Abolish Child Support

[Montrealonmymind]

I did not read all the threads either but the end I think child support should exist even if there are flaws and of course I do feel for the men who fall between the cracks of our flawed system. But the alternative of abolishing child support is much too gross for me to fathom. In a fair society where there were no positions of powers among genders and where all men and women were educated and in agreement about fairness especially when it comes to the rights of "children: we could actually begin to talk about removing/changing rules that people don't agree on. I work in the community sector where I have had to convince women to stand up for their rights and some are so used to being in a lower position of power that some of them don't fight and the children and how they end up is the most heart breaking. But I am not only talking about 'poor' people - there is still a disposition of power between men and women in all classes - we haven't come far. There are also judges that lean towards a certain mentality but they can't get away with making a decision based on ideology because that would be against the law. Because there is corruption in different ways at all levels and that we don't live in a perfect world I beleive we need to keep child support. If we can review the system to make it better as some of you have suggested that would be great....but that would be a first and LONGGGG step...but abolishing child support is not an option with the current condition of women and children in our society.

[Lauxa]

@Dan:

I did google "joseph michael ocasio" and found the details of that case are a bit different than the hypothetical situation in that the paternity issue wasn't raised for many years (13 years after the birth of the child).

Ocasio

I also thought income was a factor and that if Dad got a paycut he could file a motion to have his payments decreased?

Anyways, perhaps this situation is plausible and perhaps not, it probably depends a lot on the judges involved. The court could order a DNA test done and the mother would have to submit.

That's not to say the laws shouldn't be changed, just that this scenario is probably a bit over the top.

[Kanzeon]

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

What are the errors in this argument, if any?

Start here:

Divorce makes men - and particularly fathers - significantly richer. When a father separates from the mother of his children, according to new research, his available income increases by around one third. Women, in contrast, suffer severe financial penalties. Regardless of whether she has children, the average woman's income falls by more than a fifth and remains low for many years....

"The general belief that men get fleeced by their divorces while women get richer and live off the proceeds has long been due for exposure as a pernicious myth," said Ruth Smallacombe, a family consultant at Flip. "In reality, women often suffer economic hardship when they divorce. In addition, the resentment caused by unfair financial settlements has many knock-on effects, damaging ongoing relationships with former spouses and a woman's ability to move on with her life."

Jenkins's research found that the incomes of "separating husbands" rise "immediately and continuously" in the years following a marital split. "The differences between the sexes are stark," he said. "But this is not so much a gender thing as a parent thing. The key differences are not between men and women, but between fathers and mothers."

Men become richer after divorce | Life and style | The Observer

This is a UK study, but the same results obtain in the United States. Single motherhood puts millions of women into poverty: child support puts almost no men into poverty.

It is relatively easy for the person not carrying the fetus, and not going through hormonal changes, and who bears no risk of the medical procedure or its complications, to decide surgery is in everyone's best interests.

It would be nice if everything in life could be tidy. Sex and relationships are not. The woman who bears the child against the father's will isn't granted some sort of free bonus. The man doesn't endure some insurrmountable penalty. Among the injustices in life, the burden on men from not having a surgical opt-out for unwanted children is minute.

[Dreamline]

I haven't read all these posts but my take on this issue is simple:

A man, by agreeing to sexual intercourse, is agreeing to gift his sperm to a particular woman. In that exchange, the man loses his rights to whatever happens with those sperm. End of story. You give, you accept.

He always has the opportunity to wear a condom and NOT gift his sperm with the caveat that condoms are not 100% effective. He also has the right to not have intercourse at all. He has the right to only have intercourse with a partner that he is certain is properly using the most effective birth control possible.

If biology was fair, there would be male birth control that is just as easy and reliable as female birth control. If biology was fair, our primal impulses would always take 2nd place to our common sense. If biology was fair, a male/female couple would have a 50/50 shot of either one of them getting pregnant in any encounter.

Biology is not fair. But you can choose to not gift your sperm but most men would rather have sex and worry about what happens to his sperm later. Whining about it after the fact is lame. Be careful who you gift your sperm to or accept the consequences.

Jennifer

[Orecle]

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

I would like to ask a related question to abortion that never seems to get addressed. It is largely based on my own experience, but I think there are many men who would agree with me.

The argument for abortion is that a woman has rights over her own body and that another person (i.e. men) have no say whether a woman goes to term with a baby or not.

Ok. If that is true, why does that same woman have rights over a man's income if she chooses to take that baby to term? If a man has no say in her bearing a child, why is he potentially obligated for 18 years to pay her to raise that child? Or do anything else with that child?

