patrick.net

Bigsby says

It is his choice to have unprotected sex. It is also not necessarily the choice of the woman to get pregnant either.

BS.
Even if she didn't choose to get pregnant, it is still her choice only (not his choice) to have the child and not terminate the pregnancy.

You can't claim that having sex is a choice to have a child and responsibility follows from that. Otherwise the exact same rule should apply to the woman, and abortion should be forbidden.

We are going in loops. The difference of treatment is obvious. And your arguments are extremely sexist. You're essentially telling us that you see men as walking wallets to be used as the whim of a woman reproductive decisions.

ch_tah2 says

Heraclitusstudent says

Women have the freedom to have sex and avoid the consequences.

I feel like this has been repeated several times - in what way (other than abortion) can a woman avoid the consequences that a man cannot do as well?

She can have an abortion.
She can abandon the child at birth legally.
She can give up the child for adoption.
In all of these cases she did avoid the responsibility after conceiving a child.
And a man of course has none of these choices.

Heraclitusstudent says

And your arguments are extremely sexist.

No, they aren't, but hey, enjoy yourself tediously repeating it.

Heraclitusstudent says

You're essentially telling us that you see men as walking wallets to be used as the whim of a woman reproductive decisions.

And you appear to be saying women have to be solely responsible for both the wallet aspect and the rearing one. Shall I accuse you of being sexist?

Bigsby says

He has the obligation to provide partial financial support but can also completely renege on any of the normal responsibilities of child raising.

Does he have any paternal rights? Can he chose where that child lives, where he/she goes to school, where (if) he/she attends church, what activities he/she participates in?

Can he determine when/how much time he is allowed spend with his child? If yes to any of these, does the mother retain veto rights on any?

Bitcoins arent the future? says

Heraclitusstudent says

People having sex represents in no way an agreement to have a child.

This seems to be the mainstream line of thought. I find it painfully incorrect. It seems to me many people are in denial that sex and procreation are linked, probably just wishful thinking?

If you think having sex is by nature a decision to have a child and responsibility to support the child follows, then you should apply the same rule to the woman.

Absent that, it's a sexist rule.

control point says

Does he have any paternal rights? Can he chose where that child lives, where he/she goes to school, where (if) he/she attends church, what activities he/she participates in?

That is for the court to decide. There is such a thing as joint custody. If he doesn't want to have any involvement in physically raising the child, then why should he determine the things you listed?

Bigsby says

And you appear to be saying women have to be solely responsible for both the wallet aspect and the rearing one. Shall I accuse you of being sexist?

When you have a choice, you have the responsibility for what follows. It's no one else responsibility.

This is so obvious that I don't why this even needs to be discussed.

Heraclitusstudent says

She can abandon the child at birth legally.

She can give up the child for adoption.

In all of these cases she did avoid the responsibility after conceiving a child.

And a man of course has none of these choices.

Ok, so other than that being completely false and wrong, what else you got? By false and wrong, I mean a man can do those things just the same.

Edit:
I think your sexism is what is preventing you from realizing that a man can abandon a child at birth legally and give up the child for adoption. There is an assumption you are making for one side but not the other which is why your choices are flawed. The only option a woman has that a man doesn't have is abortion.

Bigsby says

That is for the court to decide. There is such a thing as joint custody. If he doesn't want to have any involvement in physically raising the child, then why should he determine the things you listed?

Because he is providing financial support. That is basic contract law - in exchange for this, you get that.

My basic question remains - as an example, if he has joint custody, and does not want his child to go to catholic church, is the mother in violation of the law if she takes the child to catholic church?

Heraclitusstudent says

Bigsby says

And you appear to be saying women have to be solely responsible for both the wallet aspect and the rearing one. Shall I accuse you of being sexist?

When you have a choice, you have the responsibility for what follows. It's no one else responsibility.

This is so obvious that I don't why this even needs to be discussed.

