Child Support

144 posts / 0 new
Last post
paolo

..i didn't find his sarcasm bitter. bitting but not bitter.

edit for sp

Francesca Allan

janfromthebruce wrote:

Rebecca West wrote:

I'm thinking that we should hire Unionist to teach a babble class - Bitter Sarcasm 101.

And twisted 202

I am a big fan of Unionist (yes, really) although we often disagree.

Francesca Allan

Unionist wrote:
So the fight against the $1200 phoney child care substitute bribe is over.

Quote:
Why is it a bribe? Isn't it fairer to call it money available to provide options to parents?

Quote:
No. It was a bribe to make people forget about the promises about national child care and win votes. Or... you think Harper deeply felt the need to give parents money and provide them with "options"?

Quote:
And I don't know why that subsidy isn't available to everybody.

Quote:
Yeah, I was thinking about that the other day. I pay taxes for health care, education, roads... whether I use them or not. What about OPTIONS???

Example: health care.

I figure governments (mostly provincial) spend about $150 billion per year on health care (and probably another $50 billion spent by the "private sector", like when you buy additional insurance, or medications, etc. etc.). And for simplicity, I'll pretend there are 30 million residents of Canada.

Well, to be honest with you, most of that spending on health care is for unnecessary and harmful medication.

Quote:
My modest proposal:

1. STOP all government spending on health care.

2. GIVE each and every person (all ages) $5,000 (tax-free) per year - call it a health bonus - to be used as they please. Parents could have proxies for minor children's bonuses.

3. Establish a new annual statutory holiday called FREEDOM DAY, where the birth of our new HEALTH-CARE OPTIONS are celebrated!

4. There is no #4.

We don't need a health "bonus." We just need to stop being taxed death for a bunch of crap we don't need. And I'm afraid encouraging single teenagers to become mothers falls into this category.

Francesca Allan

Wilf Day wrote:

Francesca Allan wrote:
Say there's a teenage couple that get drunk and fool around. Girl gets pregnant and decides she wants to keep the baby. Guy wants her to have an abortion and doesn't want to be involved at all with her or the baby. Should this guy be forced to pay child support for 18 years based on a youthful, drunken indiscretion?

It's not about the parents. It's about the child. The child will not, I hope, know that the father wanted to abort the child.

No, this child won't know his father.

Quote:
The child is entitled to support from both parents.

No, the child is entitled to shelter, love and opportunities. He's not entitled to support from his father, no more than his father is obliged to celebrate him.

Quote:
The child is also entitled to grow up knowing that both parents love the child.

Again, not an entitlement. The dad in this hypothetical example wants nothing to do with him/her.

Quote:
Dad may not want the child at first, but bribing him to stay away by saying "stay out of our lives and I won't make you pay" is unethical mothering.

He's not being bribed; it's his choice entirely. It's not unethical; it's simply the reality of the situation.

Quote:
When he matures, he will most likely become a good father, like most men.

No reason to think this. He's utterly uninvolved.

Francesca Allan wrote:
I want to make it clear that child support is essential upon the disintegration of a relationship but this isn't a relationship. I do think it should be based on the recipient's need, though, rather than the payor's income.

Quote:
It is based on the support payor's income because, in an intact family, the amount the support payor would contribute to the child is higher if his or her income is higher. The child should continue to receive the same amount after the parents separate.

Yes, in an intact family, this is true. However, things change.

Francesca Allan wrote:
In the hypothetical example I gave, a potential life is certainly not a blessing to the drunken teenage boy.

Quote:
When he grows up, he'll see it is. If the situation is handled properly.

Not clear at all.

Quote:
Or would you prefer that he go through life feeling guilty about the child who doesn't know him?

But he's not going to feel guilty. He's not going to feel anything. He's going to look back at it as what it was, a drunken tumble.

quizzical

what a bunch of bs...bigtime!!!!!

in BC you can't sign away your child's right to monetary support from the other parent who is NOT primary care giver!!! it's the child's money NOT the primary care giver's money!!!!!!!!! the child can actually sue the parent who tried to give away their right to support from both parents plus the parent who is trying to deny them!

what's with the bs 'bout a "drunken tumble" as an excuse to be a shitty human being????!!!!! his parents did a stellar job raising him i can see!!! not!!!! can't have been too drunk he got it up enough to get someone pregnant!!!! what a ignorant little fucker he is!! and his parents the grandparents of the 'drunken mistake' must be real winners too!! not so much either!!!! losers on a grand scale they are!!!!

did ya just see the news tonight FA? how a guy went to jail for 4 months for his part in the Vancouver riots? being drunk and young was not accepted as an excuse by the judge!!!!!!

Wilf Day

Francesca Allan wrote:
But he's not going to feel guilty. He's not going to feel anything. He's going to look back at it as what it was, a drunken tumble.

Which produced his child. It doesn't matter to the child whether his or her father was drunk at the time, or not. And when the father grows up enough to realize it's not about him, he'll realize the details of how his child was conceived don't matter to anyone. 

cco

Wilf Day wrote:

When he grows up, he'll see it is. If the situation is handled properly. Or would you prefer that he go through life feeling guilty about the child who doesn't know him?

...And when the father grows up enough to realize it's not about him, he'll realize the details of how his child was conceived don't matter to anyone. 

Funny how this kind of argument is usually considered phenomenally creepy when used by pro-lifers against women and then turned around and parroted by progressives in these circumstances. Don't worry, eventually you'll see it as a blessing. You'll grow up. Wouldn't you rather be a parent than feel guilty later? You'll realize it's your purpose in life to be a parent no matter whether you're ready for it, can afford it, intended it, or "the details of conception". Now where have I heard that logic before?

