Forced Fatherhood

[Galloism]

Hmm.

Not enough of them have been made to pay child care. They shouldn't go to prison if they are able to pay a certain amount of child care. If the fathers themselves are too poor to pay, they should be ordered to pay the child care within a certain amount of years. And all of this should also apply to a mother if they leave a child with the father.

So you're walking back the "men can walk away without legal penalty" thing?

[Kramanica]

You just explained why women are allowed to secede their legal rights and responsibilities, by leaving their babies at drop off centers. You have again failed to explain why men are not allowed to secede their legal rights and responsibilities.

Because more or less, a group of old and rich or powerful and influential men (the powers that be) which run society, have all collectively decided to give women more rights overall than men do; in certain areas of law or societal organization. Male chauvinists generally speaking, still care an awful lot about their mothers or daughters, wives, etc. and will use their considerable power to cede some of it to women more often than not.

Even if for the vast majority of history, we're all been under a patriarchy- women still hold considerable sway and influence in that way.

And yet you've still been spending a good chunk of this thread advocating against men being able to do the same thing and even demanding rape victims pay child support for their rape baby.

The goalposts are moving so fast it's hard to keep up.

Why dont you think men should be able to do the same thing?

[Camicon]

You just explained why women are allowed to secede their legal rights and responsibilities, by leaving their babies at drop off centers. You have again failed to explain why men are not allowed to secede their legal rights and responsibilities.

Because more or less, a group of old and rich or powerful and influential men (the powers that be) which run society, have all collectively decided to give women more rights overall than men do; in certain areas of law or societal organization. Male chauvinists generally speaking, still care an awful lot about their mothers or daughters, wives, etc. and will use their considerable power to cede some of it to women more often than not.

Even if for the vast majority of history, we're all been under a patriarchy- women still hold considerable sway and influence in that way.

Partial answer, but you got to the crux of it.

The way we correct this state of affairs is by letting men secede their legal rights and responsibilities of parenthood within a certain time frame around their child being born, or their discovering that they have a child.

And if doing so would increase the rate of childhood poverty then bump up taxes a little, and provide low-income families with more welfare support.

[United Citizens of North America]

Not enough of them have been made to pay child care. They shouldn't go to prison if they are able to pay a certain amount of child care. If the fathers themselves are too poor to pay, they should be ordered to pay the child care within a certain amount of years. And all of this should also apply to a mother if they leave a child with the father.

Why not just do welfare?
Do we really need a whole second department of bureaucrats and officials and such doing the job that one of them is already doing? (Handling child welfare payments.)

Further, why should chidlren of deceased parents or parents unavailable for other reasons (Jail, unknown, or missing), be placed at disadvantage?

Either we care about child poverty or we don't. If you care about child poverty, then you can't honestly conclude the child support system is a good way to fix it.

That's all true, but for fathers or mothers who left their children specifically out of neglect, they should pay up. Welfare can handle most of the cost, but if welfare gives money to single parents, then we are supporting divorce.

[Camicon]

Why not just do welfare?
Do we really need a whole second department of bureaucrats and officials and such doing the job that one of them is already doing? (Handling child welfare payments.)

Further, why should chidlren of deceased parents or parents unavailable for other reasons (Jail, unknown, or missing), be placed at disadvantage?

Either we care about child poverty or we don't. If you care about child poverty, then you can't honestly conclude the child support system is a good way to fix it.

That's all true, but for fathers or mothers who left their children specifically out of neglect, they should pay up. Welfare can handle most of the cost, but if welfare gives money to single parents, then we are supporting divorce.

No, you're supporting single parents.

People are single parents for reasons beyond divorce. Or did you not know that?

[Ostroeuropa]

Why not just do welfare?
Do we really need a whole second department of bureaucrats and officials and such doing the job that one of them is already doing? (Handling child welfare payments.)

Further, why should chidlren of deceased parents or parents unavailable for other reasons (Jail, unknown, or missing), be placed at disadvantage?

