End Mandatory Child Support

from JoeUser Forums

One of the endless stream of contradictions streaming from the left is the concept of mandatory child support. It's enforced, and usually the money is directly debited from the nuncustodial father's paycheck. This leads, in effect, to many fathers taking under the table work or skipping between jobs before a court order can be obtained to garnish their current wages.

But most importantly, when it is taken against the will of the noncustodial father, it represents a glaring contradiction. Because court rulings have consistently ruled that a fetus is a part of the mother's body, and represents a "choice", the mother's "choice" should come with willingness to absorb the entire cost of raising the child to adulthood. The mandatory child support laws give her a gun to hold to her ex husband or boyfriend's head for the next 18 or so years.

It would be entirely different if the father had a say in whether or not the mother was to have an abortion. Then HE should foot the bill if he chose to keep the baby. But because the choice to keep or abort belongs entirely to the mother, so do the consequences of her decision.

3,131 views 33 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am all for mandatory child support. That being said, I agree with your point here. If it is a woman's "right to choose" whether she's willing to take on the responsibilities of parenthood, then it should be the father's "right to choose" also.

It exposes the term "Pro Choice" for what it really is. A meaningless buzzword that can't live up to its own rhetoric. I laugh in the face of anyone who claims to be "pro choice", but then supports laws against "choice" for the father.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
so you'd suggest a father (who may or may not have used any form of birth control believing its the woman's responsibility...or worse, convinced the woman he was incapable of getting her pregnant) should be able to force a woman who is opposed to abortion to terminate a pregnancy?

it would make a much more fair solution as long as custody was assigned objectively--say by flipping a coin (with the new mother being credited for the nine months of gestation, of course)--with neither parent permitted to dump the kid on parents, relatives, friends, etc. more than 10 hours per week.

what's the basis for your obvious concern about women taking advantage of men by conceiving? (this is the 2nd blog in which you've expressed it). carrying, delivering and raising a child seems like a lotta work just to earn about 4800 a year.
Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
kingbee,

My problem is in several areas. First of all, the $48k figure a year is not a set amount. Child support is set based on a father's ability to pay; in one high profile case (Barry Bonds), it was $20,000 a month.

Second, the issue is, we are repeatedly told by the prochoice lobby that we, as men, do NOT have the right to have a say regarding abortion. Either the child is our offspring or it is not. If it is, we most definitely DO have a say; if it is not, we should have no obligation. Even if the mother chooses to keep the child, she should be willing to support the child.

As to the basis to my concern, it is with the double standards set forth by the abortion movement. That you, and other pro abortion liberals fail to see the double standard is yet another reason why you are increasingly marginalized and pushed aside. And doesn't the concept of indentured servanthood, allegedly outlawed in the United States, come into play?

In short, king, my concern is based solely on the concern that we return to the concept of "blind justice" and that we begin to set right the numerous wrongs we have begun over the years. While you may be hoping to extract a skeleton from my closet in an illegitimate child or somesuch, king, you've failed in that endeavor. With over 600 blogs, I have covered a wide variety of topics, and this topic appearing in TWO articles puts it as common to .33% of my total articles (less, actually, but you get the point). That hardly amounts to a consistent soapbox.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

what's the basis for your obvious concern about women taking advantage of men by conceiving? (this is the 2nd blog in which you've expressed it). carrying, delivering and raising a child seems like a lotta work just to earn about 4800 a year.

You must live in a dream world.  Mine was $1400/month!  Another guy I know had it for $1000/month, and he was only making $32k per year.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
I suppose that I would agree with you if the father had a signed affadavit from the first five months of the pregnancy saying that he requested the woman abort the fetus--if not, he's S.O.L and needs to pay.

I have a funny feeling the entire conversation would be different if men could have babies!
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
What's funny is that women really have no reason to have a child, since abortion is still legal, so by having a child, they are consciously choosing to have one. If the father isn't married to the mother, then I don't see how he comes into play (except for the sperm, which still doesn't change the fact that the child is her property and her choice).
However, if a woman has a child when she's married to the father, and after the child is born (or after the time for a legal abortion), then the father should be forced to pay child support, since she had the child because the father was there.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Men


Now that was a female Chauvanist pig reply!! ;~D
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
What's funny is that women really have no reason to have a child, since abortion is still legal, so by having a child, they are consciously choosing to have one. If the father isn't married to the mother, then I don't see how he comes into play (except for the sperm, which still doesn't change the fact that the child is her property and her choice).


So what you are saying is that the female is totally responsible when premarital sex results in conception--she either has to foot the bill and the emotional turmoil of an abortion or else foot the entire bill of raising a child?

Last time I checked--it takes two to tango, therefore they should split the accountability and responsibility. If he wasn't interested in the consequences he should have kept his pants zipped.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
So what you are saying is that the female is totally responsible when premarital sex results in conception--she either has to foot the bill and the emotional turmoil of an abortion or else foot the entire bill of raising a child?