If the counter-argument is that a man makes his choice at the time he chooses to have sex with a woman, then the same restriction on a woman should apply. She makes her choice when she decides to have sex with a man. I don't think that scenario would be beneficial to either the woman or the man.

What I see is that we are playing both sides of the issue when it comes to reproductive rights, and the ball always lands on the woman's side of the court. Feminists want to get rid of the traditional family because it is repressive to women. But on the other hand, they want men to take responsibility for a child that is fitting to their traditional role in a family.

If it is voluntary for a woman to decide whether she wants to have a baby, I think it should be voluntary for a man to support her decision to have that baby.

What are the errors in this argument, if any?

Thanks

2 wrongs dont make a right. Even if a man parts with a portion of his pay cheque, he doesnt go through anywhere near what the mother goes through in terms of time, effort, energy or even money. His career progression is not hampered, like the mothers is. This is too serious to be sorted out by contractual agreements. This is life we are talking about.

How many married men cheat on their wives, then try and get the woman to have an abortion? How many irresponsible men have unwanted kids with one then go and have another unwanted child a few mths later?

The fact is sex is the single most pleasurable act ever. Most of us enjoy it immensely. Ever wondered why so many starving children in the world, even though their parents could just about afford to take care of themselves? and in many countries cannot take care of themselve?

The fact is ALL US MEN KNOW, prior to having sex, that once the seed is laid in the woman, it is out of our hands. Just as people know once you put your money in an investment, once in freefall it is out of your hands unless you can find a buyer. In child birth unless a woman agrees to an abotion its out of your hands.

SO WATCH WHO YOU LAY WITH, FIRSTTTTT!!!!!!!!

If I jump of the roof, once mid air unless I can find something to break my fall, I am up **** creek.

In my parents country where child support is not enforcable, the amount of married men having children out of wedlock, and not acknowledging them is staggering.In many cases the man wines and dines the woman (usually a teen or early 20 something) then dissapears when she is pregnant, then eiether disappears or has an attack of conscience when the child is 18.


People can talk about us men being tricked, but the fact is Aids and other diseases do not discriminate on intentions. This is not a case of buyers remorse. Before people have sex, we know the risks. Condoms split, women lie about contraception (I have had that happen to me too) but the fact is you knew before hand. Be a man and face the consequences. Carry your own condoms

I personally know how scary it is, to almost have a child you are not ready for, but the fact is YOU CHOSE TO HAVE SEX. The crazy thing is you will think that would deter people, but it doesnt. I personally know many men who duck financial responsibilty for 2 - 3 children mothered by women they dont like.

How many teens who cant support one child, go on to parent more a few yrs, sometimes months later.

Fact is, reasons do not alter facts. Once a man lays his seed in a woman, it is out of his hands, IT HAS BEEN THIS WAY, FROM THE DAWN OF MAN, BEFORE ABORTION WAS INVENTED. If a man can look himself in the mirror, and chose not to pay for his own offspring, for whatever reason, then thats his choice to bear.

If you dont pay for your child, somebody else will. whether that is society through taxes or charity.

[Orecle]

Originally Posted by Dreamline

I haven't read all these posts but my take on this issue is simple:

A man, by agreeing to sexual intercourse, is agreeing to gift his sperm to a particular woman. In that exchange, the man loses his rights to whatever happens with those sperm. End of story. You give, you accept.

He always has the opportunity to wear a condom and NOT gift his sperm with the caveat that condoms are not 100% effective. He also has the right to not have intercourse at all. He has the right to only have intercourse with a partner that he is certain is properly using the most effective birth control possible.

If biology was fair, there would be male birth control that is just as easy and reliable as female birth control. If biology was fair, our primal impulses would always take 2nd place to our common sense. If biology was fair, a male/female couple would have a 50/50 shot of either one of them getting pregnant in any encounter.

Biology is not fair. But you can choose to not gift your sperm but most men would rather have sex and worry about what happens to his sperm later. Whining about it after the fact is lame. Be careful who you gift your sperm to or accept the consequences.

Jennifer

I 2nd this post.
How many of you have the guts to look a 10 yr old in the face and say " I didnt want you in the first place, so I shouldnt have to pay for you.......yes I did pay for your half brothers and sisters, but I wanted them so thats different..... Well I told your mum to abort you, so why should I pay for you" Could you do it to a 5 yr old, or an 18 yr old?

If you have ever seen a 3 - 13 yr old go through a period, of "Wheres my Daddy, or how come everbody has a Dad but me, or I guess my Daddy doesnt love me" you will know paying a bit of money, is not as much of an inconvenience as the child or the mother faces raising the mans child on her own. In many cases the same guy who doesnt want to pay for the unwanted kid, go's on to pay for the kids with the woman he is with.