I also love the analogies to committing crimes while drunk. Note that in this analogy, it's not the failure to pay, but the sex itself that's being compared to a crime, even if the person involved is a victim of rape. "He must've been able to give informed consent, since he wasn't too drunk to have an erection." Nice. Throw in some gratuitous parent-blaming for raising their son to be such a little harlot and this conversation is starting to feel very familiar.

Francesca Allan

quizzical wrote:
it's the child's money NOT the primary care giver's money!!!!!!!!!

Is it? Isn't it the primary caregiver who receives it, incorporates it into her household income to cover expenses, some of which of course are due to the child? Does the payor really say "Okay, Junior, here's your monthly cheque. Spend it wisely."

Quote:
the child can actually sue the parent who tried to give away their right to support from both parents plus the parent who is trying to deny them!

I'm sure the kid could sue but I've never heard of anybody turning down child support. And weaseling out of paying is difficult to do.

Quote:
what's with the bs 'bout a "drunken tumble" as an excuse to be a shitty human being????!!!!! his parents did a stellar job raising him i can see!!! not!!!! can't have been too drunk he got it up enough to get someone pregnant!!!! what a ignorant little fucker he is!! and his parents the grandparents of the 'drunken mistake' must be real winners too!! not so much either!!!! losers on a grand scale they are!!!!

Whoa. How is he a shitty human being? He foolishly got a girl pregnant when he was drunk and now dreads the consequences. Christ, I've had casual sex after drinking too much and hoped I didn't suffer consequences (pregnancy/STDs) too. Am I a shitty human being? And "ignorant little fucker" is just your spin on my original description: young, stupid, horny. And what the hell are you going after this guy's parents for?

Quote:
did ya just see the news tonight FA? how a guy went to jail for 4 months for his part in the Vancouver riots? being drunk and young was not accepted as an excuse by the judge!!!!!!

No, I didn't see it and I don't know what he was convicted of, either, but rioting and hell-raising are crimes while stupid sex is not.

Francesca Allan

There's an interesting American case, Dubay v. Wells, where the court found:

"Dubay’s claim that a man’s right to disclaim fatherhood would be analogous to a woman’s right to abortion rests upon a false analogy. In the case of a father seeking to opt out of fatherhood and thereby avoid child support obligations, the child is already in existence and the state therefore has an important interest in providing for his or her support."

In this case, the woman did in fact lie to her partner, saying she was infertile. Weird. I would have thought opting out of fatherhood would be practically the same as opting out of motherhood, but I believe that cco has made that point very clearly upthread. I wonder what would have happened if the case had been brought prior to birth of the child. Would the outcome have been different? And the state does indeed have an interest in providing for the child's support. The state, not the reluctant father. I believe the answer to these nightmares would be a male birth control pill.

ETA: "Financial abortion" is a great phrase.

cco

Francesca Allan wrote:
a male birth control pill.

The closest current equivalent we have is a vasectomy (though, of course, that's permanent). And good luck getting one of those at 14. I was 25 when I had mine and I had to shop around town for a urologist willing to do one on a childfree man, and he wouldn't do it until I brought in my wife and we had to sit through two hours of interrogation about "changing our minds" in a discussion that felt more reminiscent of a "crisis pregnancy center" than a tonsillectomy consultation.

Francesca Allan

And how's it going with your barren, sterile existence that will end with your death?  Wink

Back to this issue, though, what if the guy made a recording on his cell phone of the girl claiming she was safe? What about if she signed an agreement to that effect? Do you think that would have any weight?

There is no opt out. It is about safe sex. Each party is responsible to use birth control.  Someone can believe they are safe and there can be an error. If you do not want children use birth control. 

There is no opt out. It is about safe sex. Each party is responsible to use birth control.  Someone can believe they are safe and there can be an error. If you do not want children use birth control. 

Ghislaine

I cannot believe some of the arguments being made here. It is not just about the right of a man to opt out of fatherhood, or the right of a single mother not to be destitute, but about the rights of a child! What about their rights? I see very little mention of that person by francesca and cco. 

All of these comparisons to abortion are completely wrong and a false analogy. Abortion involves one person - the mother. After childbirth, there is a new person and child support is a bout their rights. If the father doesn not want to be involved, abandons their children, etc. they don't have to be involved emotionally but they do have to pay up. If you are worried about a woman lying about being infertile or being on the pill, use a condom.  But all of this is irrelevant to the discussion as well because condoms and birth control pills can FAIL. Even a 1% failure rate is thousands of unwanted pregnancies a year! And yes, it is the woman's complete decision whether a pregnancy results in a child or not and Yes if the man trying to pressure her into getting an abortion by saying he doesn't want to be there or pay to support a child he is a jerk. He can choose to never see his child, but thankfully our legal system has evolved (thanks to feminism btw!) to recognize the mother's right to get payments from him on the c hild's behalf. And he can say he doesn't want to be a father right now for whatever reason and not be ajerk, but once a child EXISTS he is a jerk for saying that. The child is there and is his son or daughter . I don't know very many men who aren't aware how babies are made or that a woman has complete right to choose. 

The rest of your beef seems to be with biology and mother nature - ie the fact that sex makes babies, women are the ones that get pregnant and get to control their own bodies. My response: no one is forcing a man to have sex . It has consequences. The ONLY exception I see to this is rape of a male by a felmale, which you did find one example of. THIS IS VERY VERY RARE SO PRACTICALLY A RED HERRING.  The vast majority of cases involve a poor single mother who has been abandoned by the father of her children. I know. I work in social housing and the vast majority of my clienbts spend way too much time navigating the maintenance enforcement system. If the guy goes to another province it gets even more complicated and difficult. 