Either we care about child poverty or we don't. If you care about child poverty, then you can't honestly conclude the child support system is a good way to fix it.

That's all true, but for fathers or mothers who left their children specifically out of neglect, they should pay up. Welfare can handle most of the cost, but if welfare gives money to single parents, then we are supporting divorce.

Isn't forcing child support to be a thing also supporting divorce?

Why should they be forced to pay up? It's not neglectful provided the child isn't left in danger, and with sufficiently robust child welfare, they wouldn't be.

[United Citizens of North America]

Not enough of them have been made to pay child care. They shouldn't go to prison if they are able to pay a certain amount of child care. If the fathers themselves are too poor to pay, they should be ordered to pay the child care within a certain amount of years. And all of this should also apply to a mother if they leave a child with the father.

So you're walking back the "men can walk away without legal penalty" thing?

In today's society, many can. I am talking about a potential solution to parts of the childhood poverty problem.

[Camicon]

So you're walking back the "men can walk away without legal penalty" thing?

In today's society, many can. I am talking about a potential solution to parts of the childhood poverty problem.

In today's society, men can only walk away from parental responsibilities if they are allowed to by other people, namely the mother and the legal system.

[United Citizens of North America]

That's all true, but for fathers or mothers who left their children specifically out of neglect, they should pay up. Welfare can handle most of the cost, but if welfare gives money to single parents, then we are supporting divorce.

Isn't forcing child support to be a thing also supporting divorce?

Why should they be forced to pay up? It's not neglectful provided the child isn't left in danger, and with sufficiently robust child welfare, they wouldn't be.

If there is a way to protect parents and encourage men to stay with their families without expanding welfare, i'm all for it. Welfare is a immensly good service, but it sometimes causes people to take advantage of it.

[Galloism]

So you're walking back the "men can walk away without legal penalty" thing?

In today's society, many can.

No, they can't - not unless permitted by the mother.

I am talking about a potential solution to parts of the childhood poverty problem.

Here's the thing, we have three options.

1) Allow parental relinquishment for both parents. This would allow men to walk away if they never consented to be parents, just as women are currently allowed to.
2) Allow parental relinquishment for neither parent. This would require removing the right mothers currently have to walk away from parenthood. We could even enforce parents who give up their children pay child support to the state or adoptive parents. After all, if the children have a right to support by their parents, this should not be revocable by those parents - regardless of sex.
3) Continue our obviously sexist path, where women and only women can give up their rights and responsibilities, and men and only men are required to be responsible and have no choice.

I object to number 3.

[United Citizens of North America]

In today's society, many can. I am talking about a potential solution to parts of the childhood poverty problem.

In today's society, men can only walk away from parental responsibilities if they are allowed to by other people, namely the mother and the legal system.

And the mother can't gain child support unless they are able to pay for expensive legal services, in many cases. Some mothers also may not have the time to wrangle bureaucracy to get child support paid.

[Camicon]

In today's society, many can.

No, they can't - not unless permitted by the mother.

I am talking about a potential solution to parts of the childhood poverty problem.

Here's the thing, we have three options.

1) Allow parental relinquishment for both parents. This would allow men to walk away if they never consented to be parents, just as women are currently allowed to.
2) Allow parental relinquishment for neither parent. This would require removing the right mothers currently have to walk away from parenthood. We could even enforce parents who give up their children pay child support to the state or adoptive parents. After all, if the children have a right to support by their parents, this should not be revocable by those parents - regardless of sex.
3) Continue our obviously sexist path, where women and only women can give up their rights and responsibilities, and men and only men are required to be responsible and have no choice.

I object to number 3.

I also object to number 2, because the people giving up their children for adoption are not typically flush with cash.

[Camicon]

In today's society, men can only walk away from parental responsibilities if they are allowed to by other people, namely the mother and the legal system.

And the mother can't gain child support unless they are able to pay for expensive legal services, in many cases. Some mothers also may not have the time to wrangle bureaucracy to get child support paid.

Ah! The smell of unsourced bullshit! This is why I come to NSG.