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by funchy

I think you're right. There should be some provision for a man to sign away his parental rights (and all obligations such as child support) the moment the woman knows she is pregant. I agree it's not fair women to want 100% of the decision not to adopt out or abort but they can demand child support. It isn't fair.
...

What does fairness to man or woman have got to do with the issue?

Child support is paid for the child by the parent who can afford it. The parents created the child and are therefore obliged to pay for the child. Don't make it more complicated than that.

If as a man you don't want to end up in a situation involving child support, don't make her pregnant. If you do, face the consequences.

If as a woman you don't want to end up in a situation involving child support, don't get pregnant. If you do, face the consequences.

Abortion is not the issue here. Getting pregnant or getting your partner pregnant and behaving like a responsible if unwilling parent is the issue.

BTW I am pro choice with respect to abortion. But linking abortion with child support is repulsive to me.

[floslib]

I think Angela's solution, as outlined in the beginning of the thread, is likely the most fair and workable that can be come up with in our current society. At least, I can't think of a better one.

Originally Posted by spirit4711

What does fairness to man or woman have got to do with the issue?

Child support is paid for the child by the parent who can afford it. The parents created the child and are therefore obliged to pay for the child. Don't make it more complicated than that.

If as a man you don't want to end up in a situation involving child support, don't make her pregnant. If you do, face the consequences.

If as a woman you don't want to end up in a situation involving child support, don't get pregnant. If you do, face the consequences.

Abortion is not the issue here. Getting pregnant or getting your partner pregnant and behaving like a responsible if unwilling parent is the issue.

BTW I am pro choice with respect to abortion. But linking abortion with child support is repulsive to me.

The problem is that in practice, abortion is linked to child support. A woman can choose to abort a pregnancy for financial reasons. A man can not, because it's not his body, and therefore not ultimately his decision. In an ideal world, a man would be involved in such a decision, even if eventually overruled, and in many cases he is involved. Sometimes, he is not, either by his choice or sometimes because the woman isn't open to listening to what he has to say.

In any case, the fact remains a woman can choose to give up her rights and responsibilities to the child, but if she doesn't choose to do so, she can force the man to keep his responsibilities to the child, and he may or may not have his rights to the child. This is the nature of the imbalance that needs correction.

Incidentally, on a related note, if a man gets custody of a child, he has to fight the system to get any child support out of the woman. I know, because I've personally seen two different cases in which a woman was ordered to pay a man I know, and she refused on grounds of not earning enough. When brought to court, she was ordered, again, to pay, and still refused. No legal action was taken, no wages were pulled from her paycheck, no contempt of court charges were filed. Men in this position end up bent over by the system with their wages garnished, contempt charges filed, and possible jail time. Either men need to be granted the same clemency as women, or women need to be treated as harshly as men. As it is now, the legal system is out of balance.

Personally, I'm in favor of either abolishing the child support system, or seriously retooling it to be fair to both men and women. In the second case, I really think we would need to start from scratch, outlining the rights of the man, woman, and child involved, then drafting a system that could support all of those rights as fairly as possible. In addition, the court system should never receive a cut of child support, especially a percentage cut. When they get a cut, they have incentive to slap as many child support payments on people as they can. Without that cut, they can go back to being fair and impartial.

[sk8joyful]

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

The argument for abortion is that a woman has rights over her own body and
that another person (i.e. men) have no say whether a woman goes to term with a baby or not.

Ok. If a man has no say in her bearing a child, why is he potentially obligated for 18 years
to pay her to raise that child? Or do anything else with that child?

Feminists want to get rid of the traditional family because it is repressive to women.
But on the other hand, they want men to take responsibility for a child, that is fitting to their traditional role in a family.

If it is voluntary for a woman to decide whether she wants to have a baby,
I think it should be voluntary for a man to support her decision to have that baby.

What are the errors in this argument, if any?

Errors? - did you mean like rapists, pedophiliacs, feminists?, abortionists?, and related rot, no?

How about this for a solution: a man & a woman together with God,
making a committment-for-Life... soul, mind, body, including financial, Lovingly... birthing & training God's children here in mortality, so they may continue happily in eternity...

next discussion...

[James81]

As for the original post, I've used this arguement countless times in abortion debates and it's so funny to watch the people who are die-hard pro-choice use very pro-life structured arguements to deflect this line of thinking. It's very amusing for me to watch because I would think that if you are pro-choice, you should be pro-choice all the way.

As for the title of the thread (which I entered this thread thinking it was about something very different), I think child support need some serious revamping. Here's how I would do it:

1. ALL cases of child support are only set up upon a completion of a paternity test. No ifs, ands, or buts. Any woman who wants to receive child support should comply with allowing a paternity test to be taken. There are far too many cases out there where a man who isn't the father is paying the support and that is just fraud in my book. So neutralize that by cutting it off at the source.