Well said

quizzical

Francesca Allan wrote:
quizzical wrote:
it's the child's money NOT the primary care giver's money!!!!!!!!!

Is it? Isn't it the primary caregiver who receives it, incorporates it into her household income to cover expenses, some of which of course are due to the child? Does the payor really say "Okay, Junior, here's your monthly cheque. Spend it wisely."

ya it is the child's  no matter the gender of the primary caregiver. "some of which are due to the child" is a gross trivialization of how  much it costs to feed and raise a child per month!!!! your words appear to mean the primary caregiver is off spending it madly and not on the child.

Quote:
I'm sure the kid could sue but I've never heard of anybody turning down child support. And weaseling out of paying is difficult to do.
i have! not its not!

Quote:
Whoa. How is he a shitty human being? He foolishly got a girl pregnant when he was drunk and now dreads the consequences.... And what the hell are you going after this guy's parents for?

if his parents accepted the child as their grandchild and one who is in need of financial support he would follow suit!!!!

Quote:
No, I didn't see it and I don't know what he was convicted of, either, but rioting and hell-raising are crimes while stupid sex is not.

we're talking results of drunken actions and heads up it's against the law NOT to pay child support!!!! there's no poor hard done by boy in this.

----------

good post ghislaine

Francesca Allan

[email protected] wrote:
There is no opt out. It is about safe sex. Each party is responsible to use birth control.  Someone can believe they are safe and there can be an error. If you do not want children use birth control. 

I agree with you that the responsible thing to do is to use birth control but isn't relying on your partner's assurance that she is on birth control one form of using birth control?

Francesca Allan

Ghislaine wrote:
I cannot believe some of the arguments being made here. It is not just about the right of a man to opt out of fatherhood, or the right of a single mother not to be destitute, but about the rights of a child! What about their rights? I see very little mention of that person by francesca and cco.

Of course every child has the right to a decent life. But as I clearly stated above, it is my belief that child support in these cases should come from the state, not the poor sap who made one tragic mistake.

Quote:
All of these comparisons to abortion are completely wrong and a false analogy. Abortion involves one person - the mother.

That's true, as far as it goes (not very far) because, obviously, abortion is the mother's decision. But pregnancy involves two people and one should not be able to coerce the other.

Quote:
After childbirth, there is a new person and child support is a bout their rights. If the father doesn not want to be involved, abandons their children, etc. they don't have to be involved emotionally but they do have to pay up.

Even if they were tricked into their obligation? Doesn't the mother bear some responsibility for her deceit?

Quote:
if the man trying to pressure her into getting an abortion by saying he doesn't want to be there or pay to support a child he is a jerk.

Who said he was trying to "pressure" her? He merely said that's what he wanted and that, if she proceeded with the pregnancy, he wanted nothing to do with her or the child. Why there's this need to make this poor sap out to be some kind of bad guy by posters in this thread is beyond me. Oh, I know: It's because he's male.

Quote:
He can choose to never see his child, but thankfully our legal system has evolved (thanks to feminism btw!) to recognize the mother's right to get payments from him on the c hild's behalf.

In the hypothetical case we're discussing, I wouldn't count this as "evolution." I think it's positively Victorian.

Quote:
And he can say he doesn't want to be a father right now for whatever reason and not be ajerk, but once a child EXISTS he is a jerk for saying that.

Really? So if the teenage mom discovers she's not up to it and decides to put the child up for adoption, then I guess she's a jerk too.

Quote:
The rest of your beef seems to be with biology and mother nature - ie the fact that sex makes babies, women are the ones that get pregnant and get to control their own bodies.

Please try to read my posts before spouting off like this. I have no issue whatever with biology and mother nature. I have no issue whatsoever with women controlling their own bodies. What you claim to be "my beef" has nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote (or think). My actual beef is with a teenage boy being roped into 18 years of child support for making a mistake.

Quote:
My response: no one is forcing a man to have sex . It has consequences.

Of course it does. Nobody's disputing that -- where is all of this coming from?

Quote:
The vast majority of cases involve a poor single mother who has been abandoned by the father of her children. I know. I work in social housing and the vast majority of my clienbts spend way too much time navigating the maintenance enforcement system. If the guy goes to another province it gets even more complicated and difficult.

There are plenty of instances of the mother abandoning the father. And usually, as I'm sure you know, custody of the children defaults to the mother. She'd pretty much have to be a junkie or something before dad gets custody. And this hypothetical guy didn't "abandon" her. "Abandon" makes it sound like he was obliged to set up house with her and do the idyllic family thing. Well, he doesn't want that and he was very up front about saying he didn't want that.

You know, the feminist movement need not be threatened because some women have the audacity to acknowledge some men's rights, too. It doesn't have to be either/or. Promoting women's rights really doesn't have to mean denying the rights of others. We're all in this together.

Francesca Allan

quizzical wrote:
your words appear to mean the primary caregiver is off spending it madly and not on the child.

I certainly didn't mean my words to appear that way. I was just pointing out that it's not actually Junior's money. It might be more like money held in trust for him except that he's not entitled to cash the trust fund in.

Quote:
I'm sure the kid could sue but I've never heard of anybody turning down child support. And weaseling out of paying is difficult to do.

Quote:
i have! not its not!

You have heard of a single mother declining child support? I worked in family law for years and years and I never saw anything remotely like that. And you are correct, I guess it's not that hard to weasel out of actually paying child support. The obligation doesn't go away though, the debt still keeps racking up and eventually the guy gets caught.

Quote:
if his parents accepted the child as their grandchild and one who is in need of financial support he would follow suit!!!!

