Rhombus
Bluelighter
Baron said:
I do see your point but this comes a little close to advocating forced (or at least encouraged) abortion, which is pretty much unconscionable and leads down very dark paths indeed.
-
-
SLR Moderators: Senior Staff
Question: Do men have the right NOT to be fathers?
- Thread starter Raz
- Start date
I do see your point but this comes a little close to advocating forced (or at least encouraged) abortion, which is pretty much unconscionable and leads down very dark paths indeed.
Good one. Yeah, not really.
Okay, I'm burning inside in eager anticipation as to who would be very offended by someone denying that comparison.
Could it be someone who was actually considered disposable property? No, surely that couldn't be it.
Okay, I'm burning inside in eager anticipation as to who would be very offended by someone denying that comparison.
Could it be someone who was actually considered disposable property? No, surely that couldn't be it.
I would be able to agree with you, posner, if there were proper audits done of precisely where the money goes. If any of it goes, in any way, shape or form, to the mother, then I would like to see some fraud charges placed against her. But as there aren't these audits done, we aren't certain who is subsidizing what. There are certainly reported instances of abuse of this system all over the place, though.
Let me refer you to the cry and hue which was raised when Georgia put into place a law saying that both parents will pay precisely equal according to the child's needs.
http://www.gachildsupport.org/modul...&POSTNUKESID=8ac4cfc6b77982138e4a0c4b6600024e
Some quotes:
The new system of calculating child support could reduce the payments for many noncustodial parents, most of whom are men. The law mandates that child support be calculated based on the incomes of both parents, unlike the existing system that focuses mainly on the income of the parent who does not have custody.
The law passed last year established the new method of calculating child support and set the start date as July 1, 2006. It also included a "parenting time" adjustment that would give the noncustodial parent a reduction on child support if the parent spends a certain amount of time with the children.
Noncustodial parents with upper-middle incomes and above will be the most affected. Lower-income parents might see slight increases in their payments. About 85 percent of custodial parents are women, according to the U.S. Census.
A critical part of the new bill is the calculation table that figures the cost of providing children with basic needs. That cost would be divided between the parents based on their incomes.
The court would then factor in the costs of health care and day care and could also consider the costs of activities such as dance lessons, football camp and swimming instruction.
Focus Family Story
Alison and Zachary Holladay divorced more than three years ago, but the tension between them these days is crackling like two crossed wires.
Zachary, a manager for a high- tech company, plans to petition the court to reduce his payments, since he believes his child support order of $2,800 a month is more than his ex-wife needs, or spends, on the children.
Alison, who has custody of the children, says the changes will unfairly reduce her support and will force her to sell her home and cut into the children's lifestyle.
The measure has been largely supported by noncustodial fathers in groups such as Georgians for Child Support Reform. Zachary Holladay has joined that group and he expects to file for a reduction in his child support on "Day One" of the new law.
He expects his child support to drop from about $2,800 a month to $1,500.
"The tables have turned," he said. "This is going to be a major equalizer."
Holladay, an event planner who earns far less than her former husband, said that when she saw her numbers, she was shocked. She expects his child support may drop by about half, and he agrees.
"I was devastated for me," she said. "I was devastated for my children."
She said she would have to sell her home and cut back on her children's' activities.
Zachary Holladay disagrees with his former wife on this point.
Let me refer you to the cry and hue which was raised when Georgia put into place a law saying that both parents will pay precisely equal according to the child's needs.
http://www.gachildsupport.org/modul...&POSTNUKESID=8ac4cfc6b77982138e4a0c4b6600024e
Some quotes:
The new system of calculating child support could reduce the payments for many noncustodial parents, most of whom are men. The law mandates that child support be calculated based on the incomes of both parents, unlike the existing system that focuses mainly on the income of the parent who does not have custody.
The law passed last year established the new method of calculating child support and set the start date as July 1, 2006. It also included a "parenting time" adjustment that would give the noncustodial parent a reduction on child support if the parent spends a certain amount of time with the children.
Noncustodial parents with upper-middle incomes and above will be the most affected. Lower-income parents might see slight increases in their payments. About 85 percent of custodial parents are women, according to the U.S. Census.
A critical part of the new bill is the calculation table that figures the cost of providing children with basic needs. That cost would be divided between the parents based on their incomes.
The court would then factor in the costs of health care and day care and could also consider the costs of activities such as dance lessons, football camp and swimming instruction.