2. Child support money should NOT be just a paycheck handed over to the mother (or, from what I understand, it's like a debit card they get nowadays I think) to do with what she pleases. There should be very clearcut distinctions that the money is to be used in ways that benefit the child. So here's how it should be doled out:

A. A portion of the money will be automatically forwarded to either the woman's rent or house payment. It won't even pass through her fingers.

B. A portion of the money will be automatically forwarded to utility bills (phone, electric, etc.). Again, the money doesn't even pass through her fingers. These two things are things that most directly affect the child, so they should be a priority on the child support list.

C. Another portion of the money would be relegated to a savings account for college and education expenses. Money withdrawn from this account before they hit college would need receipts to show where the money was spent (so that they could assure it was being spent on educational expenses).

D. The rest of the money would be doled out to her in a similar fashion as WIC is structured. There are specific things (diapers, wipes, clothes, food, etc.) that are on the "approved" list (give it a LOT of flexibility....it doesn't have to be a certain brand and it doesn't have to be stringient....it just needs to be 100% assured that she is not buying beer, cigs, or drugs or crap like that with it).

None of the above would require THAT much more overseeing. Once you got it in place, it would be pretty well automatically self-sustaining and the kids would benefit from ALL the money all the time, and it would assure that only the true father is paying for the child. The money should automatically be pulled from his paycheck. If a man doesn't have a job (or works for money under the table to avoid paying it), he should be thrown in jail.

[floslib]

Originally Posted by James81

As for the original post, I've used this arguement countless times in abortion debates and it's so funny to watch the people who are die-hard pro-choice use very pro-life structured arguements to deflect this line of thinking. It's very amusing for me to watch because I would think that if you are pro-choice, you should be pro-choice all the way.

As for the title of the thread (which I entered this thread thinking it was about something very different), I think child support need some serious revamping. Here's how I would do it:

1. ALL cases of child support are only set up upon a completion of a paternity test. No ifs, ands, or buts. Any woman who wants to receive child support should comply with allowing a paternity test to be taken. There are far too many cases out there where a man who isn't the father is paying the support and that is just fraud in my book. So neutralize that by cutting it off at the source.

2. Child support money should NOT be just a paycheck handed over to the mother (or, from what I understand, it's like a debit card they get nowadays I think) to do with what she pleases. There should be very clearcut distinctions that the money is to be used in ways that benefit the child. So here's how it should be doled out:

A. A portion of the money will be automatically forwarded to either the woman's rent or house payment. It won't even pass through her fingers.

B. A portion of the money will be automatically forwarded to utility bills (phone, electric, etc.). Again, the money doesn't even pass through her fingers. These two things are things that most directly affect the child, so they should be a priority on the child support list.

C. Another portion of the money would be relegated to a savings account for college and education expenses. Money withdrawn from this account before they hit college would need receipts to show where the money was spent (so that they could assure it was being spent on educational expenses).

D. The rest of the money would be doled out to her in a similar fashion as WIC is structured. There are specific things (diapers, wipes, clothes, food, etc.) that are on the "approved" list (give it a LOT of flexibility....it doesn't have to be a certain brand and it doesn't have to be stringient....it just needs to be 100% assured that she is not buying beer, cigs, or drugs or crap like that with it).

None of the above would require THAT much more overseeing. Once you got it in place, it would be pretty well automatically self-sustaining and the kids would benefit from ALL the money all the time, and it would assure that only the true father is paying for the child. The money should automatically be pulled from his paycheck. If a man doesn't have a job (or works for money under the table to avoid paying it), he should be thrown in jail.

I do think this would be a step in the right direction, though I do still like Angela's solution better. That said, I'd like to get some clarification on your ideas towards the end.

First, what if the man earns income in some manner other than a job? If he can legally earn the money in a manner other than a standard job, he shouldn't be penalized for this. There should be a way other than paycheck deductions in order to deal with this.

Second, what if he loses his job? Times are rough right now, and some people legitimately can't find work. Throw him in jail anyway? That won't benefit the child. Better if he's allowed to search for work so he can resume payments as soon as possible. Also, would you be for letting child support payments be scaled to the pay he earns in the event he loses his job and can't find one as well paying as before?

Third, would you be willing to apply these same requirements to a woman when the man has primary custody of the child?

Finally, I offer these scenarios on the assumption that the man has a legitimate reason to pay child support. There are scenarios mentioned earlier in the thread in which I would have to say he shouldn't have to pay at all, though those scenarios are generally not too common.