Evidence? There's no reason to think this. And, in my scenario, the kid wouldn't be in need of financial support because his mother would be receiving those funds from the state rather than from the father. And could we please focus on the issue here? The argument isn't whether or not child support should be paid. The argument is who should pay it.

Quote:
No, I didn't see it and I don't know what he was convicted of, either, but rioting and hell-raising are crimes while stupid sex is not.

Quote:
we're talking results of drunken actions and heads up it's against the law NOT to pay child support!!!!

No need to be snotty. You missed my point which was: Drunken criminal actions vs. drunken sex. I wasn't referring to not paying child support. I was trying to highlight (as cco did before he apparently withdrew in disgust) that posters here are sort of equating drunken sex with some sort of criminal activity. "You play, you pay," as was said upthread.

Quote:
 there's no poor hard done by boy in this.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Being saddled with 18 years of child support for an ill-advised drunken sexual encounter strikes me as being pretty damn hard done by.

cco

Francesca Allan wrote:

And how's it going with your barren, sterile existence that will end with your death?


I'm pretty sure my existence will end with my death one way or another.

I haven't quite withdrawn in disgust. To be honest, I'm still trying to process some of the eye-widening statements I've read in this thread.

In our current context, there are some good arguments to be made for the current system of child support, since our society is stuck in a Victorian mindset and regards social assistance as shameful to give and more shameful yet to receive. What stunned me was to see a bunch of progressives using arguments that could've been cut and pasted from the talking points of the right-to-lifers I used to debate in my "lovely" former home state of Tennessee.

"When you grow up, you'll see it as a blessing."

"Rape pregnancies are so rare they're a red herring."

"If you didn't want a child, you should've just been abstinent."

"Sex has consequences. You know where babies come from."

"Sober enough to have sex is sober enough to have to bear the consequences."

"If your parents had raised you right, you'd know you need to take care of that baby."

"Do you want to deny your child the chance of knowing you? You'll feel guilty!"

"If you want to have sex, contraception fails, and you still don't want to be a parent, you're a terrible human being."

"Oh, you poor benighted little promiscuous wretch. You knew where it would lead when you did the deed. No sympathy for you."

And of course, the endless variants of "Do the crime, do the time."

It's been quite a through-the-looking-glass experience.

I am part of a generation that has to live with HIV. Safe Sex is the only sex acceptable. It is like driving drunk. You can not do it. If you have unsafe sex and there is a pregnancy you are responsible. If a drunk driver kills someone they should go to jail. If you have sex and the condom breaks you are both responsible. Making life and causing death have no do overs. If a child is born both parents have a responsibility to do their best for that child. There is no moral op out.

I also believe the state should help families and children. But morally if you participate in the making of a child you are a parent with all attendant responsibility.

 

 

Francesca Allan

[email protected] wrote:
I also believe the state should help families and children. But morally if you participate in the making of a child you are a parent with all attendant responsibility.

If you're referring to parental financial responsibility, I don't see how much weight you're intending to give to governmental responsibility for families and children. If you're referring to other attendant responsibility, please let me hear your thoughts on giving a baby up for adoption. I agree with you that the state should help families and children but I'd like to see it in the larger context that the state should help anybody and everybody who needs assistance. I'm childfree and biased in that direction, I know, but I just don't see anything holy about procreating.

Anyway, back to the hypothetical. A drunken 15 year old boy (who may or may not have been fraudulently assured that he wouldn't become a father) and wants nothing to do with the child or the mother, does most certainly not, in my humble opinion, have any responsibility. This vindictive need to punish is a disgrace. You know how everybody says that if men got pregnant, there'd be no abortion debate? Well, I think if we were discussing here whether or not a woman should be forced into unwanted motherhood, there'd be no debate either.

Francesca Allan

[email protected] wrote:
If you have unsafe sex and there is a pregnancy you are responsible. If a drunk driver kills someone they should go to jail.

Again with the comparison of unsafe sex to criminal activity! (As an aside, I think jail is an incredibly stupid response to drinking and driving. I'm more in favour of restorative justice.)

Quote:
If you have sex and the condom breaks you are both responsible.

Depends what you mean by "both responsible." I think it's more that the father is responsible while the mother is in charge of everything else. It's entirely up to the woman whether this guy is going to be a coerced father or not. That's not entirely "equal." Anyway, please address the hypothetical: What if she tricked him into unprotected sex? Do you stick with your position in that case?

Quote:
Making life and causing death have no do overs

Careful, now. I believe you mean "making children" as foetuses are clearly "life."

Quote:
If a child is born both parents have a responsibility to do their best for that child. There is no moral op out.

So how do you explain giving a child up for adoption? Are you just going to say "it must have been best for the child"? Maybe true in some cases but, in others, adoption is a more appealing alternative to abortion. How is that kind of adoption not a "moral opt out"? Because it's her responsibility she's abdicating, rather than him abdicating his?

And I do realize that this is not the place for fair-minded discussion of the rights of both genders, however, men are pretty powerless in these matters. It's entirely up to her whether or not to have the baby, what she does to her body while she's waiting to have the baby, whether or not she's going to keep the baby, who the custodial parent is going to be in the event of a breakup, etc. Yes, I'll say it: Men have a shitty deal in family law. Much of what the MRAs go on about is stupid but on this point they are absolutely right.

ETA: Wanted to retract what I said about enforcement of child support. Of course it can be difficult to get fathers to pay up. Another reason why state child support is a better idea.

Francesca Allan

cco wrote:

Francesca Allan wrote:

And how's it going with your barren, sterile existence that will end with your death?

I'm pretty sure my existence will end with my death one way or another.