[Saiwania]

And yet you've still been spending a good chunk of this thread advocating against men being able to do the same thing and even demanding rape victims pay child support for their rape baby.

Why dont you think men should be able to do the same thing?

Because it doesn't change the fact that their child exists and will need financial support from someone if not them.

I believe that ensuring child support is paid (when that is still possible) is more important than the fact that someone might get inconvenienced at having to pay for their child. I'd rather it be the biological parents being that they did after all, create the child via unprotected sex- one or both of them should pay up.

I believe that more often than not, blood is thicker than water. I insist that it be determined by whoever has biological paternity or maternity.

[Galloism]

No, they can't - not unless permitted by the mother.



Here's the thing, we have three options.

1) Allow parental relinquishment for both parents. This would allow men to walk away if they never consented to be parents, just as women are currently allowed to.
2) Allow parental relinquishment for neither parent. This would require removing the right mothers currently have to walk away from parenthood. We could even enforce parents who give up their children pay child support to the state or adoptive parents. After all, if the children have a right to support by their parents, this should not be revocable by those parents - regardless of sex.
3) Continue our obviously sexist path, where women and only women can give up their rights and responsibilities, and men and only men are required to be responsible and have no choice.

I object to number 3.

I also object to number 2, because the people giving up their children for adoption are not typically flush with cash.

Well, number 2 is obviously unwise, but it's not sexist. We have lots of unwise policies, but I object harder to sexist ones.

[Camicon]

I also object to number 2, because the people giving up their children for adoption are not typically flush with cash.

Well, number 2 is obviously unwise, but it's not sexist. We have lots of unwise policies, but I object harder to sexist ones.

Certainly. But if we're going about changing policies it would be best if we avoid the obviously unwise ones.

[Ostroeuropa]

Isn't forcing child support to be a thing also supporting divorce?

Why should they be forced to pay up? It's not neglectful provided the child isn't left in danger, and with sufficiently robust child welfare, they wouldn't be.

If there is a way to protect parents and encourage men to stay with their families without expanding welfare, i'm all for it. Welfare is a immensly good service, but it sometimes causes people to take advantage of it.

Welfare would be a childs entitlement regardless of whether the parents were there, it would be set to a level society agrees guarantees the child adequate resources.

[United Citizens of North America]

Here's the thing, we have three options.

1) Allow parental relinquishment for both parents. This would allow men to walk away if they never consented to be parents, just as women are currently allowed to.

And how many children would be raised by the adoptive system?

2) Allow parental relinquishment for neither parent. This would require removing the right mothers currently have to walk away from parenthood. We could even enforce parents who give up their children pay child support to the state or adoptive parents. After all, if the children have a right to support by their parents, this should not be revocable by those parents - regardless of sex.

This is okay IF every state has easy access to contraception and abortion.

3) Continue our obviously sexist path, where women and only women can give up their rights and responsibilities, and men and only men are required to be responsible and have no choice.

If abortion and contraception was easy to access and men were taught to treat women with respect in sex ed classes, then this whole problem would not exist, or be lessened greatly.

[Camicon]

3) Continue our obviously sexist path, where women and only women can give up their rights and responsibilities, and men and only men are required to be responsible and have no choice.

If abortion and contraception was easy to access and men were taught to treat women with respect in sex ed classes, then this whole problem would not exist, or be lessened greatly.

Stop reinforcing the false narrative that men, and only men, are the ones that desire and pursue sex.

[Proctopeo]

Here's the thing, we have three options.

1) Allow parental relinquishment for both parents. This would allow men to walk away if they never consented to be parents, just as women are currently allowed to.

And how many children would be raised by the adoptive system?

2) Allow parental relinquishment for neither parent. This would require removing the right mothers currently have to walk away from parenthood. We could even enforce parents who give up their children pay child support to the state or adoptive parents. After all, if the children have a right to support by their parents, this should not be revocable by those parents - regardless of sex.

This is okay IF every state has easy access to contraception and abortion.