Edit: In your plan, I do like very much that the money is directly forwarded to pay for things that will benefit the children. Very sleek, and makes sure the money goes where it should.

[Kanzeon]

Originally Posted by James81

As for the original post, I've used this arguement countless times in abortion debates and it's so funny to watch the people who are die-hard pro-choice use very pro-life structured arguements to deflect this line of thinking. It's very amusing for me to watch because I would think that if you are pro-choice, you should be pro-choice all the way.

As for the title of the thread (which I entered this thread thinking it was about something very different), I think child support need some serious revamping. Here's how I would do it:

1. ALL cases of child support are only set up upon a completion of a paternity test. No ifs, ands, or buts. Any woman who wants to receive child support should comply with allowing a paternity test to be taken. There are far too many cases out there where a man who isn't the father is paying the support and that is just fraud in my book. So neutralize that by cutting it off at the source.

2. Child support money should NOT be just a paycheck handed over to the mother (or, from what I understand, it's like a debit card they get nowadays I think) to do with what she pleases. There should be very clearcut distinctions that the money is to be used in ways that benefit the child. So here's how it should be doled out:

A. A portion of the money will be automatically forwarded to either the woman's rent or house payment. It won't even pass through her fingers.

B. A portion of the money will be automatically forwarded to utility bills (phone, electric, etc.). Again, the money doesn't even pass through her fingers. These two things are things that most directly affect the child, so they should be a priority on the child support list.

C. Another portion of the money would be relegated to a savings account for college and education expenses. Money withdrawn from this account before they hit college would need receipts to show where the money was spent (so that they could assure it was being spent on educational expenses).

D. The rest of the money would be doled out to her in a similar fashion as WIC is structured. There are specific things (diapers, wipes, clothes, food, etc.) that are on the "approved" list (give it a LOT of flexibility....it doesn't have to be a certain brand and it doesn't have to be stringient....it just needs to be 100% assured that she is not buying beer, cigs, or drugs or crap like that with it).

This would be a good solution, if the rest of the world had same the obvious issues you have with distrusting and wanting to control women. Scary stuff.

A man can always request a paternity test. Only someone with serious issues with women would proposed a "guilty until proven innocent" standard for all women.

Women are, in your worldview, either wards of men or wards of the state. None of them can be trusted to actually care for their children in an appropriate manner without micromanagement. You won't even trust a woman to pay her rent unless some man or some bureaucrat makes her do it. Again, guilty until proven innocent.

The misogyny in this thread is remarkable.

[Kanzeon]

Originally Posted by floslib

In any case, the fact remains a woman can choose to give up her rights and responsibilities to the child, but if she doesn't choose to do so, she can force the man to keep his responsibilities to the child, and he may or may not have his rights to the child. This is the nature of the imbalance that needs correction.

What imbalance? A man might rape a woman, eliminating her initial choice in the matter. A man can choose not to have sex with a woman he doesn't trust. If he has sex, he can use a condom.

So, the only man deprived of choice is the one unlucky guy who has a condom failure. That would be comprise, at most, 1% of pregnancies. Among that 1%, there will be a certain number of men that would plead for the woman to have an abortion, and the woman not listen. Generously, that's 1/4 of 1% of all pregnancies.

So, a miniscule percentage of fathers are penalized by this "imbalance." Of course, there is a greater victim: the child who lacks support, and a third victim, the taxpayers who will need to shoulder the burden on the child if the man does not. The father is the least of the three victims. Easy choice.

[floslib]

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

What imbalance? A man might rape a woman, eliminating her initial choice in the matter. A man can choose not to have sex with a woman he doesn't trust. If he has sex, he can use a condom.

So, the only man deprived of choice is the one unlucky guy who has a condom failure. That would be comprise, at most, 1% of pregnancies. Among that 1%, there will be a certain number of men that would plead for the woman to have an abortion, and the woman not listen. Generously, that's 1/4 of 1% of all pregnancies.

So, a miniscule percentage of fathers are penalized by this "imbalance." Of course, there is a greater victim: the child who lacks support, and a third victim, the taxpayers who will need to shoulder the burden on the child if the man does not. The father is the least of the three victims. Easy choice.

A woman might also rape a man. Admittedly, the logistics are different, but it does happen.

Also, something that keeps coming up is trust. Sometimes, trust is misplaced. People aren't perfect judges of character.

You said there's a lot of misogyny in this thread. Perhaps that's your perception, and you're certainly entitled to interpret this how you want. I think you may want to step back and consider for a moment, though, that there are unequal standards when it comes to the law and social customs, among other things.