Yeah, but what about spreading your genes and thus living on through eternity? Aren't you going to miss that?

quizzical

FA all of a sudden you've morphed this discussion into a 'woman' making the decision and a boy who does not wanna pay!!!! see post # 74 for just one of the switches. the hypothetical you started with is a girl and a boy both drunk!  i think you're following the ancient meme of boys will be boys and the girls are the nasty evil ones who have to pay for their play!!!!!

did i not read above you are concerned 'bout tax payers paying for needless shit? yet somehow you think tax payers should be on the hook for paying for a boy's drunken mistake while he goes off and enjoys his privilege and lack of responsibility? 'boys will be boys' hard at work in your position!!!!!

i think we're really having a back door discussion on pro-choice and i'm not participating further!!!!!!!!!

etd: or at the least your not posting from a position of open dialogue and are trying to play "gotcha". anyway it is i'm not buying your position as you stated it!

Francesca Allan

quizzical wrote:
FA all of a sudden you've morphed this discussion into a 'woman' making the decision and a boy who does not wanna pay!!!! see post # 74 for just one of the switches. the hypothetical you started with is a girl and a boy both drunk!  i think you're following the ancient meme of boys will be boys and the girls are the nasty evil ones who have to pay for their play!!!!!

Hmm, you may have a point. I did start this thread saying drunken boy and girl so I'll stick with that hypothetical now although most of the later points of this thread apply equally to grown-up people of both gender. And, no, I'm not sure when girls/boys become women/men. And, no, I have never thought or said that it's okay that "boys will be boys" unless it's within the broader "teenagers will be teenagers." And I have no idea what you mean by me suggesting I'm thinking "girls are the nasty, evil ones who have to pay for their play." I do think that a teenage girl who lies to her one-time sexual partner and tells him she's on the pill is behaving immorally but I wouldn't go so far as to say "nasty, evil." And I certainly don't think that they have to "pay for their play." If they don't want an unintended pregnancy, they're free to abort. It's the teenage boy in this scenario (assuming she keeps the kid) who has to pay.

Quote:
did i not read above you are concerned 'bout tax payers paying for needless shit?

See, I don't think that child support is "needless shit" but I do think that speed for "ADHD" kids is, for one example of wasteful spending.

Quote:
yet somehow you think tax payers should be on the hook for paying for a boy's drunken mistake

No, the child is not a "drunken mistake." He/she's a child that deserves to be well-treated. Her conception, yes, was a drunken mistake but now that she's here ....

Quote:
while he goes off and enjoys his privilege and lack of responsibility?

No, he's not enjoying his privilege or lack of what I would call an onerous burden. He's just living the life he's entitled to and not being saddled with a crushing debt for moronically getting his rocks off. You seem to think he's evil and must be punished.

Quote:
 'boys will be boys' hard at work in your position!!!!!

No, you're quite wrong. Again, it's more "teenagers will be teenagers." A 14 year old girl who gets herself pregnant is behaving very irresponsibly yet she is still entitled to "her body, her choice," a very important decision that requires careful thought. The reality is that girls get pregnant. If she wants to avoid that, she better make damn sure she's covered. If she wants to rope some sap into paying for both parties' indiscretion, then she won't get any support from me. If she wants to abort, great, that's probably the best solution all around.

Quote:
i think we're really having a back door discussion on pro-choice and i'm not participating further!!!!!!!!!

No, this has nothing to do with pro-choice. Can't you have an argument without shrieking? The hypothetical boy and I are clearly very pro-choice, almost anti-life.

And it's fine that you won't participate in this thread any more. You utterly disregarded my (I thought) reasonable questions and chose instead to hurl invective. What it comes down to is that all decisions rest with the girl. The boy is just supposed to do what he's told. Now I do agree that whether or not to proceed is entirely up to her. If you would settle down for a moment, you might think about all I was asking: Should the teenage boy have to pay child support? Yes or no and why or why not? It's pretty simple.

Quote:
etd: or at the least your not posting from a position of open dialogue and are trying to play "gotcha". anyway it is i'm not buying your position as you stated it!

I would suggest that it's you that's not exercising open dialogue. You're not even listening to what I have to say. It seems to be much easier for you to attribute vile motives to me. And, really, your basically calling me "pro life" is over the fucking top. If you don't want to have a sensible discussion about teenage fathers' responsibility for their unwanted children, then perhaps you should stay away from the thread. And perhaps if I have questions or want to learn about others' views on various topics, I better just shut the fuck up and chant "Rah, rah, XX good, XY bad."

Christ, I wish I had never started this thread.

Ghislaine

Francesca Allan wrote:

 

No, he's not enjoying his privilege or lack of what I would call an onerous burden. He's just living the life he's entitled to and not being saddled with a crushing debt for moronically getting his rocks off. You seem to think he's evil and must be punished.

This is what I meant by your main problem seems to be with biology. He did not just "moronically get his rocks off". he could have done that without penetration and not risked pregnancy. Once he became a parent, the "life he's entitled to" changed dramatically. I don't think he is eveil and I don't think the child is a punishment.  He or she is the well-known result of sex. Mother Nature does not dole out punishments, it is simply the laws of nature. Yes, the sole choice to abort or not rests with her, but again this is due to simple facts of biology. Abortion is not exactlu a pleasant experience, nor is childbirth. So, guess what? life is not fair. Some things aren't fair for men, some things aren't fair for women. The law is structured about what is most fair for the child. Perhaps sex education needs to discuss child support, etc. more. 

 

 

Francesca Allan wrote:

Should the teenage boy have to pay child support? Yes or no and why or why not? It's pretty simple.

