Child Support and Rape

[Ashmoria]

pregnancy is how you get to be a parent. it always falls on women whereas unwanted parenthood only falls on men sometimes.

That biology is not egalitarian is no reason for us not to be. There are plenty of biological inequalities that the law explicitly ignores in the service of equal rights, and i think this is a good thing.
If pregnancy is "How you get to be a parent." then clearly men aren't parents at all. I'll assume you just butchered the way you phrased that and move on.

no really. pregnancy is how you get to be a parent. it is as true for fathers as it is for mothers. without pregnancy you dont get a baby so you dont get to be a parent. its even true for adoptive parents and parents who use a surrogate.

[Ostroeuropa]

That biology is not egalitarian is no reason for us not to be. There are plenty of biological inequalities that the law explicitly ignores in the service of equal rights, and i think this is a good thing.
If pregnancy is "How you get to be a parent." then clearly men aren't parents at all. I'll assume you just butchered the way you phrased that and move on.

no really. pregnancy is how you get to be a parent. it is as true for fathers as it is for mothers. without pregnancy you dont get a baby so you dont get to be a parent. its even true for adoptive parents and parents who use a surrogate.

Ok sure. (It may be a quibble, but you should have phrased that as "A pregnancy occuring is how you get to be a parent." not "Pregnancy is how you get to be a parent." There is an important difference.)
But what about the rest of my post.

That biology is not egalitarian is no reason for us not to be. There are plenty of biological inequalities that the law explicitly ignores in the service of equal rights, and i think this is a good thing.
If pregnancy is "How you get to be a parent." then clearly men aren't parents at all. I'll assume you just butchered the way you phrased that and move on.
Unwanted parenthood is the point. If a woman does not wish to be a parent she has a number of options available to her, INCLUDING ones which outright deny the father their rights.
If the father wishes to be a parent and the mother does not, there is nothing he can do. Even if she does not abort and carries to full term, she can still place it unilaterally up for adoption.
A father who does not wish to be a parent and a mother who does is likewise screwed.

[Ashmoria]

no really. pregnancy is how you get to be a parent. it is as true for fathers as it is for mothers. without pregnancy you dont get a baby so you dont get to be a parent. its even true for adoptive parents and parents who use a surrogate.

Ok sure.
But what about the rest of my post.

That biology is not egalitarian is no reason for us not to be. There are plenty of biological inequalities that the law explicitly ignores in the service of equal rights, and i think this is a good thing.
If pregnancy is "How you get to be a parent." then clearly men aren't parents at all. I'll assume you just butchered the way you phrased that and move on.
Unwanted parenthood is the point. If a woman does not wish to be a parent she has a number of options available to her, INCLUDING ones which outright deny the father their rights.
If the father wishes to be a parent and the mother does not, there is nothing he can do. Even if she does not abort and carries to full term, she can still place it unilaterally up for adoption.
A father who does not wish to be a parent and a mother who does is likewise screwed.

it evens out.

the only way for men to assert their rights to be considered parents at all is to have responsibilities as well as rights to their children. otherwise they are just visitors coming in and out of their childrens lives as they choose.

you cant get past biology. women get to control their bodies; men get to control theirs. they both have rights and responsibilities to their children.

[Ostroeuropa]

Ok sure.
But what about the rest of my post.

it evens out.

the only way for men to assert their rights to be considered parents at all is to have responsibilities as well as rights to their children. otherwise they are just visitors coming in and out of their childrens lives as they choose.

you cant get past biology. women get to control their bodies; men get to control theirs. they both have rights and responsibilities to their children.

That women get to control their bodies is a given. I am not arguing over abortion rights. I am saying that you can tell that this is NOT the reason that rights are currently lopsided because of the ability of mothers to unilaterally place a child up for adoption, deny parenthood to the father, force parenthood onto the father, whatever she deems appropriate. The entire set of rights and responsibilities is wholly determined by the mother.
Men do not get to control their bodies under this system. Forced labor and debtors prison is not bodily autonomy.
You managed to completely ignore the fact that I made this point in my post which leads me to believe you aren't even reading them.

