The mother almost always wins the custody battle unless she happens to be a raging crack whore or something extreme. If she wants to up and move across state with the male counterparts three kids he usually can't do much about it. That isn't really fair to a male. I think its sort of sad that the big issue here is males trying to get out of their responsibilities with a little "hey, we don't have as much rights to our kids" tacked on instead of that being the main issue, honestly. I think both parents should be responsible and pay up when the other is raising the kid, but I think both parents should have equal rights too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 2:26 pm
If a man and a woman create a child, they both have a responsibility towards it. If they both agree to abort it, they can. Otherwise, you take it to term - anything else is denying the legal ownership that both parents have. This obviously leads to the assertion that you must pay child support. You didn't care enough to prevent the child from entering this world, so you have to pay the consequences for that stupidity.
This argument, of course, hinges on the belief that both parents have equal ownership over a child. If you feel that the mother has ultimate ownership over her child (such as if you feel that a mother can choose to abort even if the father objects), then the male has no obligation towards it.
You really have to pick one or the other. Either both parents' approval is required to abort and the guy has to support the kid, or the mother can abort on her own and the guy doesn't have to support the kid.
I would be open to hearing any arguments to the contrary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:10 pm
((Warning, this is rather dumb.
Maybe not dumb, but
it was around 4 am when I was writing this and I never posted. o.x Luckily I didn't close the browser either xD I probably phrase things oddly in it.
But I try. ))
Okay, so this is kinda more me rambling than disagreeing or arguing or anything. xD
Basically, what you argued as a situation of equal rights doesn't really give both parents' equal ownership. Instead of the alternative you give of the female having ultimate ownership, it's letting whoever wants to keep the child have ultimate ownership.
" If they both agree to abort it, they can. Otherwise, you take it to term - anything else is denying the legal ownership that both parents have. "
That is the argument that if one parent wants the child then the child must be born. It's saying that the 'pro-life' choice is held higher as the correct course in the event of disagreement. It's "If one parent wants the child to be born, the mother has to carry the child to term. The right of one parent to keep the child is valued first over the right to abort."
If a woman being able to abort even if the father objects means she has "ultimate ownership" then a woman NOT being able to abort because the father objects, means he has "ultimate ownership". Those are two options. I would say that there is also the option of ownership by whoever wants the child aborted and ownership by whoever wants to keep the child. I think the 'equality' example given is really ownership by whoever wants to keep the child because one side has precedence just like in the case when the mother has ultimate ownership.
It's a question of does it matter or not that one party doesn't have the ultimate decision.
Currently, the situation is female ultimate ownership but males still have to pay support. Thus the problem. The equivalent to this problem, but under a system of ultimate ownership by who keeps the child, would be the example mother wanting to abort but having to have the child and pay the father support even though he wanted to keep the child not her.
I guess the question ends up like - because you are responsible for creating the child, are you responsible to pay even if you do not have ultimate ownership? Paying support, I think, can also change though if the person who doesn't keep the child still wants visitation and contact.
There's a ton of options.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 10:54 pm
Quote: That is the argument that if one parent wants the child then the child must be born. It's saying that the 'pro-life' choice is held higher as the correct course in the event of disagreement. It's "If one parent wants the child to be born, the mother has to carry the child to term. The right of one parent to keep the child is valued first over the right to abort." Nope. It's simply the argument that life requires a partnership to create, and so should require a partnership to destroy. See below for further exploration of this topic. Quote: If a woman being able to abort even if the father objects means she has "ultimate ownership" then a woman NOT being able to abort because the father objects, means he has "ultimate ownership". No. The father doesn't have ultimate ownership unless *he* can abort against the mother's will. If the mother requires the father's approval to abort, and vice versa, it means that the ownership is shared. You require an agreement before you can take any major actions. It's like a business partnership. Quote: I guess the question ends up like - because you are responsible for creating the child, are you responsible to pay even if you do not have ultimate ownership? Yup. As I said, the ownership of the child is shared between the partners, which means that both are responsible. Of course, this grants certain right to both parties, no matter who keeps the child (if they separate). They should, of course, have the ability to mutually end the partnership and give up ownership rights to one or the other. The person who loses rights wouldn't have to pay support (as they mutually agreed to give all responsibility to the other party), but they also wouldn't have any rights to visitation or anything. Again, the model I'm following is that of a business partnership. Having sex isn't an issue to be taken lightly - it has very important and very real consequences. This is why we need further research into improving contraceptives. Every child deserves a loving family. The less unplanned children we can produce, the better. Man, I really need to put an "I'm not as arrogant as I sound." line into my sig, don't'cha think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
