NATION

PASSWORD

What safeguards are there against poverty for teenage dads?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

On whose behalf does child support law carve no leniency for scenarios like the OP?

Male voters under category x, female voters under category y
1
50%
Male voters under category y, female voters under category x
0
No votes
Male and female voters under category x
0
No votes
Male and female voters under category y
1
50%
Male and female voters under category z (please specify)
0
No votes
Male voters under category z, (please specify) female voters of categories x and/or y
0
No votes
Female voters under category z, (please specify) male voters of categories x and/or y
0
No votes
Lobbyists with a vested interest in over-ruling popular opinion on this matter (please specify)
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 2

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 71644
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Sat Feb 05, 2022 7:42 am

Diopolis wrote:I'm going to essentially concede the point that the current system is biased against the autonomy of men, but I just want to address the below point.
Galloism wrote:

It's true that mothers have, for centuries, perhaps millennia, had their rights cared for more than their children or men's.

This system didn't exist because past societies were particularly concerned with women's autonomy. It existed because men under these societies had nearly unlimited severability of parental responsibility towards children they had with any woman they weren't married to, whereas women were required to find someone to take the baby before severing their responsibilities. Before this system existed it was tacitly acknowledged that parents had the right to kill or sell very young children if they didn't want to take care of them.
Every society has some solution to the percentage of parents that want to alienate themselves from their parental responsibilities. It is entirely possible our current society's solution is the worst of all possible worlds. But I don't see a meaningful alternative- the state is unwilling to take on such responsibilities itself, the public won't stand for children just not being taken care of, and we lack large social institutions such that unwanted children can just be handed over to the nuns.

It's true - past societies had near limited severability for both men and women when it came to children's responsibilities in unmarried situations (although it maintained severability only for mothers in married situations when they led to divorce, but not fathers. It also *forced* severability on mothers and forced inseverability on fathers in that scenario, whether either of them liked it or not. Lots of problems there.). It also had lots of other problems.

I wouldn't say our system is the "worst of all possible worlds". The aforementioned selling your own children into slavery is certainly worse. Because slavery is bad and stuff.

But it is pretty bad.

The thing is though, people are ok with the state picking up the responsibility - if the person not taking responsibility is the mother. It's not that the state is unwilling to take on such responsibilities itself, rather, it is ONLY willing to take on such responsibilities when the people requesting it are by and large women, and not men. Put another way, it's willing to take on those responsibilities only on the basis of sex of the person requesting it.
Last edited by Galloism on Sat Feb 05, 2022 7:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


User avatar
Incelastan
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 100
Founded: Nov 02, 2018
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Incelastan » Mon Feb 07, 2022 7:02 am

Galloism wrote:
Diopolis wrote:I'm going to essentially concede the point that the current system is biased against the autonomy of men, but I just want to address the below point.

This system didn't exist because past societies were particularly concerned with women's autonomy. It existed because men under these societies had nearly unlimited severability of parental responsibility towards children they had with any woman they weren't married to, whereas women were required to find someone to take the baby before severing their responsibilities. Before this system existed it was tacitly acknowledged that parents had the right to kill or sell very young children if they didn't want to take care of them.
Every society has some solution to the percentage of parents that want to alienate themselves from their parental responsibilities. It is entirely possible our current society's solution is the worst of all possible worlds. But I don't see a meaningful alternative- the state is unwilling to take on such responsibilities itself, the public won't stand for children just not being taken care of, and we lack large social institutions such that unwanted children can just be handed over to the nuns.

It's true - past societies had near limited severability for both men and women when it came to children's responsibilities in unmarried situations (although it maintained severability only for mothers in married situations when they led to divorce, but not fathers. It also *forced* severability on mothers and forced inseverability on fathers in that scenario, whether either of them liked it or not. Lots of problems there.). It also had lots of other problems.

I wouldn't say our system is the "worst of all possible worlds". The aforementioned selling your own children into slavery is certainly worse. Because slavery is bad and stuff.

But it is pretty bad.