Men and women both get shafted in different ways. This thread does have a general focus on the ways in which men get shafted, though it does also mention some of the ways women do as well. However, women have typically been the ones with more disadvantages due to societal norms, though this is definitely getting better. I'm not going to say it's completely fixed, because I think we still have some work left in getting women's rights completely on par, but I think we've gotten a lot closer.

That said, that shouldn't deprive men of the right to stand up for ourselves when we do get the short end of the stick. Instead, we should work to even things out on all the issues. When men's rights suffer, we should fight to even them out. When women's rights suffer, we should fight to even them out. Basically, when anyone's rights suffer, it's up to us to find a way to fix the problem, because we're all human, and we're all in this together.

Also, not as a direct answer to the above post, but just as something else to contribute to the conversation, here's a couple of posts from Violent Acres that have some bearing on this whole discussion: The Deadbeat Dad Myth and Quick and Easy Child Support Reform.

I think you'll find they provide an interesting viewpoint, in some ways supporting what one side has been saying, and in some ways supporting the other. I think they are very good pieces though, and definitely bring something to the table.

[James81]

Originally Posted by floslib

I do think this would be a step in the right direction, though I do still like Angela's solution better. That said, I'd like to get some clarification on your ideas towards the end.

First, what if the man earns income in some manner other than a job? If he can legally earn the money in a manner other than a standard job, he shouldn't be penalized for this. There should be a way other than paycheck deductions in order to deal with this.

Second, what if he loses his job? Times are rough right now, and some people legitimately can't find work. Throw him in jail anyway? That won't benefit the child. Better if he's allowed to search for work so he can resume payments as soon as possible. Also, would you be for letting child support payments be scaled to the pay he earns in the event he loses his job and can't find one as well paying as before?

Third, would you be willing to apply these same requirements to a woman when the man has primary custody of the child?

Finally, I offer these scenarios on the assumption that the man has a legitimate reason to pay child support. There are scenarios mentioned earlier in the thread in which I would have to say he shouldn't have to pay at all, though those scenarios are generally not too common.

Edit: In your plan, I do like very much that the money is directly forwarded to pay for things that will benefit the children. Very sleek, and makes sure the money goes where it should.

My last statement about being thrown in jail was a bit stringent. But I think there should be measures in place to make sure that a man isn't being a deadbeat. Assuming we take the time to make sure the woman is using the money on the children, we should also take similar measures then to ensure the man isn't being a deadbeat.

A more realistic plan would involve perhaps a yearly audit on any man who isn't paying child support because he doesn't have a "job." If he magically has money to pay for other stuff that isn't showing up on any record, then I think it's pretty obvious that he's hiding it. No, I don't think we'd catch all the deadbeats, but it would tighten things up a bit.

But, yes, my plan applies regardless of who is the custodial parent. In fact, I should've used the words "custodial parent" instead of the "women."

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

This would be a good solution, if the rest of the world had same the obvious issues you have with distrusting and wanting to control women. Scary stuff.

A man can always request a paternity test. Only someone with serious issues with women would proposed a "guilty until proven innocent" standard for all women.

Women are, in your worldview, either wards of men or wards of the state. None of them can be trusted to actually care for their children in an appropriate manner without micromanagement. You won't even trust a woman to pay her rent unless some man or some bureaucrat makes her do it. Again, guilty until proven innocent.

The misogyny in this thread is remarkable.

I'm not even going to entertain your arguements. Thinking of me for being misogynistic for wanting stricter requirements on how child support money is spent is pretty far off base. You obviously have to be projecting here in some manner.

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by floslib

...
The problem is that in practice, abortion is linked to child support.
...

It is not linked at all. Abortion can be an option for a pregnant woman, but it doesn't have anything to do with child support

It may be the laws (or their enforcement) are not perfect now, but that doesn't change my point of view. Parents are responsible for their children. That includes child support. No ifs or buts.

If I got a lady pregnant, and even if she didn't want me in the child's life as a parent, I'd still pay child support. I can't think of any valid reason not to. Men who evade their responsibility in this behave irresponsibly in my view. Let the law deal with them.

[Brutha]

I've used this arguement countless times in abortion debates and it's so funny to watch the people who are die-hard pro-choice use very pro-life structured arguements to deflect this line of thinking.

Thinking that all arguments that help you to defend your position are good and all arguments that go against your position are bad is really intellectually honest.
It's about seeing all the arguments and afterwards deciding which good is the most important.
Choice over your own body > Right of the unborn to life > Money issues
And that position is very much in line with the Roe vs. Wade judgement which also decided that the choice over your own body is a very important right.

[Kanzeon]

Originally Posted by James81

I'm not even going to entertain your arguements. Thinking of me for being misogynistic for wanting stricter requirements on how child support money is spent is pretty far off base. You obviously have to be projecting here in some manner.

