Who pays for children?

"or paying (if the mother does not agree to the procedure) the equivalent monetary of the abortion to the mother in lieu of any further financial responsibility."

Is that how it's legally handled in California? Or Tennessee? If a male can prove he provided money for an abortion that a women never endured, he can then be absolved from further obligation? If that does hold legal water in California, it again proves that state's positive progressive population <g>.

Or perhaps Tennessee is populated with much smarter people than we've been giving it credit for all these years! <G>

Michigan family courts would laugh the argument right off the planet, however. Wayne County family court is notorious for attaching support orders to the paychecks of men who are not the fathers of children listed in the orders, and equally notorious for ignoring complaints made by some of these men that they didn't even know the mother's who made the complaint for support! Nasty nasty stuff.

Post 21

Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 8:44pm

Government enforced "moral responsiblity":

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,44183,00.html Wendy McElroy

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002342677_grenade21m.html
"Roberts said Manley wasn't opposed to giving money to his ex-wife, he just didn't think the state had the right to force him to make payments."
[Emphasis is mine]

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/phyllisschlafly/printps20050509.shtml

Post 22

Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 8:19pm

What about communication between two parties before having intercourse and discussing such possibilities? Yes, it can "ruin the moment" to raise such issues, but exercising reason over short term primal urges is often prudent. If the woman is hell-bent on proceeding with an accidental pregnancy, maybe you shouldn't have sex with her. Either find someone who is willing to get an abortion or forego vaginal intercourse in your activities. The alternative is to roll the dice.

You could also sign a contract in advance releasing you of any parenting authority, but I think 999 out of 1000 women would be less turned off by you farting in their face. Otherwise, I think the dual responsibility angle is reasonable from a legal perspective. The fact is that women get screwed over on this too, as there are many men who will say anything to get laid and will then run from responsibility once faced with reality.

Post 23

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 6:07am

I am not an expert on these matters, but this is my understanding of child support arising from divorce:

One of the main problems with state-enforced child support comes from the fact that it assumes a steady income for the paying parent to go to the custodial parent. The paying parent frequently has to continue to pay even if he loses his job. By contrast, a married couple does not have that assurance and has to adjust spending accordingly. A married parent who wants to quit his job and start his own business might have more freedom to do so than an unmarried, child support paying parent. I can see why some "mad Dads" might consider this lack of freedom a form of involuntary servitude. It would especially aggravate them to see the mothers squander the child support money on expenses not benefitting the children, but the mothers.

It looks like the laws are set in such a way as to benefit people who want the enjoy financial benefits of marriage and parenthood without the commensurate emotional costs of marriage and parenthood. In other words, it often becomes yet another way of state-institutionalized mooching. It penalizes producers and rewards moochers -- not all of the time, but some or much of the time. That needs to change to a system that rewards producers consistently and penalizes moochers consistently. Unfortunately, I do not see how the current clunky bureaucracy can make that happen.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 8/22, 6:09am)

Post 24

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 1:07pm

Brian, isn't it possible that some kids will turn out badly even when the other parent IS paying some form of support? Are you suggesting that children who do receive support never end up "on the streets," as you say?

It takes way more than money to bring kids up right, don't you think? Money alone is no guarantee of a good outcome or comfortable environment.

Teresa,don't you think the above is another question,the question wasn't about good parenting but about the current attitude of some ,who think the state owes them a living,with respect to children.
I personally have no desire to pay for your children,but am left wondering about the children who's producers seem to expect me to pay for them when the wont or can't.
So far I haven't seen the answer!

Post 25

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 3:58pm

"Teresa,don't you think the above is another question,the question wasn't about good parenting but about the current attitude of some ,who think the state owes them a living,with respect to children.
I personally have no desire to pay for your children,but am left wondering about the children who's producers seem to expect me to pay for them when the wont or can't.
So far I haven't seen the answer!"

I'm confused...what in the hell are you talking about?? Are you accusing me of something? Can you be a little more articulate here?

No, I don't think "good parenting" is another question, it IS the fucking question!
Screwing an ex-partner over because the law allows it isn't "good parenting," nor are fear/guilt tactics that subscribe to "but we'll have to take care of all these kids with WELFARE!!".... worry, whine, snivel, hurt. The Welfare boogyman is coming! We have to make these "father" blokes pay through the nose, or else the boogyman will get us!

Reagan was a smart guy, he recognized the problem of rewarding instability and irresponsibility just lead to more irresponsibility and instability. Welfare, as we knew it, is dead. Are you at all familiar with current welfare criterion? It's tough stuff. Time limits (5 years maximum to collect), work mandates (if you're able to work, you must), educational mandates (if you are unable to work, you must be in school). Welfare is no free ride anymore. It's taken it's proper place, I think, in society for now.

Look, if the nanny state would just stay the hell out of it, people would find their own way in the world, and we'd have a whole lot less of a mess to worry about.

Post 26

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 5:17pm

"The key to understanding the nature of parental obligation lies in the moral principle that human beings must assume responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
"A child is the responsibility of his parents, because (a) they brought him into existence, and (b) a child, by nature, cannot survive independently. (The fact that the parents might not have desired the child, in a given case, is irrelevant in this context; he is nevertheless the consequence of their chosen actions-a consequence that, as a possibility, was foreseeable.)"-Ayn Rand(emphasis mine)

More to come later when I have time to relate my own experience with being a divorced parent.

Post 27

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 5:46pm

Ms Gomez quoted Rand thusly: "A child is the responsibility of his parents, because (a) they brought him into existence, and (b) a child, by nature, cannot survive independently."

A century ago, it was reasonable to hold both biological parents responsible for raising a child (financially and otherwise).