Considering that it's her choice, and considering that she the choice not to have the child (thanks to birth control and abortion), I don't see how she could have that child against her will.
It'd be just like if a man offered a woman a dog, and she had the choice to decline it or keep it, and she decided to keep it. The dog would then be her responsibility.

Last time I checked--it takes two to tango, therefore they should split the accountability and responsibility. If he wasn't interested in the consequences he should have kept his pants zipped.


It does take two to tango, but remember. It's her body and her choice. Now, if you're saying that the embryo is also partly his responsibility (and therefore partly his property), then perhaps it isn't just the woman's choice.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Last time I checked--it takes two to tango, therefore they should split the accountability and responsibility.


Yes, it does take two to tango, but in terms of the law, apparently "choice" only works one way. She has choices, but if her choice is to have the baby, he is given no choices at all.

If he wasn't interested in the consequences he should have kept his pants zipped.


That works both ways also. If SHE isn't interested in the consequences, SHE should also keep HER pants zipped. ;~D

"Pro choice" is either about "choice" or it's just another meaningless rhetorical buzzword. (much like "Pro-Life")
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree with your premise, Gideon--the idea that a woman has the right to choose an abortion and the man has no say--is wrong. Funny thing, though--I've never heard of a case where a man contested an abortion a woman had. I'm sure they're out there, but in order to rectify this, they have to be brought to light and the discrepancies shown.

I tend to disagree, however, that a man shouldn't be forced to pay child support. If a man asks a woman to have an abortion and she declines, or if a woman asks to have an abortion and the man objects, then I think both sides need to remain responsible. (It would be interesting to see if a man could file a petition within, say, five weeks of being told that he's going to be a father, saying he wants nothing to do with it, and he won't be held liable (as it were). OTOH, though, it seems like more "morally upstanding"--or whatever the hell you want to call them--guys would be taken advantage of because they'd feel obligated to pony up, whereas jackasses would sign and forget.)

Of course, I think all parties should keep their pants zipped until they're at a point where they can deal with an accident if it comes along. Marriage seems like a good line to me, but hey, America's not gonna agree with me on that one.

-A.

P.S. Good accidents happen, too--I'm one.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
While you may be hoping to extract a skeleton from my closet in an illegitimate child or somesuch, king, you've failed in that endeavor


nope...i got no interest in closet skeletons altho rereading the question i posed, i can see where you could have reasonably arrived at the conclusion. i was just a bit puzzled because in the earlier blog, you alluded to the possibility of a woman discovering she was pregnant and then filing a rape charge. in the thread for that same blog, you mentioned women who seem to aggresively leap on any erect penis available in hopes of knocking themselves up(i dont recall the exact wording unfortunately).

perhaps im fooling myself and i have, in fact, led a much more sheltered life then i thought. while im not saying either is outside the realm of reasonable possibility, i've no personal knowledge nor do i recall even vague rumors even about my friends' friends' casual acquaintaces.

nor have i known any women who decided to keep an unwanted or unexpected child in order to benefit from child support payments.

Either the child is our offspring or it is not. If it is, we most definitely DO have a say; if it is not, we should have no obligation


you may disagree with me (in fact, im sure you will) but in my experience, men who insist a woman to whom they arent married give birth to a child the two of them werent actively trying to conceive are most likely motivated by a determination to dominate her in one way or another rather than out of any sense of fatherly obligation to provide the child a wonderful life.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Pro choice" is either about "choice" or it's just another meaningless rhetorical buzzword. (much like "Pro-Life")


"much like 'pro-life' is hardly an accurate characterization. those who are opposed to abortion are not that respectful or concerned for the sanctity of post-partum life. if they were, they wouldnt be the ones standing in the way of providing desperately poor women third world countries with a sterile cloth on which to give birth so as to minimize the chances of them contracting deadly infections.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
you may disagree with me (in fact, im sure you will) but in my experience, men who insist a woman to whom they arent married give birth to a child the two of them werent actively trying to conceive are most likely motivated by a determination to dominate her in one way or another rather than out of any sense of fatherly obligation to provide the child a wonderful life.


Even if they were, so what? Don't they have a say in who is also their child when it comes to money?
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
"much like 'pro-life' is hardly an accurate characterization. those who are opposed to abortion are not that respectful or concerned for the sanctity of post-partum life. if they were, they wouldnt be the ones standing in the way of providing desperately poor women third world countries with a sterile cloth on which to give birth so as to minimize the chances of them contracting deadly infections.


Thanks Kingbee, you never cease to bore me with your innane generalities.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
you never cease to bore me with your innane generalities


never let it be said i dont pander to my fans. you'll find some inane details here:

Link
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Even if they were, so what? Don't they have a say in who is also their child when it comes to money?


i'd respond to this if i had the slightest idea what the hell youre tryin to say.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Great article Gideon. Maybe I'm getting old but I think we need to challenge the status quo and many of the 'conventional wisdom' assumptions that are built in to our current system.