Yes. If he is a parent who is not living with the child and has the means he should. He knew sex can cause pregnancy. And, should you really trust someone you are "just getting yoru rocks off with" to tell the truth about birth control? There can be a discussion about child support rates/percentages of income, etc. ..but I guarantee you that the mother will be worse off financially. 

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (ratified by all except Somalia and the US) declares:

Quote:
  the upbringing and development of children and a standard of living adequate for the children's development is a common responsibility of both parents and a fundamental human right for children, and asserts that the primary responsibility to provide such for the children rests with their parents.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

I was chatting with a friend of mine who happens to be a judge...  He said that the vast, vast majority of custody arrangements are now joint custody, not the mother retaining sole custody.  Even in cases of domestic abuse, the father often maintains equal custody or close to it.  He's also seeing an upswing in fathers maintaining custody with the mother having visitation.  Maybe the sample you're seeing, Francesca, is a bit skewed. 

I used to know a guy who had two kids by two different women (neither intentional) and paid child support - a grand total of $100 a month per kid.  Poor boy.  Basically, if the guy can cry poor he doesn't wind up paying that much and the brunt of supporting the child (he didn't want custody, actually was offered joint custody in both cases) fell to the women. 

Knowing that anecdote does not equal data, I don't think we can equate him with the majority of non-custodial fathers or fathers sharing joint custody.  We do know that such people exist, as does the stereotypical divorcee out to ruin her ex financially.  It doesn't mean that it's the norm.

kropotkin1951

Most separations result in the parties working things out without going to court. The ones that appear in front of a Judge are themselves a minority sub-set of separating parents.  The law in BC is explicit that the child's welfare is the main focus when the parents can't agree on child rearing options after a breakup.

Teenage boys are no exception to the rule that parents are responsible for their children. That is the full stop absolute minimum. I find much of this thread mind boggling. Having said that I also want to see government funded day care and cheap education for both the ignorant teenage boy and the new mother.  As a society we owe that too them as they strive to raise a child.

Caissa

Of course, he should pay child support. He is the father.

Francesca Allan

Caissa wrote:
Of course, he should pay child support. He is the father.

I'll only respond to you, Caissa, as this is taking way, way too much time and I don't think there's any point in trying to address Ghislaine's assertion that I have an issue with biology and somebody's else's implication that I'm pro-life (sorry, can't remember who that was) 'cause both of these are untrue and indicate an absence of willingness to have a rational discussion (which is what I naively hoped for when I started this thread).

I have an issue with children being treated like adults. Please make sure you know that I'm not arguing that the child isn't entitled to support. Of course he or she is! My issue is simply who pays.

If the rule is an unintended pregnancy is a parent's responsibility, no exceptions, then what do you have to say about giving up the kid for adoption? Doesn't that kind of fly in the face of the responsibility principle?

I think the insistence in this thread that the boy has to be saddled with the burden (and, despite the weird example upthread of $100 child support per month, it is in fact almost always an onerous burden) is entirely based in our tendency to hate and blame males for every wrong in our society. For instance, as mentioned above, women do tend to have less money than men after separation. There are all kinds of reasons for that and, in my view, one single male is not obliged to carry the weight of society on his shoulders.

If I were the teenage boy in this hypothetical, I would change my name and move to another country before I ever paid a cent. Drunken sex shouldn't be a capital crime. And cco said it best:  These Victorian arguments parallel very closely the rabid pro-lifers.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Francesca, the financial ability of the father to pay is taken into account.  That's how my former acquaintance got away with so little - he was a full time student and earned very little money (over the table, anyway).  And as I said, it's an anecdote - but my point was that it holds as much weight as your hypothetical teenager. 

That said, he's not being asked to carry the weight of society - merely the consequences of his own actions.  As is the girl he impregnated.

kropotkin1951

Francesca Allan wrote:

If I were the teenage boy in this hypothetical, I would change my name and move to another country before I ever paid a cent.

 

What a brilliant idea. A teenager moving to another country and changing their name.  How exactly do you think they could accomplish that?  Seems to me that a teenager with the smarts and wherewithal to move to another country should have applied those qualities to his sexual relations.

 

kropotkin1951

The example of $100 is not absurd especially for a teenager new to the workforce.  A person making $15,000 a year would pay $97 a month. A full time employee making $12 an hour for 40 hours every week of the year would have an income of $25,000 and child support of $213 per month. 

Also anyone making $10,000 or less would pay NO child support.  Your scenario results in support payments that could be as little as nothing. Now please explain again why you think this system is an injustice?  If the kid is a whiz and makes more money then since he is the father he needs to pay for his child. He is not paying for a mistake, he is paying for the care of his offspring.

 

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/fl-df/child-enfant/look-rech.asp

 

Francesca Allan

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Francesca Allan wrote:

If I were the teenage boy in this hypothetical, I would change my name and move to another country before I ever paid a cent.

What a brilliant idea. A teenager moving to another country and changing their name.  How exactly do you think they could accomplish that?  Seems to me that a teenager with the smarts and wherewithal to move to another country should have applied those qualities to his sexual relations.

I never said it was a brilliant idea; I just said that is what I'd choose to do. Changing your name is pretty easy and emigrating can be done. And, yeah, yeah, yeah, we know the guy was stupid to have unprotected sex. That's been hashed to death. The issue is: Should he be financially responsible? You think yes, I think no, couldn't we just leave it at that?

Francesca Allan

Timebandit wrote:
Francesca, the financial ability of the father to pay is taken into account.

In BC, deliberately lowering your income doesn't reduce your obligation. It's all based on the payor's income regardless of need. I think this is wrong. The only thing that should count is the kid's need. But here I'm talking about upon a separation, not being an accidental sperm donor. As I've already said, this kid is certainly entitled to support, just not from this hypothetical guy.