Focus Family Story
Alison and Zachary Holladay divorced more than three years ago, but the tension between them these days is crackling like two crossed wires.
Zachary, a manager for a high- tech company, plans to petition the court to reduce his payments, since he believes his child support order of $2,800 a month is more than his ex-wife needs, or spends, on the children.
Alison, who has custody of the children, says the changes will unfairly reduce her support and will force her to sell her home and cut into the children's lifestyle.
The measure has been largely supported by noncustodial fathers in groups such as Georgians for Child Support Reform. Zachary Holladay has joined that group and he expects to file for a reduction in his child support on "Day One" of the new law.
He expects his child support to drop from about $2,800 a month to $1,500.
"The tables have turned," he said. "This is going to be a major equalizer."
Holladay, an event planner who earns far less than her former husband, said that when she saw her numbers, she was shocked. She expects his child support may drop by about half, and he agrees.
"I was devastated for me," she said. "I was devastated for my children."
She said she would have to sell her home and cut back on her children's' activities.
Zachary Holladay disagrees with his former wife on this point.
I think if a woman was keeping money intended for the child and using it for her own personal enjoyment she should be penalized.
Besides, your central points are being obfuscated by the discussion of whether the child support goes in part to the mother. Stick with your other points.
Besides, your central points are being obfuscated by the discussion of whether the child support goes in part to the mother. Stick with your other points.
Last edited:
kittyinthedark
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
- Messages
- 10,887
The problem that all you men are completely neglecting is how many of your asshole brethren would simply walk away if given the opportunity, and the fucking insane biological consequences of becoming pregnant and birthing a child. If the baby is truly a mistake, why should the financial burden fall squarely on the woman when the child is born? And like someone mentioned before, suggesting that the woman has the "option" to abort is tantamount to supporting forced abortion. Say that the woman won't get an abortion for religious or medical reasons, not because she actually wants to have the kid. The biological implications for a woman are drastic, because carrying a baby to term and then giving it up is among the most painful, stressful, and damaging things a woman can do. Far more so than simply having an abortion. The damages argument comes back into play here as well. If men could simply say, "Oh, I didn't want it, so I'm not paying for it," think of how many women would be stuck just because they happen to be the gender that carries offspring. Why shouldn't the woman be able to say, "Sorry, I didn't want it either" and then force the man to raise the child on his own time and money? It's the exact same situation.
As far as I'm concerned, the answer to those situations should be that the baby is given up for adoption and the man helps with pregnancy costs, but unfortunately most people seem to forget that option. I mean, inevitably the woman is screwed and there's no way to make up for it if she gets pregnant and can't or won't abort, so the whole man vs. woman argument is kinda dumb - once you're pregnant you just have to deal with it, and you can't pay yourself damages, nor should the man have to pay you damages for a mistake that was equally of your doing (the pregnancy, not raising the child).
As far as I'm concerned, the answer to those situations should be that the baby is given up for adoption and the man helps with pregnancy costs, but unfortunately most people seem to forget that option. I mean, inevitably the woman is screwed and there's no way to make up for it if she gets pregnant and can't or won't abort, so the whole man vs. woman argument is kinda dumb - once you're pregnant you just have to deal with it, and you can't pay yourself damages, nor should the man have to pay you damages for a mistake that was equally of your doing (the pregnancy, not raising the child).
Again, it boils down to choices. You said it yourself. If the woman can't or won't. There are very very few medical reasons to not abort, so it boils down to a won't. That's a personal choice. And yes, I have no problem with a man walking away after the contract was signed, pre-sex (if such a thing would ever be legally allowable, which it isn't at the moment), if she then decides that she feels she needs to give birth to it. As to why the financial burden should fall on the woman, that would go back to the idea of she is the one choosing to have it. Personal choices should bring upon them the personal assumption of risk and obligation. If she chooses it and he doesn't, then I don't see why she shouldn't.
But to be magnanimous, because it IS an option, include the pregnancy fees and adoptive fees on the contract as an option if the guy agrees. Why not? Give everyone as many choices as they can. But I appreciate the fact that you're looking at this from a more objective perspective than I've seen elsewhere, and not just "Women have to have the babies and all men have to pay for it!" viewpoint, which is particularly counterproductive.