3) Continue our obviously sexist path, where women and only women can give up their rights and responsibilities, and men and only men are required to be responsible and have no choice.

If abortion and contraception was easy to access and men were taught to treat women with respect in sex ed classes, then this whole problem would not exist, or be lessened greatly.

respect wamen am I rite ladies??

[Ostroeuropa]

Here's the thing, we have three options.

1) Allow parental relinquishment for both parents. This would allow men to walk away if they never consented to be parents, just as women are currently allowed to.

And how many children would be raised by the adoptive system?

2) Allow parental relinquishment for neither parent. This would require removing the right mothers currently have to walk away from parenthood. We could even enforce parents who give up their children pay child support to the state or adoptive parents. After all, if the children have a right to support by their parents, this should not be revocable by those parents - regardless of sex.

This is okay IF every state has easy access to contraception and abortion.

3) Continue our obviously sexist path, where women and only women can give up their rights and responsibilities, and men and only men are required to be responsible and have no choice.

If abortion and contraception was easy to access and men were taught to treat women with respect in sex ed classes, then this whole problem would not exist, or be lessened greatly.

Let's be clear, you want sex ed classes to specifically "Teach men to respect women", in those words?

[Galloism]

Here's the thing, we have three options.

1) Allow parental relinquishment for both parents. This would allow men to walk away if they never consented to be parents, just as women are currently allowed to.

And how many children would be raised by the adoptive system?

Probably not a significant change from now, but it's hard to be certain.

2) Allow parental relinquishment for neither parent. This would require removing the right mothers currently have to walk away from parenthood. We could even enforce parents who give up their children pay child support to the state or adoptive parents. After all, if the children have a right to support by their parents, this should not be revocable by those parents - regardless of sex.

This is okay IF every state has easy access to contraception and abortion.

That's also something that needs to be done, but men have even less access to contraception than women do, and is less reliable.

3) Continue our obviously sexist path, where women and only women can give up their rights and responsibilities, and men and only men are required to be responsible and have no choice.

If abortion and contraception was easy to access and men were taught to treat women with respect in sex ed classes, then this whole problem would not exist, or be lessened greatly.

Not really. Over a million men are raped by women annually in this country, not counting things like contraception deception and such like that. This problem won't be lessened until the law gives equal rights.

[United Citizens of North America]

If there is a way to protect parents and encourage men to stay with their families without expanding welfare, i'm all for it. Welfare is a immensly good service, but it sometimes causes people to take advantage of it.

Welfare would be a childs entitlement regardless of whether the parents were there, it would be set to a level society agrees guarantees the child adequate resources.

It could give the child's parents resources if the kid had parents, but a kid always needs at least one loving parent with the capablities to raise them. Single parents can be and should be given aid, but if they were handed kids with little recourse, they should have the ability to gain money from a former spouse or partner.

[Ostroeuropa]

Welfare would be a childs entitlement regardless of whether the parents were there, it would be set to a level society agrees guarantees the child adequate resources.

It could give the child's parents resources if the kid had parents, but a kid always needs at least one loving parent with the capablities to raise them. Single parents can be and should be given aid, but if they were handed kids with little recourse, they should have the ability to gain money from a former spouse or partner.

Why, what benefit does that provide compared to a robust welfare system? We've gone over its drawbacks but you keep ignoring them and just asserting it on principle despite it being demonstrably worse for both children and men as groups.

Legal parental surrender would allow them recourse.
You're also suddenly concerned with them having "Little recourse" but don't seem to care about men having basically no recourse at all but to be forced into parenthood that can and does leave many impoverished or in prison.

[Galloism]

Welfare would be a childs entitlement regardless of whether the parents were there, it would be set to a level society agrees guarantees the child adequate resources.

It could give the child's parents resources if the kid had parents, but a kid always needs at least one loving parent with the capablities to raise them. Single parents can be and should be given aid, but if they were handed kids with little recourse, they should have the ability to gain money from a former spouse or partner.

We don't randomly assign kids to people.