However, you're all ignoring a salient technological development - two actually.

Pregnancy is optional. It's the woman's choice, and under the woman's control. This is the result of modern birth control technology.

Childbirth is optional. It's the woman's choice, and under the woman's control. This is the result of modern abortion technology.

There are two successive layers of optionality, of choice. Excepting rape, no woman need 1) get pregnant, and 2) give birth, other than by her own choice.

In this cultural and technological context, there is no justification for blanket legal compulsion of men to financially support biological children.

Contracts should always be enforced, and rather than government-regulated marriage, we should of course have marriage by contract. Typical contracts would surely cover child support terms.

Outside of marriage or any other contractual context, the woman should be fully responsible for the conscious decision she makes to birth a child - and the preceding decision she made to chance pregnancy.

The current legal context is a tyrannical one, to be sure. Men are screwed. Women defraud men all the time, by claiming to be on birth control for example. They lie about that, have sex with a man under false pretenses, get pregnant, and with the help of the legal system, steal the man's money. The courts give a man no recourse for this sort of explicit and obvious fraud. (A man in New Mexico once sued to be freed of child support claims after his former partner perpetrated that very fraud - lying about the Pill - and his case was of course thrown out.)

* I know the above is blunt and focused. Trust me, I don't hate women :-) But the system needs fixing.

Joe Duarte

Post 28

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 6:02pm

Joe-
Abortion does bring up interesting questions and I had planned for addressing that later in the hope of fruitful discussion.

What I have a problem with at the moment is this-

Pregnancy is optional. It's the woman's choice, and under the woman's control. This is the result of modern birth control technology.

You ever heard of a condom Joe? It is the choice of both parties, and the responsibility of both parties to individually protect themselves. If you rely solely on modern science, then you are still taking a chance because you know that no form of birth control is 100% effective. Barring a pre-coital contract between the man and woman, it is equally the responsibility of both.

Post 29

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 6:04pm

Joe-
P.S.-It's Mr. Gomez. We share the same chromosome. Mr. simply indicates my gender though, you can call me Jody.

Post 30

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 6:19pm

"Contracts should always be enforced, and rather than government-regulated marriage, we should of course have marriage by contract. Typical contracts would surely cover child support terms.

Outside of marriage or any other contractual context, the woman should be fully responsible for the conscious decision she makes to birth a child - and the preceding decision she made to chance pregnancy.

The current legal context is a tyrannical one, to be sure. Men are screwed."

Excellent! I was wondering if I should make a distinction (marriage/long term commitment vs. casual encounter conceptions), but you went ahead and did it, Joe.
Sanctioned.

Post 31

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 6:23pm

"You ever heard of a condom Joe? It is the choice of both parties, and the responsibility of both parties to individually protect themselves. If you rely solely on modern science, then you are still taking a chance because you know that no form of birth control is 100% effective. Barring a pre-coital contract between the man and woman, it is equally the responsibility of both."

Oh, Jody, you know abortion is 100% effective, don't you?

Post 32

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 6:23pm

Marriage is a contract - but a hoary old economic one. What is needed is to bring it into a proper contract of business between equals - a partnership - with the inclusion of possible disolution being enumerated.

Post 33

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 7:02pm

Teresa-

I do know abortion is 100% effective, and abortion throws a monkey wrench into the whole thing.

Post 34

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 7:07pm

Why's that, Jody?

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 9:55pm

Since there is no fully free place in this world, Objectivist spend less time discussing what is and more time on what ought to be(of course commie bastards feel they do the same).
Fact- Humans require much more time under complete care after birth than most (or all?) other creatures.
Fact- Humans are fully aware of what causes pregnancy.
Fact- Science has provided effective forms of prevention and termination of pregnancy.
To the best of my knowledge every country that will allow birth control, tying of tubes or abortion also has welfare programs and or enforcable child support.
What I understand Dean to be saying is that men have no chance to decide on termination of pregnancy so they may become slaves to these mothers that wish to give birth. Maybe some wish that the pregnancy that brought them life had been terminated but do not have the will to end their own lives and therefore are entitled to state support of their unwanted life.
Objectivist should understand that the freedom we crave comes with equal responsibility. We should pick up the tab for all of the chain smoking and rough sex like the Capitalist gods that we are. Accepting responsibility has been very liberating for me. Finding ways out of it makes us no different than every pissy eye socialist we argue with.
Nympho that I am, I am planning a vasectomy.

Post 36

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 11:25pm

"Since there is no fully free place in this world, Objectivist spend less time discussing what is and more time on what ought to be"

If things were as they ought to be, then I'd be discussing whether things actually were as they ought to be. I discuss what is and what ought to be. I can only discuss how to improve the former by comparing it to the later. After determining what ought to be, I am most capable of making good decisions. Not determining what ought to be is like running around like a chicken with your head cut off.

"We should pick up the tab for all of the chain smoking and rough sex like the Capitalist gods that we are."

Are you saying that I am morally entitled to pay for your cigarettes, cancer treatment, hookers, and STD treatments?

Post 37

Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 12:14am

Dean Michael Gores wrote:

Are you saying that I am morally entitled to pay for your cigarettes, cancer treatment, hookers, and STD treatments?

Of course you are. Why wouldn't you be?

I realize that it is entirely possible that your words did not accurately express your thoughts, but that sort of mismatch is the root of many a disagreement.

Post 38

Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 4:00pm

Michael - Post 35 was obviously a joke. There's no need to respond to such tangents.

Does anyone have a refutation of Post 27? Is the matter settled then? :-)

(Edited by Joe Duarte on 8/24, 4:05pm)

Post 39

Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 4:22pm