If the father wishes to be a parent and the mother does not, there is nothing he can do. Even if she does not abort and carries to full term, she can still place it unilaterally up for adoption.

the only way for men to assert their rights to be considered parents at all is to have responsibilities as well as rights to their children. otherwise they are just visitors coming in and out of their childrens lives as they choose.

Incidentally, that is what I am arguing for.
That child welfare payments be optional and the person who pays them have the right to refuse to do so, and lose all rights and responsibilities with regard to the child.
The fact you don't even seem to understand what the other side is arguing for lends further credence to my suspicion that you aren't even reading our posts

As for your last (or first) contention that "It evens out" i think the above demonstrates that it does not.

[Ashmoria]

it evens out.

the only way for men to assert their rights to be considered parents at all is to have responsibilities as well as rights to their children. otherwise they are just visitors coming in and out of their childrens lives as they choose.

you cant get past biology. women get to control their bodies; men get to control theirs. they both have rights and responsibilities to their children.

That women get to control their bodies is a given. I am not arguing over abortion rights. I am saying that you can tell that this is NOT the reason that rights are currently lopsided because of the ability of mothers to unilaterally place a child up for adoption, deny parenthood to the father, force parenthood onto the father, whatever she deems appropriate. The entire set of rights and responsibilities is wholly determined by the mother.
Men do not get to control their bodies under this system. Forced labor and debtors prison is not bodily autonomy.
You managed to completely ignore the fact that I made this point in my post which leads me to believe you aren't even reading them.

If the father wishes to be a parent and the mother does not, there is nothing he can do. Even if she does not abort and carries to full term, she can still place it unilaterally up for adoption.

the only way for men to assert their rights to be considered parents at all is to have responsibilities as well as rights to their children. otherwise they are just visitors coming in and out of their childrens lives as they choose.

Incidentally, that is what I am arguing for.
That child welfare payments be optional and the person who pays them have the right to refuse to do so, and lose all rights and responsibilities with regard to the child.
The fact you don't even seem to understand what the other side is arguing for lends further credence to my suspicion that you aren't even reading our posts

As for your last (or first) contention that "It evens out" i think the above demonstrates that it does not.

men get to control their bodies in the reproductive process.

as regards the topic of this thread i certainly dont think that a man who was raped in order for the woman rapist to get pregnant should be forced to have anything to do with the resulting child, including child support. (the problem with that being the ajudication of the rape charge).

otherwise i dont support the idea that any man can repudiate his unborn children and shift that burden onto the state. its not good for children and its not good for society.

and no it will NEVER even out because no man ever faces the possibility that the process of becoming a parent will kill him.

[Ostroeuropa]

That women get to control their bodies is a given. I am not arguing over abortion rights. I am saying that you can tell that this is NOT the reason that rights are currently lopsided because of the ability of mothers to unilaterally place a child up for adoption, deny parenthood to the father, force parenthood onto the father, whatever she deems appropriate. The entire set of rights and responsibilities is wholly determined by the mother.
Men do not get to control their bodies under this system. Forced labor and debtors prison is not bodily autonomy.
You managed to completely ignore the fact that I made this point in my post which leads me to believe you aren't even reading them.





Incidentally, that is what I am arguing for.
That child welfare payments be optional and the person who pays them have the right to refuse to do so, and lose all rights and responsibilities with regard to the child.
The fact you don't even seem to understand what the other side is arguing for lends further credence to my suspicion that you aren't even reading our posts

As for your last (or first) contention that "It evens out" i think the above demonstrates that it does not.

men get to control their bodies in the reproductive process.

as regards the topic of this thread i certainly dont think that a man who was raped in order for the woman rapist to get pregnant should be forced to have anything to do with the resulting child, including child support. (the problem with that being the ajudication of the rape charge).

otherwise i dont support the idea that any man can repudiate his unborn children and shift that burden onto the state. its not good for children and its not good for society.

and no it will NEVER even out because no man ever faces the possibility that the process of becoming a parent will kill him.

You are in disagreement with a good many who are arguing that child support is for the child irrespective of circumstance (because i suspect they realize the line of argument you are taking actually DOES mean that child support is immoral and explicitly sexist, whereas theirs renders it merely immoral and implicitly sexist.)
I don't see why it's bad for society to respect the rights of individuals.
Nor does the women ever face the prospect that becomming a parent will render them without rights and subject to debtors prisons, the difference being one is something we actively try to prevent (The death by pregnancy) and the other is one we CAUSE.