Oh, I thought that in most societies a child was considered the responsibility of BOTH the biological mother and father. What you are basically leading to is that (quite possibly in a large number of cases) it is actually society as a whole that should fit the bill for child care ahead of the biological father. I personally think that is the responsibility of both of the parents if possible. That often doesn't happen, so if the father doesn't wish to participate then some financial obligation seems an inherently obvious solution. That may not be perfectly balanced in your narrow 'non-sexist' perspective of things, but we are talking about a commitment to a child not the semantics of what actually constitutes 'equal rights' in such a situation. There are never going to be 'equal rights' when only one of the parties is carrying and giving birth to the child.

control point says

My basic question remains - as an example, if he has joint custody, and does not want his child to go to catholic church, is the mother in violation of the law if she takes the child to catholic church?

What is the point of arguing that? That is for the mother and father to work out between them. You may as well talk about the mother wanting the kid to go to football practice and the father baseball. That's not something you need to legislate for. It's called raising a child.

If the father is involved in the custody of the child, then they'll have to thrash that out. If he never sees the child and doesn't want to, then common sense suggests that the mother's wishes will prevail.

Heraclitusstudent says

The very fact that there is a child should be subject to choice of both partners.

I hear ya. However, support guidelines are about the rights of the child. The child has no say as to whether he/she is born. The child is the concern, as it should be. However, I agree with you that, in an unfortunately large number of cases, the wants of the custodial parent are flown under the flag of "the needs of the child." Given that, child support is easily used as a punitive measure against biological fathers.

For example, it is against federal law for child support orders to be self-executing. Prior to this change, support orders could say something like, "you are required to pay $1,000 per minor child until said minor child reaches majority, marries, dies, etc." So, if you had two children, you would be expected to pay $1,000/child for a total of $2,000/month. When the older child reached the age of 18, you would then pay $1,000/month for the remaining minor child. The reduction in support was self-executing.

That is not allowed any longer. Support orders written after the law required that support amounts be written as a total amount for all children. In order to reduce the amount after the first child turns 18, the obligor must petition the court. If your children are close in age, this could mean that the court wouldn't even hear your case while the issue-at-hand is still relevant. In other words, the second kid could turn 18 before you have a chance to make a change to the support amount.

Now, how ridiculous is that? This is a clear example of child support being used to punish the obligor. Either he pays more than he's supposed to, or he pays an attorney to file a petition and maybe can get before the court in time to make a difference.

Clearly, there is a lot of unfairness in the law. However, when you say that fathers should be able to opt out, you forget that the child has rights and didn't choose to be born... The state isn't going to take up the slack of fathers choosing to opt out. Tax payers are never going to say, "no worries. you didn't really want the kid. we'll pay for him/her." From a court's point of view, it's a losing argument.

IMHO, if you want to actually win and make positive changes to the law, you should instead focus on the many unfair details that make up the law. There are plenty to choose from.

Bigsby says

What you are basically leading to is that (quite possibly in a large number of cases) it is actually society as a whole that should fit the bill for child care ahead of the biological father. I personally think that is the responsibility of both of the parents if possible.

As I said above I believe the father should be given the opportunity to opt out when the pregnancy happens.
If he agrees, then he is responsible for at least financial support of the child.
If not, the mother should decide what to do in absence of his support.

Bigsby says

What is the point of arguing that? That is for the mother and father to work out between them. You may as well talk about the mother wanting the kid to go to football practice and the father baseball. That's not something you need to legislate for. It's called raising a child.

That is the question, isn't it? Who should ultimately prevail? In your opinion, who should the court decide to side with?

turtledove says

Now, how ridiculous is that? This is a clear example of child support being used to punish the obligor. Either he pays more than he's supposed to, or he pays an attorney to file a petition and maybe can get before the court in time to make a difference.

It certainly sounds like bad law. But why is it "he pays more..."? What if the obligor is a woman? It seems like on the face of the law, it punishes whoever is paying. Maybe if more men stepped up to the plate and took sole custody, women would be complaining the law is unfair.

turtledove says

when you say that fathers should be able to opt out, you forget that the child has rights and didn't choose to be born... The state isn't going to take up the slack of fathers choosing to opt out. Tax payers are never going to say, "no worries. you didn't really want the kid. we'll pay for him/her." From a court's point of view, it's a losing argument.

I know.
From a court's perspective:
- the child is sacred
- the mother should have control over her body
- It's not "society"'s problem

But they see no absolutely no problem with forcing a man to pay a large part of his earnings for 2 decades against his will.

control point says

Bigsby says

What is the point of arguing that? That is for the mother and father to work out between them. You may as well talk about the mother wanting the kid to go to football practice and the father baseball. That's not something you need to legislate for. It's called raising a child.