But to be magnanimous, because it IS an option, include the pregnancy fees and adoptive fees on the contract as an option if the guy agrees. Why not? Give everyone as many choices as they can. But I appreciate the fact that you're looking at this from a more objective perspective than I've seen elsewhere, and not just "Women have to have the babies and all men have to pay for it!" viewpoint, which is particularly counterproductive.
posner said:
And that's the point of this particular lawsuit. That these are things which need to be examined, and hopefully ARE being examined. Perhaps childbirth should be within the scope of torts and mitigation of damages. At the moment, the laws are in place in order to "protect the child," in name, but in order to keep the State from paying for the child in fact. The "Great Society" tried giving checks to poverty-stricken single moms. Then when that led to a boom in illegitimate births, they decided to collect the money they sent the moms from the dads.
The fact, as I think we both are in agreement, is that the women have all of the options once it's a fait accompli. Abstinence programs don't work. I can't see any reasons for a woman to hold a man hostage over her own personal choice when for so long there have been legislations freeing women from men's personal choices and demands. Essentially, in my opinion, it boils down to a hostage-taking.
At one point, "being a man" meant walking calmly to the firing squad, but if it were me being led to a sunny pole and a cigarette, you can bet I'd be fighting to take them down with me. "Being a man," by paying for unwanted children does nothing but empower women to continue to see men as nothing more than checkbooks for their own personal agendas.
As to your particular comment about veering off-track, that was only to answer your hypothetical question, though it seems we got to an accordance after-the-fact.
Baron said:
I don't know. This type of stuff doesn't happen much. You are using all of this revolutionary rhetoric for something that happens far less than some would suggest.
Second of all, what do you propose? Anything short of forcing a women to have an abortion negatively impacts the child, which I think we can agree, is something no one wants. After all, the child is the lone innocent in all of this (although some may disagree as to the level of culpability associated with the man).
Also, mitigation of damages applies to contract law not tort law.
posner said:
I think the frequency of happening isn't necessarily something which should preclude the examination of the current situation from happening. The fact that it happens at all is enough. The case of the woman who saved the semen from a used condom to inseminate herself and then received child support from the result. The frequent cases of "oops" where a woman "forgets" to take her birth control, or pokes holes in condoms and boom, it's a daddy.
I've already made my proposition. Give both people their options up front. Make this part of contract law (I stand corrected) and give those who wish the opportunity to sign the pre-sex contract before engaging in intimacy. If the woman chooses to continue with the pregnancy, that's her choice, but one that the man, if pre-signed, chooses to have no part of, will remain no part of. She knows going into the entire situation that she will not have her get-out-of-jail-free card, and if she chooses to have the child, that's her own lookout, frankly. The blame falls directly on her at that point. If she can't take care of it, well, I guess foster care is her child's lot, unless she has family to assist. With everything on the table, there's no reason to cry "deadbeat," or any of that, since it was all decided before the fact.
I'm surprised the opposite side hasn't been brought up, frankly. That of the man who wants to be a father, but the woman says no way.
QuestionEverything
Bluelight Crew
That was brought up, on page one for sure, and I'm sure it was mentioned elsewhere.
The problem with that is then you give men control over someone else's body, that's just not realistic. If a man wants to have a baby he should plan it out, not get a girl pregnant on accident then expect her to have the baby.
Mariposa
Bluelight Crew
That kind of contract wouldn't stand up to any level of scrutiny, in ANY court. It could also be argued that it was signed under duress (come on, how many of you are in top mental form when you're horny 
). The idea is totally ludicrous and if a guy put a contract like that in front of me, I'd laugh him out of my bedroom. Contracts *outline* rights and responsibilities - not take away or absolve. The idea is contrary to common law.
Perhaps if a man doesn't want an accident, he should be the one taking the precautions.
I couldn't imagine having a baby without a loving, supportive partner and I am pro-choice, but if my opinion changed as a result of having an accident, then I would expect him to pay his obligations in accordance with the law. I would also expect to work to support my child, and if I made more money than he did, I would expect to pay a higher amount toward my child's care.
). The idea is totally ludicrous and if a guy put a contract like that in front of me, I'd laugh him out of my bedroom. Contracts *outline* rights and responsibilities - not take away or absolve. The idea is contrary to common law.Perhaps if a man doesn't want an accident, he should be the one taking the precautions.
I couldn't imagine having a baby without a loving, supportive partner and I am pro-choice, but if my opinion changed as a result of having an accident, then I would expect him to pay his obligations in accordance with the law. I would also expect to work to support my child, and if I made more money than he did, I would expect to pay a higher amount toward my child's care.