The thing is though, people are ok with the state picking up the responsibility - if the person not taking responsibility is the mother. It's not that the state is unwilling to take on such responsibilities itself, rather, it is ONLY willing to take on such responsibilities when the people requesting it are by and large women, and not men. Put another way, it's willing to take on those responsibilities only on the basis of sex of the person requesting it.


Because holding women accountable is somehow blasphemy or sacrilege in our present society.
No longer LARPing as an incel.

User avatar
FutureAmerica
Diplomat
 
Posts: 860
Founded: May 20, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby FutureAmerica » Mon Feb 21, 2022 4:18 pm

The best safeguard is the proper use of contraception, otherwise it's grim.

User avatar
GuessTheAltAccount
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1584
Founded: Apr 27, 2021
Democratic Socialists

Postby GuessTheAltAccount » Mon Apr 11, 2022 8:33 pm

Bumping with another question I neglected to ask last time around.

Why doesn't junior high sex ed warn students that child support owed does not depend, on any level, on what she said before sex about whether or not she'd keep the baby?

Where I went to junior high, we were taught that boys often say they love their girlfriends then abandon them when they fall pregnant. Putting aside the assumptions about how many sexual encounters are casual vs. how many sexual encounters are in relationships, this framing made it sound like, even if she admitted before sex that she'd keep the baby (let alone if she didn't), there was nothing she could do about him leaving to avoid falling into poverty with her. They didn't tell us that she had the right, even if she claimed she wouldn't keep the baby, let alone if she admitted she would, to go after him for child support and drag him into poverty with her. What possible incentive is there to avoid mentioning that?

The two possibilities that come to mind are:

A: Deterring girls from consenting to premarital sex, even though marriage doesn't magically make having kids affordable anyway. (Wouldn't subsidizing couples for staying together be more effective an incentive for marriage than threatening those who don't with poverty?) And yet, the same plurality of voters who have allowed the status quo on child support law to continue are the same plurality of voters who have; at least until recently; protected abortion rights; most of whom seem to treat "they're just trying to deter pre-marital sex" as a valid assumption to make about the voters who would try to have abortion criminalized. Is this a more valid assumption in one context than the other? Why or why not?

B: Pandering to voters who don't want their sons and daughters to find out that this exact same scenario could have happened to literally any of them; or their parents; and that it is a 100% pure matter of chance that it didn't.

I suspect it's more so B than A, but even B would leave the question of what incentive they have to avoid facing it. Is it just something they don't want their sons and daughters talking to them about or something?

. . .

Personally, I think junior high should mention this aspect of child support law. However, it would be interesting to incrementally introduce it in some districts before others, to see if that has any effect on teen pregnancy in the first districts to introduce it. That way, we can finally determine conclusively, once and for all, whether teen sex proves the average male is "so horny that the risk of a lifetime of poverty cannot hold back his sexual urges" or just "unaware of that particular aspect of child support law."
Last edited by GuessTheAltAccount on Mon Apr 11, 2022 8:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Jello Biafra
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6383
Founded: Antiquity
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Jello Biafra » Tue Apr 19, 2022 7:03 am

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:Bumping with another question I neglected to ask last time around.

Why doesn't junior high sex ed warn students that child support owed does not depend, on any level, on what she said before sex about whether or not she'd keep the baby?

How much time did junior high sex ed spend talking to you about the vagaries of child support law?

Where I went to junior high, we were taught that boys often say they love their girlfriends then abandon them when they fall pregnant.

I feel like you've got it backwards. Saying this part seems like it's primarily done to deter girls from consenting to premarital sex.

User avatar
GuessTheAltAccount
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1584
Founded: Apr 27, 2021
Democratic Socialists

Postby GuessTheAltAccount » Wed Apr 20, 2022 12:35 pm

Jello Biafra wrote:How much time did junior high sex ed spend talking to you about the vagaries of child support law?

I didn't claim they went into it directly, but saying guys just skip out on them as if there's nothing she could do, combined with the fact that he has no right to make her abort, made me interpret it as "not his decision therefore not his responsibility" until the Internet clarified otherwise.


Jello Biafra wrote:I feel like you've got it backwards. Saying this part seems like it's primarily done to deter girls from consenting to premarital sex.