Quote:
That said, he's not being asked to carry the weight of society - merely the consequences of his own actions.

I wasn't being clear. By suggesting that he was asked to "carry the weight of society," I was responding (I thought) to the rage towards males apparent in this thread. I got the feeling that the poor sap should pay, not because it's morally imperative, but rather because females are said to have it worse off.

Quote:
As is the girl he impregnated.

If you're referring to the consequence = pregnancy, then sure, she's responsible too, for whatever that's worth. She also has a safe and legal opt-out at her disposal. If she chooses to proceed, then I feel that this new dimension is actually now only her responsibility (well hers and society's) as it's entirely her choice and has nothing anymore to do with the "father."

If we're serious about reducing teenage pregnancy, making boys aware of their potential financial obligations would be a very effective way to do it.

Does your position change if the girl lies to the guy and says she's on the pill? Shouldn't that have some effect on the contract?

Lastly, Timebandit, would you mind answering the adoption question: If a child is entirely a parent's responsibility, no exceptions, then why do we allow adoption?

Francesca Allan

kropotkin1951 wrote:
The example of $100 is not absurd especially for a teenager new to the workforce.  A person making $15,000 a year would pay $97 a month. A full time employee making $12 an hour for 40 hours every week of the year would have an income of $25,000 and child support of $213 per month.

You're quite right. Sorry about that.

Quote:
Also anyone making $10,000 or less would pay NO child support.  Your scenario results in support payments that could be as little as nothing. Now please explain again why you think this system is an injustice?

Because he's being sentenced to EIGHTEEN years. Sure, he might be making less than $10K at the moment but that's unlikely still to be true two decades later, don't you think? Anyway, even if he only ever worked part-time at Kentucky Fried Chicken and thus never paid a cent, he still shouldn't have had the legal responsibility, even if the effect of it turned out to be nil. Analogy: my mental health record means I'll never be able to adopt a child. Now I don't want to adopt a child, but that's not the point. It's still a burden.

Quote:
If the kid is a whiz and makes more money then since he is the father he needs to pay for his child. He is not paying for a mistake, he is paying for the care of his offspring.

Yes, he is paying for a mistake. Paying very harshly for quite a minor crime. This kid isn't his child in any meaningful sense. He doesn't want anything to do with the child or the mother. He's been very up front about it right from the start. And, anyway, what's your objection to the state paying? Are you worried about the government spending? I think most irate posters here aren't concerned about that, they're more interested in punishing a male.

pookie

Francesca - I don't really see why your reasoning wouldn't equally apply to an 21 year old male in a relationship, say, who has already made it clear that he's not interested in kids with his partner.  

kropotkin1951

Maybe he needs educaction to teach him that children are not a sentence but a responsibility. I believe in child support which you do not seem to believe and I do not think it is a punishment as you apparently do.

You are now arguing full out against something that I thought was not really open for debate in this progressive forum. Child support is not an evil to be eradicated so that men can get their rocks off and not have to worry about taking any responsibility.

pookie

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Maybe he needs educaction to teach him that children are not a sentence but a responsibility. I believe in child support which you do not seem to believe and I do not think it is a punishment as you apparently do.

You are now arguing full out against something that I thought was not really open for debate in this progressive forum. Child support is not an evil to be eradicated so that men can get their rocks off and not have to worry about taking any responsibility.

I agree that I don't see how arguing that the universality of child support regimes is somehow linked to man-hatred is quite consistent with babble but, meh.  Seems like everything goes these days.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Francesca, adoption is one option that can be taken.  However, it's a very difficult choice to make.  Some women (and young couples) still decide to give up babies for adoption, but it's not something anyone should dictate. 

Personally, I'm not sure I could have given up a child for adoption. 

Francesca Allan

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Maybe he needs educaction to teach him that children are not a sentence but a responsibility. I believe in child support which you do not seem to believe and I do not think it is a punishment as you apparently do.

You are now arguing full out against something that I thought was not really open for debate in this progressive forum. Child support is not an evil to be eradicated so that men can get their rocks off and not have to worry about taking any responsibility.

Get fucking serious! I said nothing against having children or child support in general. I am discussing an unusual (I hope) circumstance that raises interesting issues. Your response is typical babbler, um, "discussion." Nothing quite as fun as righteous indignation, is there? Even though in order to attain it, you have to utterly misrepresent your opponent's POV. Well done. Real "progressive."

Francesca Allan

Timebandit wrote:
Francesca, adoption is one option that can be taken.  However, it's a very difficult choice to make.  Some women (and young couples) still decide to give up babies for adoption, but it's not something anyone should dictate. 

Personally, I'm not sure I could have given up a child for adoption. 

I agree with you, Timbandit. It would be difficult and I couldn't do it but that's not the question here. My question was if being a parent (accidentally or otherwise) makes you responsible, no exceptions, then how is it morally defensible to put a child up for adoption? What happens to a parent's responsibility then? I CERTAINLY didn't mean that adoption should be dictated. Fuck, what is going on? Can I not use language anymore? Must every fucking point that I make be twisted and misinterpreted??? I was just using adoption as an example of when a parent "gets a pass." In my opinion, the drunken teenage boy should get a pass too. Okay, fine, so babblers don't agree with me. We could have just dropped the discussion then but oh, no, first I had to be accused of being pro-life, of denying biology, or being unprogressive, of God knows what else, I can't even remember them all. I need a break from babble. If this is what counts as "progressive," then I guess I don't want to be part of the gang.