Cowardice is a second of your many virtues, I see.

Demanding paternity tests in every pregnancy is mysogynistic.

Treating mothers as if they need to be watched over like children or criminals is mysogynistic.

That isn't projection, but simple reading comprehension.

[Kanzeon]

Originally Posted by floslib

Men and women both get shafted in different ways.

That's true. But children get shafted in one way, and they are the only ones who didn't choose anything.

Somebody needs to pay for kids, There are two likely suspects. Their petty problems are virtually irrelevant in light of the child's needs.

That said, that shouldn't deprive men of the right to stand up for ourselves when we do get the short end of the stick.

Yeah, walking away from a defenseless child is how a real man stands up for himself. I guess I missed that.

When men's rights suffer, we should fight to even them out. When women's rights suffer, we should fight to even them out. Basically, when anyone's rights suffer, it's up to us to find a way to fix the problem, because we're all human, and we're all in this together.

But the solution offered in this thread is a nonstarter, because it is abandoning children. It may suck but you can't walk away. Every child wants to know his or her father. If that child knows the father - as is his or her RIGHT - he or she is entitled to some relationship with him, and to support.

The 1 out of 1000 births where the man did use a condom and the woman had the child against his will aren't sympathy cases. Man up, deal with life.

[floslib]

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

That's true. But children get shafted in one way, and they are the only ones who didn't choose anything.

Somebody needs to pay for kids, There are two likely suspects. Their petty problems are virtually irrelevant in light of the child's needs.



Yeah, walking away from a defenseless child is how a real man stands up for himself. I guess I missed that.



But the solution offered in this thread is a nonstarter, because it is abandoning children. It may suck but you can't walk away. Every child wants to know his or her father. If that child knows the father - as is his or her RIGHT - he or she is entitled to some relationship with him, and to support.

The 1 out of 1000 births where the man did use a condom and the woman had the child against his will aren't sympathy cases. Man up, deal with life.

Ok, here's the thing, which I think got lost in the things I've written. I don't think child support is a bad idea. I do think that our current system is absolutely awful and abuseable, and that we'd be better off without it.

If we're going to keep child support, the system needs to be redone a bit. The biggest thing that needs to change is that courts need to stop getting a cut of the money, so they will start ruling fairly on child support cases. After that, we do need to account for everyone's needs. You are right when you say the child's needs outweigh the needs of the parent though.

That said, I think child support should be dealt with on a case by case basis. Child support should only be paid out when it will significantly improve the child's situation. Furthermore, the custodial parent should still be required to have a job or other means of earning income, or be working hard to find one (When remarried or with other similar arrangements, the current partner of the custodial parent may have this job instead if that is their agreement.). They should not just live off the child support payments of the other parent. If the child support won't make a difference in the child's circumstances, it shouldn't be paid out.

Also, if child support will make that much of a difference, it ought to be considered that perhaps the parent who can afford the child support payments ought to have primary custody instead of the one who can't. Again, how well this would work would have to be determined case by case.

In addition, if deceit or trickery are involved from either party, this should also be considered when it comes time to rule on child support. It won't be the only thing taken into account, as that would be unfair to the child, but it does still need to be addressed.

[Daffy Duck]

This is one reason why I don't have sex with anyone who is crazy or before I'm ready to support a child if needed. If you can't handle a baby, don't do things that create one.

[Dreamline]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

This is one reason why I don't have sex with anyone who is crazy or before I'm ready to support a child if needed. If you can't handle a baby, don't do things that create one.

Jeez, could it be that simple?

Could it really be that simple, men?

People tend to get what they ask for through their actions or inactions. Are we supposed to feel bad for them? Are we supposed to devote gazillions more of my tax dollars toward complex systems that monitor them, their income and dole out money to little cubbyholes so women can be free to abandon their life and parental responsibilities as well? When you have a child, since when is proper parenting optional?

What is happening in the most extreme of these cases is a crime. Metaphorically. Make it one literally. You just had your third child out of wedlock or "relationshiplock." What? You aren't supporting them all? Ok, you go to jail. You will be working for the state and we will be sending that money to your kids. First six months, dad goes. Second six months, mom goes. Kids go to foster care. What???? Suddenly having an unwanted pregnancy seems a little harsh? Good. Think before you ****.

Jennifer

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by floslib

...
That said, I think child support should be dealt with on a case by case basis. Child support should only be paid out when it will significantly improve the child's situation.
...

Are you aware that parents are required by law to take care of their kids? Child support is not case by case, it should happen for every child. If the parents can work out an agreement without court interference, that's great.