-End mandatory child support.
-End welfare for single moms.
-Outlaw alimony/palimony.
-Outlaw abortion. With two million abortions a year in the USA the odds are pretty good that the 30 year old you met at the club last weekend has had at least one abortion, and that can't be good for her mental health - or for any prospective relationship.
-Make adultery a felony.
-Give custody to whichever parent earns more cash and can actually support the child.
-If a marriage ends in divorce the children become wards of the state, and the failed parents are forbidden from contacting their children.

I don't necessarily agree with the above suggestions but someone has to get the ball rolling. I believe the greatest challenge facing our society today (I'm speaking in Canadian terms but I think this holds true among most societies) is the breakdown of the family. We spend too much time dicking around with relatively peripheral stuff like gay marriage and it's time we bring the conversation around to what's really important.

David St. Hubbins
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
you never cease to bore me with your innane generalitiesnever let it be said i dont pander to my fans. you'll find some inane details here:


Sorry about that reply Kingbee, I was tired and felt like crap last night. The truly ironic part of my whole posting was how innane a generilazation it was in itself.

"Pro choice" is either about "choice" or it's just another meaningless rhetorical buzzword. (much like "Pro-Life")"much like 'pro-life' is hardly an accurate characterization. those who are opposed to abortion are not that respectful or concerned for the sanctity of post-partum life. if they were, they wouldnt be the ones standing in the way of providing desperately poor women third world countries with a sterile cloth on which to give birth so as to minimize the chances of them contracting deadly infections.


If I may, here's what I really have to say about your posting here.

Pro-life and Pro-choice can be accurately characterized as politically opposite buzzwords. Both are meant to solicite a reaction either for or against legal abortion on demand, but like all buzzwords, they fail under scrutiny. People who claim to be "pro-life" (as you point out) don't always respect life as much as the buzzword would suggest, but then again (as Gideon points out) "choice" isn't very often an accurate characterization of the "pro choice" side either. People should just say what they mean, instead of relying on cliche'd buzzwords.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

I have a funny feeling the entire conversation would be different if men could have babies!

Not from my angle it wouldn't. I believe marriage is a commitment that should last a lifetime and that a father should be a father in every sense of the word, providing his children with physical, emotional and material needs. IDEALLY, it would be so. BUT, federal courts have consistently ruled that a father has NO say in whether a woman gets an abortion (even if they ARE married), and thus, from the standpoint of the federal courts, the father is persona non grata as far as making decisions as to the life or the death of the baby, yet they want a double standard that holds him financially accountable regardless.

Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

Funny thing, though--I've never heard of a case where a man contested an abortion a woman had.

I've known of DIVORCES that have occured because the woman exercised her "right to choose" in order to spite the husband.

Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

you alluded to the possibility of a woman discovering she was pregnant and then filing a rape charge. in the thread for that same blog, you mentioned women who seem to aggresively leap on any erect penis available in hopes of knocking themselves up(i dont recall the exact wording unfortunately).

Actually, the first instance was an illustration of why the rape/incest exception the conservatives demand wouldn't work as far as outlawing abortion; I further stated that there were a FEW unscrupulous women who would manipulate the system if that were the only reason for obtaining an abortion (and is one reason, despite my virulent opposition to abortion, I remain prochoice). The second was an obviously sarcastic remark to deflect the insinuation that the woman was somehow an innocent "victim" of impregnation by a man. If you recall, the article was about the double standard of forcing a married man to get his wife's permission for a vasectomy, while not requiring a wife's permission from her husband for an abortion.

Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yup, this article pretty much disgusts me. Let's let dead beat dads off the hook. Sounds great.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

Myrrander,

You're missing the point. It's about changing the legal double standard.

And as the child of an alleged "deadbeat dad" (my mother was instrumental in lobbying the Utah legislature to change their laws regarding deadbeat dads), I can tell you with absolute certainty that her case, at least, was completely fraudulent and came out of her desire to seek publicity (How do I KNOW it was fraudulent? My father paid through the County Clerk's office in his home county of Garfield County, Oklahoma...and he saved receipts. He allowed each one of us children to examine the receipts).

The point is, the dad isn't legally a dad when the fetus is in the woman's body. He has no say in medical care, etc (with our first child, I even had a doctor REFUSE to allow me to go back into the emergency room with my wife, who WANTED me in there with her), and yet, when the child arrives, he is expected to provide full and complete support until the child is 18. It is a double standard, plain and simple.

My suggestion revolves primarily around ending the double standard (although the argument, not initially mine, of indentured servanthood laws applying in this area is a compelling one to say the least). Personally, I think it would be best if each child were raised in the home of committed if not legally married parents, but the sad fact is, that isn't practical or even possible in many cases. There are a MINORITY (before this comes up wrongly as a stereotype, please read the definition of the word "minority") of women who have no problem with deliberately getting pregnant and using the child as a way to financially obligate the father.