[Ashmoria]

men get to control their bodies in the reproductive process.

as regards the topic of this thread i certainly dont think that a man who was raped in order for the woman rapist to get pregnant should be forced to have anything to do with the resulting child, including child support. (the problem with that being the ajudication of the rape charge).

otherwise i dont support the idea that any man can repudiate his unborn children and shift that burden onto the state. its not good for children and its not good for society.

and no it will NEVER even out because no man ever faces the possibility that the process of becoming a parent will kill him.

You are in disagreement with a good many who are arguing that child support is for the child irrespective of circumstance (because i suspect they realize the line of argument you are taking actually DOES mean that child support is immoral and explicitly sexist, whereas theirs renders it merely immoral and implicitly sexist.)
I don't see why it's bad for society to respect the rights of individuals.
Nor does the women ever face the prospect that becomming a parent will render them without rights and subject to debtors prisons, the difference being one is something we actively try to prevent (The death by pregnancy) and the other is one we CAUSE.

women are just as liable for the support of their children as men are. plenty of men have primary custody of their children and the mothers pay child support and face the same penalties that deadbeat fathers face.

if you want to make things more equal work on fathers rights not the right of fathers to walk away.

[Camicon]

You are in disagreement with a good many who are arguing that child support is for the child irrespective of circumstance (because i suspect they realize the line of argument you are taking actually DOES mean that child support is immoral and explicitly sexist, whereas theirs renders it merely immoral and implicitly sexist.)
I don't see why it's bad for society to respect the rights of individuals.
Nor does the women ever face the prospect that becomming a parent will render them without rights and subject to debtors prisons, the difference being one is something we actively try to prevent (The death by pregnancy) and the other is one we CAUSE.

women are just as liable for the support of their children as men are. plenty of men have primary custody of their children and the mothers pay child support and face the same penalties that deadbeat fathers face.

if you want to make things more equal work on fathers rights not the right of fathers to walk away.

The number of fathers that have custody of the children, while the mother pays support, is vanishingly small. Unicorn's are more common.
And if we're going to give fathers equal rights, then they need to have the right to walk away. It's a right that women possess, and men do not.

[Gravlen]

women are just as liable for the support of their children as men are. plenty of men have primary custody of their children and the mothers pay child support and face the same penalties that deadbeat fathers face.

if you want to make things more equal work on fathers rights not the right of fathers to walk away.

The number of fathers that have custody of the children, while the mother pays support, is vanishingly small. Unicorn's are more common.
And if we're going to give fathers equal rights, then they need to have the right to walk away. It's a right that women possess, and men do not.

Census figures show only 57 percent of moms required to pay child support -- 385,000 women out of a total of 674,000 -- give up some or all of the money they owe. That leaves some 289,000 "deadbeat" mothers out there, a fact that has barely been reported in the media.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59963,00.html

That was 674,000 in 2002. Now, you owe me a buttload of unicorns! Get to it!

[Gravlen]

Only one gender can be forced to be parents against their will in the current legal system.

Are you talking about women in the UK? The only gender to automatically be determined to be a parent when the child is born?

Because I'm not sure that's exactly accurate...

[Yankee Empire]

And, yes, being bigoted against anyone is generally agreed to be a bad thing.

Whcih is idiotic and shows the hypocrisy of many of the "values" of modern society.

Is it bad to be bigoted agaisnt child Rapists?

No? Well than it isn't always bad to be bigoted.

Yes? Well then i don't give a shit what is "generally" agreed upon because whoever is making up the averages is a spinless moraless imbessile.

[Qanchia]

Only one gender can be forced to be parents against their will in the current legal system.

Are you talking about women in the UK? The only gender to automatically be determined to be a parent when the child is born?

Because I'm not sure that's exactly accurate...

It's very clear whom Ostroeuropa is talking about.

[Gravlen]

Are you talking about women in the UK? The only gender to automatically be determined to be a parent when the child is born?

Because I'm not sure that's exactly accurate...

It's very clear whom Ostroeuropa is talking about.

It is.

It is however not clear that he knows what he's talking about.

[Czechanada]

And, yes, being bigoted against anyone is generally agreed to be a bad thing.