That is the question, isn't it? Who should ultimately prevail? In your opinion, who should the court decide to side with?

As I said, it shouldn't be an issue for the courts.

Bigsby says

As I said, it shouldn't be an issue for the courts.

Then who arbitrates? Mom and dad don't compromise. A choice has to be made - is the child attending catholic church or not?

In your opinion, who has ultimate authority?

If money is the fear, I guess the prudent thing to do is for those who make over 50K not to date those who make under 20K. That way, the richer party won't get the "noose" for 18 years.

dublin hillz says

If money is the fear, I guess the prudent thing to do is for those who make over 50K not to date those who make under 20K. That way, the richer party won't get the "noose" for 18 years.

That is good advice, however not without problems. Because even if your wife makes boatloads like you do and things go sour during the pregnancy or shortly after, you will pay up because she had to interrupt her successful career for the pregnancy. This goes as far as men having been successfully sued for getting engaged and the fiancee decided to move closer to her future husband and left a well paying job before the engagement went sour.

control point says

Bigsby says

As I said, it shouldn't be an issue for the courts.

Then who arbitrates? Mom and dad don't compromise. A choice has to be made - is the child attending catholic church or not?

In your opinion, who has ultimate authority?

It is a private matter. End of story. Or do you think there should be arbitration when there's a disagreement between wanting burgers or pizza? Studying science or arts? Playing soccer or baseball? Piano or guitar? And on and on it goes. They are adults. Let them bicker over which false religious indoctrination they want to subject their kids to. Leave the rest of us out of it.

Bigsby says

Why should a woman be able to avoid her responsibilities and be able to abort or abandon her baby and walk away at the expense of the tax payer?

You simply don't want to afford a man the same rights as a woman.

I can't believe you are being this dense. They aren't the same things.

The woman walking away at the expense of the taxpayer is not the same thing as the man walking away at the expense of the taxpayer?

Oh I forgot... a woman is this delicate little thing that needs to be cared for by society but a man can be ransomed and kicked and squeezed like a slave to get the desired result.

Heraclitusstudent says

The woman walking away at the expense of the taxpayer is not the same thing as the man walking away at the expense of the taxpayer?

No, they aren't the same. Obviously. If the child is abandoned, they are both walking away. If the child is being raised by the mother, then the law attempts to make the biological father at least partly responsible for that process.

Bigsby says

No, they aren't the same. Obviously. If the child is abandoned, they are both walking away. If the child is being raised by the mother, then the law attempts to make the biological father at least partly responsible for that process.

They are the same in that in both scenario a parent decides to dump his/her responsibility on society.

Heraclitusstudent says

Bigsby says

No, they aren't the same. Obviously. If the child is abandoned, they are both walking away. If the child is being raised by the mother, then the law attempts to make the biological father at least partly responsible for that process.

They are the same in that in both scenario a parent decides to dump his/her responsibility on society.

And as you said, they are different scenarios, so they are not the same.

Bigsby says

And as you said, they are different scenarios, so they are not the same.

They are the same in that in both scenario a parent decides to dump his/her responsibility on society.

You believe it's ok for society to cover for the woman but not the man.

Essentially you believe women should be able to make 100% of the choices and men 0%, regardless of the enormous impact on men lives.

Heraclitusstudent says

You believe it's ok for society to cover for the woman but not the man.

No, I didn't. I said if neither are willing to take care of the child, then what else can happen except the state stepping in. If the mother is willing to raise the child (and the father isn't), then I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect the father to financially contribute to that. Apparently the law of your country and mine is in agreement.

We cannot have double standards here.

there are only two cases :

case 1: state thinks child is more important than parents choices. in that case
- if a man is willing to pay for a pregnancy , the woman should carry it.
- If a woman wants to take care of a child, the man has to pay her finacially

case 2 : state thinks parents choices are more important than child. in that case
- if one of partner wants to give up completely his/her responsibilities , he/she can choose to do that.
- One of the parents can make a "choice" to do everything on their own.
- both can agree on a 50:50 arrangement.

Bigsby says

The father is asked for a financial contribution.