Read the post again. I already acknowledged this possibility as part "A". I just also outlined why I'm skeptical this reason and this reason alone would explain it.

Also, another thing I forgot to ask last post; who if they are so adamant about this wants teenagers to hear this from the junior high health curriculum, which already tarnished its own credibility in the eyes of teenagers through its lies about weed?
Last edited by GuessTheAltAccount on Wed Apr 20, 2022 12:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Farnhamia
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 110503
Founded: Jun 20, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Farnhamia » Wed Apr 20, 2022 4:51 pm

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:Bumping with another question I neglected to ask last time around.
Why doesn't junior high sex ed warn students that child support owed does not depend, on any level, on what she said before sex about whether or not she'd keep the baby?

Where I went to junior high, we were taught that boys often say they love their girlfriends then abandon them when they fall pregnant. Putting aside the assumptions about how many sexual encounters are casual vs. how many sexual encounters are in relationships, this framing made it sound like, even if she admitted before sex that she'd keep the baby (let alone if she didn't), there was nothing she could do about him leaving to avoid falling into poverty with her. They didn't tell us that she had the right, even if she claimed she wouldn't keep the baby, let alone if she admitted she would, to go after him for child support and drag him into poverty with her. What possible incentive is there to avoid mentioning that?

The two possibilities that come to mind are:

A: Deterring girls from consenting to premarital sex, even though marriage doesn't magically make having kids affordable anyway. (Wouldn't subsidizing couples for staying together be more effective an incentive for marriage than threatening those who don't with poverty?) And yet, the same plurality of voters who have allowed the status quo on child support law to continue are the same plurality of voters who have; at least until recently; protected abortion rights; most of whom seem to treat "they're just trying to deter pre-marital sex" as a valid assumption to make about the voters who would try to have abortion criminalized. Is this a more valid assumption in one context than the other? Why or why not?

B: Pandering to voters who don't want their sons and daughters to find out that this exact same scenario could have happened to literally any of them; or their parents; and that it is a 100% pure matter of chance that it didn't.

I suspect it's more so B than A, but even B would leave the question of what incentive they have to avoid facing it. Is it just something they don't want their sons and daughters talking to them about or something?

. . .

Personally, I think junior high should mention this aspect of child support law. However, it would be interesting to incrementally introduce it in some districts before others, to see if that has any effect on teen pregnancy in the first districts to introduce it. That way, we can finally determine conclusively, once and for all, whether teen sex proves the average male is "so horny that the risk of a lifetime of poverty cannot hold back his sexual urges" or just "unaware of that particular aspect of child support law."

Yes, well ... you should have come to Moderation and asked. I'm sure the bump would have been allowed. Doing it like this might give the impression that grave-digs are okay.
Make Earth Great Again: Stop Continental Drift!
And Jesus was a sailor when he walked upon the water ...
"Make yourself at home, Frank. Hit somebody." RIP Don Rickles
My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right. ~ Carl Schurz
<Sigh> NSG...where even the atheists are Augustinians. ~ The Archregimancy
Now the foot is on the other hand ~ Kannap
RIP Dyakovo ... Ashmoria (Freedom ... or cake)
This is the eighth line. If your signature is longer, it's too long.

User avatar
GuessTheAltAccount
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1584
Founded: Apr 27, 2021
Democratic Socialists

Postby GuessTheAltAccount » Wed Apr 20, 2022 5:18 pm

Farnhamia wrote:
GuessTheAltAccount wrote:Bumping with another question I neglected to ask last time around.
Why doesn't junior high sex ed warn students that child support owed does not depend, on any level, on what she said before sex about whether or not she'd keep the baby?

Where I went to junior high, we were taught that boys often say they love their girlfriends then abandon them when they fall pregnant. Putting aside the assumptions about how many sexual encounters are casual vs. how many sexual encounters are in relationships, this framing made it sound like, even if she admitted before sex that she'd keep the baby (let alone if she didn't), there was nothing she could do about him leaving to avoid falling into poverty with her. They didn't tell us that she had the right, even if she claimed she wouldn't keep the baby, let alone if she admitted she would, to go after him for child support and drag him into poverty with her. What possible incentive is there to avoid mentioning that?