Whcih is idiotic and shows the hypocrisy of many of the "values" of modern society.

Is it bad to be bigoted agaisnt child Rapists?

No? Well than it isn't always bad to be bigoted.

Yes? Well then i don't give a shit what is "generally" agreed upon because whoever is making up the averages is a spinless moraless imbessile.

Sociology disagrees.

[Galloism]

The number of fathers that have custody of the children, while the mother pays support, is vanishingly small. Unicorn's are more common.
And if we're going to give fathers equal rights, then they need to have the right to walk away. It's a right that women possess, and men do not.

Census figures show only 57 percent of moms required to pay child support -- 385,000 women out of a total of 674,000 -- give up some or all of the money they owe. That leaves some 289,000 "deadbeat" mothers out there, a fact that has barely been reported in the media.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59963,00.html

That was 674,000 in 2002. Now, you owe me a buttload of unicorns! Get to it!

That's actually a shocking statistic for reasons other than what you've cited. 43% of noncustodial mothers can't or don't pay child support, compared with 32% of fathers. The article actually explains that women tend to be lower income, and thus probably a great many of those can't pay child support for the reasons I've cited earlier. No different than what effects black men a lot of the time, and those very low on the socioeconomic ladder.

It's also shocking that they say that only 674,000 women are supposed to be paying child support, while 4.2 million men are supposed to be paying child support. That means only 13.8% of fathers have custody of their children and are supposed to be receiving child support.

That implies some de facto sexist disparity in custody, child support obligations, or something else I can't think of.

[Galloism]

no man ever faces the possibility that the process of becoming a parent will kill him.

Not necessarily true.

[Geilinor]

This post, by the way, is by and large a phantom. The only way this can go down is if a child is conceived via rape, and the rapist then gets custody of the child, forcing the victim to pay support for the child. Because again, child support is payment made by the non custodial parent.

So this hypothetical exists only when the rapist gets custody. This would only occur when the rapist is the one given custody. Not the victim, but the rapist.

How often does this happen, exactly? Is this really a thing we need to concern ourselves with? Are proven rapists (even by a civil court's standard of proof) that frequently on occurance?

if the rapist is the woman and the victim is the father, there ya go.

What court would give custody to the rapist? In that case the custody should go to the father. Custody doesn't always go to the mother. Mothers shouldn't get custody just because they gave birth. Custody should be given based on the child's needs and who is more capable to raise the child.

[Palace of the Rising Sun]

Are you able to tell us why not?

Because A = A.

Or does A = Z 1/2?

[Pnis lannd]

What court would give custody to the rapist?

If the other parent is dead and the remaining parent (rapist or not) is deemed responsible enough.

I can understand how this is an agregious mockery of the justice system but courts cannot always operate in a moral utopia.
This, I assume, would be more prevelant (if prevalent at all) in lower income areas, inner city courts, etc.

[Geilinor]

Census figures show only 57 percent of moms required to pay child support -- 385,000 women out of a total of 674,000 -- give up some or all of the money they owe. That leaves some 289,000 "deadbeat" mothers out there, a fact that has barely been reported in the media.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59963,00.html

That was 674,000 in 2002. Now, you owe me a buttload of unicorns! Get to it!

That's actually a shocking statistic for reasons other than what you've cited. 43% of noncustodial mothers can't or don't pay child support, compared with 32% of fathers. The article actually explains that women tend to be lower income, and thus probably a great many of those can't pay child support for the reasons I've cited earlier. No different than what effects black men a lot of the time, and those very low on the socioeconomic ladder.

It's also shocking that they say that only 674,000 women are supposed to be paying child support, while 4.2 million men are supposed to be paying child support. That means only 13.8% of fathers have custody of their children and are supposed to be receiving child support.

That implies some de facto sexist disparity in custody, child support obligations, or something else I can't think of.

Women are often deemed to be more deserving to raise children because they gave birth. The mother and father should be seen as equal unless there is evidence otherwise. I've never been to a custody trial, but I'm guessing there must be something. Ignoring the reasons why, I've never heard anyone talk about the percentage of "deadbeat" women who don't pay child support. I believe child support should have an ability to pay factor. The amount of child support owed might decrease, but more noncustodial parents would pay.