Not asked, forced. He has no choice in the matter, even if he:

1. Checked to be sure birth control was being used (his or her). If the condom breaks, she "Forgets" the birthcontrol, etc. he's still choiceless.

2. Discussed it in advance, and the woman told him she would either not keep, abort, or not hold him liable for any child.

So no matter if he takes precautions and lets his intentions be known, even if they are agreed upon, he is utterly at the mercy of a woman's choice once pregnancy occurs.

That's not a choice.

I just don't get it,
If a woman wants to take care of a child, the man is forced to pay her financially but if a man is willing to pay her financially she is not forced to carry a pregnancy ? what kind of twisted law is this ?

Bigsby says

Oh, forgive my shocking misuse of language. It's pretty obvious from what I've been posting that I see it as a legal requirement. The father is required to make the payment. Happy now?

Look, I'm not trying to browbeat you. When is a woman required to do anything during reproduction that a man wants?

My friends Randy (75) and Martha (74) just celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary. The people in their church call them both by the nicknames "Precious" because that's what they call each other.

mell says

I've done all of that (and still do) and writing the check is the hardest part, because you have to earn it first. This is what keeps men from quitting the rat race and taking time for themselves and their family, the constant pressure of bills having to be paid. Most people right in their head would take kids duties anytime over having to shake the hands that feed them in the corporate rat race time and time again so they can keep providing financially. I know I would have retired long ago. Kids are a beautiful thing, earning the money to pay for them is by far the hardest part, even before raising them. Trivializing two decades of financial support is pretty fucked up.

Meh...one might also say trivializing being a single mom is pretty fucked up.

I'll +1 myself, since that's a pretty good one.

ch_tah2 says

Meh...one might also say trivializing being a single mom is pretty fucked up.

THATS A "CHOICE" THE MOM MAKES !!
People should be able to take care of consequences of their CHOICES.
She is free to not do that anytime just like terminating her pregnancy.

jkaldi1 says

THATS A "CHOICE" THE MOM MAKES !!

People should be able to take care of consequences of their CHOICES.

She is free to not do that anytime just like her pregnancy.

I guess in a childish way you could look at it that way. I view raising a child as a responsibility not a choice.

I agree people should take care of the consequences of their choices - like the man who chose to have sex knowing full well that it could result in a baby.

ch_tah2 says

I agree people should take care of the consequences of their choices - like the man who chose to have sex knowing full well that it could result in a baby

ofcourse , he should be forced to take care of the child and the woman forced to carry the pregnancy if they engaged in sex. but you cannot give one the right to terminate (before birth) but not the other( after birth)

jkaldi1 says

but you cannot give one the right to terminate (before birth) but not the other( after birth)

I'm not sure I understand. Are you advocating for the right of men to be able to kill their children after birth?

You guys just keep getting crazier and crazier...

Bigsby says

Heraclitusstudent says

You believe it's ok for society to cover for the woman but not the man.

No, I didn't. I said if neither are willing to take care of the child, then what else can happen except the state stepping in.

Again. All the woman choice. She is not willing to take responsibility... so it naturally gets dumped that to the state.

Is she wants to take responsibility, then the man has no choice. In spite of the huge impact of this decision.

In essence,
- during pregnancy a women choice takes precedence over the child, the father and society... because it's her body.
- after pregnancy the child comes first, then the woman's decisions, then society, then the man who has no choice left.

ch_tah2 says

jkaldi1 says

but you cannot give one the right to terminate (before birth) but not the other( after birth)

I'm not sure I understand. Are you advocating for the right of men to be able to kill their children after birth?

You guys just keep getting crazier and crazier...

no , the right of men to not do anything with the child. if a woman has the right to kill a baby before pregnancy , the man should atleast be able to abandon a child. if mom want to raise the kid , thats her choice.

the woman cannot say that she wants to raise the kid and force the man to pay just like the man cannot say that he can pay for pregnancy and force her to carry it.

Bigsby says

And what I want is for the fathers to have some obligation towards the children they helped bring into the world. Preferably physically in their lives. If not, then financially. Obviously we disagree on this

It's clear that you think it's ok to force men to spend 18 yrs working for something whether they agree or not.

I think you don't even realize your own biases on the matter.