And yes, child support improves every child's situation. Children can't live from air alone.

[floslib]

Originally Posted by spirit4711

Are you aware that parents are required by law to take care of their kids? Child support is not case by case, it should happen for every child. If the parents can work out an agreement without court interference, that's great.

And yes, child support improves every child's situation. Children can't live from air alone.

Yes, I'm well aware of this. My parents are divorced (not the friendly kind), and I've seen the family court system work it's magic. It's not pretty. Ideally, yes, the parents would work this out on their own. And yes, for most families, you are correct in saying it will improve the child's situation, but there are some cases in which money simply isn't a problem on either side.

If the money needed to support the child is a pittance in comparison to the family's earning power, then child support ought not to be an issue, and the focus should instead be on how the kids will be raised. However, with the current system, the court will order a large child support payment since the family paychecks can support it, and then the court will skim their cut off the top. This isn't about the kids, it's about paying the court system and keeping people in jobs on the backs of broken families.

[Kanzeon]

Originally Posted by floslib

If we're going to keep child support, the system needs to be redone a bit. The biggest thing that needs to change is that courts need to stop getting a cut of the money, so they will start ruling fairly on child support cases. After that, we do need to account for everyone's needs. You are right when you say the child's needs outweigh the needs of the parent though.

That said, I think child support should be dealt with on a case by case basis. Child support should only be paid out when it will significantly improve the child's situation. Furthermore, the custodial parent should still be required to have a job or other means of earning income, or be working hard to find one (When remarried or with other similar arrangements, the current partner of the custodial parent may have this job instead if that is their agreement.). They should not just live off the child support payments of the other parent. If the child support won't make a difference in the child's circumstances, it shouldn't be paid out.

Every statistic I've seen shows that single mothers drop into poverty at an alarming rate, and divorced fathers enjoy increased income.

So, whatever the systemic faults of the system, the net result is that child support being paid in the system is not sufficient. The most obvious conclusion would be that the payments are generally too low. That doesn't have anything to do with court costs.

I'm not sure what you're driving at in cases where child support won't significantly improve the child's situation. Are you saying that where the mother and the father both earn $100,000, it is fair for the mother not only to do the bulk of the work to raise the child, but also shoulder the full cost?

As to employment of the mother, I think it's good for children and everyone for adults to be self-sufficient. However, the welfare mother living on child support isn't going to be making much money: her increased earnings are going to be offset by a daycare cost as she begins work, so this will be at best a wash for the father for younger children. For older children, it is more of a problem - but the "solution" of cutting off money to the kids isn't any more fair than the circumstances that lead to the problem.

Also, if child support will make that much of a difference, it ought to be considered that perhaps the parent who can afford the child support payments ought to have primary custody instead of the one who can't.

Because the commitment of raising a child tends to limit one's job advancement and job commitments interfere with parenting, it will more often be the case that the person with the higher income is going to be the noncustodial parent.

In addition, if deceit or trickery are involved from either party, this should also be considered when it comes time to rule on child support. It won't be the only thing taken into account, as that would be unfair to the child, but it does still need to be addressed.

I don't know who could sort this out, or would want to: the woman goes to court and says the guy is a cheapskate, and the man says she went off the pill on purpose without telling him. Apart from this squabble about what was told to whom on one Saturday night, which can almost never be resolved by evidence, the child remains dependent for 18 years.

[Still Growing]

I think I should start a new condom and diaphram company.

On either package I'd put a written contract whereby a person could get their partner to sign off on the terms of their sexual relationship. About whether they were for or against abortion, etc. The terms of the sexual relationship would extend to when they were not using said condom and diaphram as well.

Since it would be packaged on a quirky propholatic it would not be as bad as pulling out a contract.

It may sound outrageous however there ARE men who skip out on women and there ARE women who get pregnant intentionally and use men as a baby donator that comes with a monthly check.

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

...
It may sound outrageous however there ARE men who skip out on women and there ARE women who get pregnant intentionally and use men as a baby donator that comes with a monthly check.

Yes. So what?

[Orecle]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

It may sound outrageous however there ARE men who skip out on women and there ARE women who get pregnant intentionally and use men as a baby donator that comes with a monthly check.

Do you really beleive there are a significant amount of women who intentionally get pregnant so as to better their financial circumstances - even though it often costs them a career and often love down the line? How much child support do you thik these women get? Does that take away from the fact, that the men had unprotected sex? (i doubt even 0.01 condom errors end in pregnancy)

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Orecle

Do you really beleive there are a significant amount of women who intentionally get pregnant so as to better their financial circumstances

Yes or simply to have a baby.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by spirit4711

Yes. So what?

So its relative.