The two possibilities that come to mind are:

A: Deterring girls from consenting to premarital sex, even though marriage doesn't magically make having kids affordable anyway. (Wouldn't subsidizing couples for staying together be more effective an incentive for marriage than threatening those who don't with poverty?) And yet, the same plurality of voters who have allowed the status quo on child support law to continue are the same plurality of voters who have; at least until recently; protected abortion rights; most of whom seem to treat "they're just trying to deter pre-marital sex" as a valid assumption to make about the voters who would try to have abortion criminalized. Is this a more valid assumption in one context than the other? Why or why not?

B: Pandering to voters who don't want their sons and daughters to find out that this exact same scenario could have happened to literally any of them; or their parents; and that it is a 100% pure matter of chance that it didn't.

I suspect it's more so B than A, but even B would leave the question of what incentive they have to avoid facing it. Is it just something they don't want their sons and daughters talking to them about or something?

. . .

Personally, I think junior high should mention this aspect of child support law. However, it would be interesting to incrementally introduce it in some districts before others, to see if that has any effect on teen pregnancy in the first districts to introduce it. That way, we can finally determine conclusively, once and for all, whether teen sex proves the average male is "so horny that the risk of a lifetime of poverty cannot hold back his sexual urges" or just "unaware of that particular aspect of child support law."

Yes, well ... you should have come to Moderation and asked. I'm sure the bump would have been allowed. Doing it like this might give the impression that grave-digs are okay.

For the record, I did, in fact, go to moderation and ask.

EDIT: While I have your attention, might I inquire whether it's possible to edit a poll into the OP or I would need a new thread for that? I'm curious who the average NSer attributes the status quo on child support law to.
Last edited by GuessTheAltAccount on Wed Apr 20, 2022 5:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Northern Socialist Council Republics
Minister
 
Posts: 2356
Founded: Dec 13, 2020
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Northern Socialist Council Republics » Wed Apr 20, 2022 10:39 pm

My position is that a father should only owe any child support at all if he actively demonstrated a willingness to be a father to the child in question. The current system is, as good folks like Gallo has already pointed out, way too open to less than desirable implications.

This ties in to my stance on abortion, too. I hold that nobody who doesn’t want to raise a child should be on the hook for one just because of a biological accident, which is one of the major reasons why I tend to back things like abortions and no-question drop-offs at orphanages.

But this has to apply to the father too, of course, not just the mother. Since obviously it is gravely unethical to allow prospective fathers to demand that their partners get an abortion, the state must provide some other pathway by which a prospective father can avoid taking on the responsibilities of parenthood.

If the prospective mother hides from the prospective father that she is pregnant, or if the prospective father makes clear during the pregnancy that he has no willingness to take on the rights and responsibilities of parenthood, then the father should not be under any obligations to pay child support at all.
Last edited by Northern Socialist Council Republics on Wed Apr 20, 2022 10:46 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Call me "Russ" if you're referring to me the out-of-character poster or "NSRS" if you're referring to me the in-character nation.
Previously on Plzen. NationStates-er since 2014.

Social-democrat and hardline secularist.
Come roleplay with us. We have cookies.

User avatar
Nilokeras
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1975
Founded: Jul 14, 2020
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Nilokeras » Wed Apr 20, 2022 11:02 pm

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:Bumping with another question I neglected to ask last time around.

Why doesn't junior high sex ed warn students that child support owed does not depend, on any level, on what she said before sex about whether or not she'd keep the baby?


all this neurosis about child support is clear and undeniable proof that reproduction is too important to be left to the straights. especially straight men. ban heterosexuality.

User avatar
GuessTheAltAccount
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1584
Founded: Apr 27, 2021
Democratic Socialists

Postby GuessTheAltAccount » Wed Apr 20, 2022 11:24 pm

Nilokeras wrote:
GuessTheAltAccount wrote:Bumping with another question I neglected to ask last time around.