LvMkngFlwrChld
Bluelighter
pregnancy is like the crappiest std ever because though neither partner has it to begin with they both have to deal with that shit.
LoveAlways
Bluelighter
"I can't get pregnant"
That sneaky bitch.
I don't have time to respond thoroughly. All I have time to say now is-guys and girls alike watch out for those certain people that are selfish enough to want a child no matter the consequences of who gets hurt, or who has to pay for it...
I'll come back to this after work. Interesting discussion
That sneaky bitch.
I don't have time to respond thoroughly. All I have time to say now is-guys and girls alike watch out for those certain people that are selfish enough to want a child no matter the consequences of who gets hurt, or who has to pay for it...
I'll come back to this after work. Interesting discussion
mariposa420 said:That kind of contract wouldn't stand up to any level of scrutiny, in ANY court. It could also be argued that it was signed under duress (come on, how many of you are in top mental form when you're horny
Perhaps if a man doesn't want an accident, he should be the one taking the precautions.
I agree, but we've already talked about all of this ad nauseum. Also, it wouldn't matter whether a contract was signed under duress or anything of that nature. Any contract made signing responsibility away would be held void as a matter of law.
I think he is talking less about how it is and more about how he feels it should be.
Sticky Green
Bluelighter
^^not true. Under duress, contract is void, but then we would be talking about rape. Horniness does not equate duress.
Sticky Green said:
What? That's not what I was talking about. I was talking about the fact that even if there could be a duress claim it would be irrelevant.
Also, contracts are not void because of situations of duress. They can be rendered unenforceable, which is not the same thing.
QuestionEverything
Bluelight Crew
I don't want to get into the whole child support debate because it's off topic, but child support IS based on BOTH parent's income, in my state at least, and every one I've checked out so far. I made more than the father of my first child did and he paid $50 a month child support, that's not even enough for basic child care.
This whole debate IMO still boils down to men taking responsibility for their own choices. Even if a woman is not honest and lies, isn't it still his responsibility to make SURE something he doesn't want isn't an issue? If you're going to put yourself at risk then you have to be willing to accept the consequences.
Personally, if the father of my child was like that one I would gladly allow him to sign away his parental rights and give up the child support in return for never having such a poor excuse for a human being around my child ever again. I would never FORCE someone to be a 'father', you just can't do it.
This whole debate IMO still boils down to men taking responsibility for their own choices. Even if a woman is not honest and lies, isn't it still his responsibility to make SURE something he doesn't want isn't an issue? If you're going to put yourself at risk then you have to be willing to accept the consequences.
Personally, if the father of my child was like that one I would gladly allow him to sign away his parental rights and give up the child support in return for never having such a poor excuse for a human being around my child ever again. I would never FORCE someone to be a 'father', you just can't do it.
Sticky Green
Bluelighter
I guess I was responding both to your post Posner and Mariposa's at the same time.
Posner, you said: Also, it wouldn't matter whether a contract was signed under duress or anything of that nature. Any contract made signing responsibility away would be held void as a matter of law.
This is what I am debating with you. If any contract is signed (oral or written) under duress, it is voidable by the victim. Disclaimers often waive responsibility and are valid.
Posner, you said: Also, it wouldn't matter whether a contract was signed under duress or anything of that nature. Any contract made signing responsibility away would be held void as a matter of law.
This is what I am debating with you. If any contract is signed (oral or written) under duress, it is voidable by the victim. Disclaimers often waive responsibility and are valid.
No. absolving yourself of responsibility in taking care of any future child is void as a matter of public policy.
Even in an extreme situation such as one in which a woman held a gun to a guy's head and told him to fuck her because she wanted a child and did, the man would likely still have to pay child support.
He may then later be able to sue for damages, but maybe not because it might be seen as a subsidy for his child support. I know that sounds crazy but so is such a hypothetical.
There would, of course, be criminal penalties in that situation though.
Please explain to me what you mean by disclaimers waiving responsibility because in this situation, as I understand you to mean, a court of law would not uphold any such disclaimer.
Even in an extreme situation such as one in which a woman held a gun to a guy's head and told him to fuck her because she wanted a child and did, the man would likely still have to pay child support.
He may then later be able to sue for damages, but maybe not because it might be seen as a subsidy for his child support. I know that sounds crazy but so is such a hypothetical.
There would, of course, be criminal penalties in that situation though.
Please explain to me what you mean by disclaimers waiving responsibility because in this situation, as I understand you to mean, a court of law would not uphold any such disclaimer.