[Tahar Joblis]

There's something intellectually dishonest about claiming a turd to actually be a pear because they've got similar shapes. There's absolutely something intellectually dishonest about lying.

You're calling it something it's not. It's like me calling you a "honest debater". You might look like one, but...

I'm calling it what it is and stating why. Do you have justification for your position yet?

And? It has no bearing on simple biological facts.

No justification offered.

That still doesn't make child support a punishment.

...not yet...

Just as how regular payments of child support wouldn't be a punishment, while fines and penalties for refusing to pay are punishments.

Only if you'd agreed to them.

Which is, again, the issue that rape victims highlight. There is not even consent to sex for you to try to conflate with consent to pregnancy or consent to parenthood.

Again, sucks to be you, living in such a backwards shithole.

This is an attack, not an argument.

Since child support in the civilized world works effectively,

False.

and men don't face such legal persecution there,

False.

it's becoming clear that it's not a punishment for violating a societal norm

False.

but rather a tool - where the legal authorities use a legitimate system - for the institutional persecution of unmarried men, and symptomatic of a deeper and more fundamental problem with your society.

It is a tool used for the institutional persecution of unmarried men, and symptomatic of a deeper and more fundamental problem.

A problem I personally don't believe exist, but nevertheless fits with your expressed worldview of how men are persecuted in the US.

Your belief founded in ... what? Continued denials.

You've yet to show me these parents who are forced to pay child support while actually living with and supporting their children at the same time.

I was speaking of cohabitation laws.

I'm back!

And here's how single mothers in the UK can't freely put their children up for adoption.

Fathers’ rights

As the child’s father you’ll be asked to agree to the adoption - but only if you have parental responsibility.

A father usually has parental responsibility if he is:

married to the child’s mother
listed on the birth certificate (after a certain date, depending on which part of the UK the child was born in)

You can apply for parental responsibility if you don’t automatically have it.

So the custodial parent cannot unilaterally give up the child for adoption if the other parent has parental responsibility.

Which is automatically granted to the mother; and yet not automatically granted to the father, it is granted principally by the consent of the mother for it to be granted. [And she may choose to grant it to someone who is not the biological father.]

To sum up: If the other parent doesn't have parental responsibility, then he doesn't pay child maintenance. As such, he doesn't have any obligations to get rid of. (However, if he'd like, he can apply for it.) At that point, the single mother may give up her child for adoption without the consent of the other parent - though if the department knows who he is and decides it is appropriate they must counsel and advise him.

To sum up, if a single mother wishes to give her child up for adoption in the UK, she declines to grant "parental responsibility" to the father, and does so; while if she wishes to keep her child and collect child support, she imposes "parental responsibility" on the father, and does so.

Or, in other words, the state of law in the UK reflects the same de facto reality as the state of adoption law in the US; which places nearly all power in the hands of the mother; barring extremely energetic legal action by the father, which can only be used to assume, rather than avoid, the mantle of parental responsibility that biological relationships would traditionally entail, and are often not successful in any event.

This should not be surprising, since the legal systems of the US and UK are closely related.

If the other parent does have parental responsibility, he owes child maintenance to the child. He cannot get rid of those obligations unilaterally. The custodial parent cannot unilaterally get rid of those obligations either, since both birth parents have to agree to adoption and a child cannot be legally abandoned.

As I said: Your example is verifiably wrong.

It is verifiably correct. As I said, single mothers can freely put their children up for adoption in the UK; because they may simply decline to identify a father.

In Austria, there is the right of anonymous birth. The Czech Republic makes widespread use of baby hatches. Shall I go on? There are a very large number of developed countries which offer, de facto or de jure, the right to not become a legal mother even after giving birth.

It is difficult to assert that both France and the United States are backwards and barbaric parts of the world, unless you are simply anti-democracy; generally speaking, the other critiques that one offers the United States on that account fail to apply to France, and vice versa, and most people would consider at least one or the other of those countries civilized.

Even in the developed countries where outright abandonment is theoretically punishable by law, it is typically either the case that authorities look the other way in "safe haven" type situations covered in US law, or - also like US law - allow single mothers to put their children up for adoption without subjecting them to obligations or requiring that they correctly identify the father and obtain his consent.