Francesca Allan

pookie wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Maybe he needs educaction to teach him that children are not a sentence but a responsibility. I believe in child support which you do not seem to believe and I do not think it is a punishment as you apparently do.

You are now arguing full out against something that I thought was not really open for debate in this progressive forum. Child support is not an evil to be eradicated so that men can get their rocks off and not have to worry about taking any responsibility.

I agree that I don't see how arguing that the universality of child support regimes is somehow linked to man-hatred is quite consistent with babble but, meh.  Seems like everything goes these days.

Can you rephrase this, pookie? I'm not sure what you're saying you agree with. If by "universality," you're including my hypothetical then I think it's fair to note that those posters most offended by what could have been a rational debate did start ranting about how men are evil scumbags that never pull their weight and that anybody that doesn't agree with these posters is a pro-life, stone age ratbag (okay, I'm paraphasing a bit).

Francesca Allan

pookie wrote:
Francesca - I don't really see why your reasoning wouldn't equally apply to an 21 year old male in a relationship, say, who has already made it clear that he's not interested in kids with his partner. 

I would have less sympathy for a 21 year old in this predicament. If both of them don't want kids, then they have to put their heads together and figure out how to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. If she does want kids and he doesn't, then I guess it's up to him to protect himself. If there's a pregnancy anyway and assuming she didn't deceive him about birth control, then absolutely he is on the hook. The key difference to me is that we're now talking about a RELATIONSHIP, which is quite a different scenario than what I laid out re: my drunken teenagers.

kropotkin1951

Francesca Allan wrote:

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Good grief, the partner who's gracious and enables the other to succeed shouldn't share in their success?

In many cases success comes before the relationship. Do you still think it should be shared? Should a doctor spouse really be sentenced to years of spousal support to equalize incomes with a bus driver? What about the expenses and effort of becoming financial successful?

RevolutionPlease wrote:
What's wrong with controlling ourselves or paying the consequences for our indiscretions?

I'm all for controlling ourselves and making responsible decisions as males or as females. I only put forward a hypothetical example. Should that guy really pay 18 years for a drunken hump? Would you change your mind if she had lied to him and said she was on the pill?

I want to make it clear that child support is essential upon the disintegration of a relationship but this isn't a relationship. I do think it should be based on the recipient's need, though, rather than the payor's income.

I just can't imagine how I got the idea you were talking about child support in general in some of your posts. Maybe it was you taking your trojan horse drunken teenager without a trojan condum to the next level with this nice post.

Francesca Allan

kropotkin1951 wrote:
I just can't imagine how I got the idea you were talking about child support in general in some of your posts.

Hey, here's an idea! Maybe if you actually, you know, READ them and distinguish between when I was talking about child support versus when I was talking about spousal support, that would be a start. Or, what the hell, just continue to follow your pattern if that's what you enjoy.

Quote:
Maybe it was you taking your trojan horse drunken teenager without a trojan condum to the next level with this nice post.

What exactly do you object to in my post? Or can you not pin it down? Is it more that you like attributing vile motives to anyone who disagrees with your so-called "progressive" thought?

Francesca Allan

Let's look at the offending post, shall we?

Quote:
In many cases success comes before the relationship.

Are you disputing this?

Quote:
Do you still think it should be shared? Should a doctor spouse really be sentenced to years of spousal support to equalize incomes with a bus driver? What about the expenses and effort of becoming financial successful?

Well, do you? Do you think being married to a rich man means you're entitled to be rich for the rest of your life, regardless of the circumstances of your separation?

Quote:
I'm all for controlling ourselves and making responsible decisions as males or as females. I only put forward a hypothetical example.

Problem here?

Quote:
Should that guy really pay 18 years for a drunken hump? Would you change your mind if she had lied to him and said she was on the pill?

Simple enough questions.

Quote:
I want to make it clear that child support is essential upon the disintegration of a relationship but this isn't a relationship.

Is this what you're referring to when you say you couldn't figure out if I was in favour of child support? Did you misread it? Was it too complicated for you? Are you suffering from confirmation bias?

Quote:
I do think it should be based on the recipient's need, though, rather than the payor's income.

You may disagree with this as policy but is it actually offensive? What I meant was that being under-employed ought not to be an excuse to wiggle out of paying (and in fact it's not in my province). I also meant that a very wealthy spouse shouldn't have to pay more than his child requires for the child to be in the same position as he was when his parents were together, i.e. once a child's needs are well covered, I don't see any need for the spouse to pay anything more than that. Again, you can agree or disagree but do you really find it offensive?

Ghislaine

Francesca Allan wrote:

If you're referring to the consequence = pregnancy, then sure, she's responsible too, for whatever that's worth. She also has a safe and legal opt-out at her disposal. If she chooses to proceed, then I feel that this new dimension is actually now only her responsibility (well hers and society's) as it's entirely her choice and has nothing anymore to do with the "father."

Here is why I keep stating that you have a problem with the biological reality of the situation, Francesca. You just put father in quotations marks! Why? In your hypothetical, the guy is a father. That is a fact. Whether he wanted the girl to have an abortion, whether he wants to involved or not, whether he sees the child as a punishment completely unrelated to "a drunken hump", he is a father. Even if he decides to not to change his name and leave teh country (as you suggested), he is still a father. Perhaps someday the child will find him after his "18 years of punishment for a drunken hump" have passed by. If the child finds him, the child will say he is their father.  

Yes the mother has a safe and legal "opt-out". That does not mean it is easy or pleasant. And she can decide to keep the baby and when the baby is born, the guy is a FATHER. fact. Not a "father", like it is insane to think that drunken humps cause children. Quite a few people in this country were created that way I am sure! lol

Pages

Topic locked