Why doesn't junior high sex ed warn students that child support owed does not depend, on any level, on what she said before sex about whether or not she'd keep the baby?


all this neurosis about child support is clear and undeniable proof that reproduction is too important to be left to the straights. especially straight men. ban heterosexuality.

Just because it didn't ruin my life before and probably wouldn't now doesn't mean that I should be 100% indifferent to the fact that it could've ruined my life under the most slightly different circumstances and probably is ruining other people's lives as we speak.

User avatar
Jello Biafra
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6383
Founded: Antiquity
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Jello Biafra » Fri Apr 22, 2022 1:54 am

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:
Jello Biafra wrote:How much time did junior high sex ed spend talking to you about the vagaries of child support law?

I didn't claim they went into it directly, but saying guys just skip out on them as if there's nothing she could do, combined with the fact that he has no right to make her abort, made me interpret it as "not his decision therefore not his responsibility" until the Internet clarified otherwise.

That's interesting. Obviously, they just meant he would skip out on the custodial responsibilities (feeding, changing diapers) and not the financial responsibilities, though I suppose I can see why someone would interpret it as both.

Read the post again. I already acknowledged this possibility as part "A". I just also outlined why I'm skeptical this reason and this reason alone would explain it.

Nah, society is highly puritanical when it comes to discouraging women, especially teenage girls, from having sex.
Of course, I have no idea as to what their actual motivations are, but I think that alone seems sufficient to explain them.
Last edited by Jello Biafra on Fri Apr 22, 2022 1:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
GuessTheAltAccount
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1584
Founded: Apr 27, 2021
Democratic Socialists

Postby GuessTheAltAccount » Fri Apr 22, 2022 2:44 am

Jello Biafra wrote:Nah, society is highly puritanical when it comes to discouraging women, especially teenage girls, from having sex.

And yet, their current methods have been profoundly ineffective. Hell, we can't even tell how ineffective they've been, with multiple birth control methods available along with back alley abortions. So if they don't want their own daughters having sex, why do they leave them unattended in places where they have access to boys?

When it's something people actually object to, like stealing, they are not content to only ruin the lives of a small fraction of perpetrators and hope that'll scare the rest. They set up surveillance cameras. They equip them with facial recognition. (Even the people who claim to object to this sort of thing subsequently pay good money for a flat in London.) So why if they object to teenage girls having sex would they settle for deterrence and only deterrence, when that alone hasn't done the trick anyway?

As well, we're all descendants of people who not only had sex in their teen years but kept the baby, if you go back far enough in history. So where would this instinct to prevent one's own teen daughters from having sex come from?

User avatar
The Rich Port
Post Czar
 
Posts: 38088
Founded: Jul 29, 2008
Left-Leaning College State

Postby The Rich Port » Fri Apr 22, 2022 7:47 pm

I think it says a lot OP thinks this only happens to teenage dads and not... Pretty much everyone, because the US government doesn't really have a social safety net until your Social Security kicks in... Assuming you qualify for the scraps you get if you're poor, even.
Last edited by The Rich Port on Fri Apr 22, 2022 7:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Major-Tom
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15368
Founded: Mar 09, 2016
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Major-Tom » Sat Apr 23, 2022 12:00 am

What safeguards are there against poverty in general is the real question?

User avatar
GuessTheAltAccount
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1584
Founded: Apr 27, 2021
Democratic Socialists

Postby GuessTheAltAccount » Sun Apr 24, 2022 4:10 am

Major-Tom wrote:What safeguards are there against poverty in general is the real question?

There aren't. Even Scandinavia has some of it. You can't save everyone.

But right now people are being thrown into poverty by the exact same decision made by a supposed majority of guys; to have sex in their teen years. For any one of those guys, if his girlfriend kept the baby after saying she wouldn't, and went after him for the child support money, he'd have had to drop out and have all his ambitions and dreams ended. It is purely a matter of chance that it didn't happen to them. So why are they so averse to using the tax dollars they can more easily afford to spare, to offer anyone to whom that did happen a way to reconcile that circumstance with continuing to follow his ambitions? Is it because they are in denial that it could have happened to them, or are they just indifferent solely because it didn't?
Last edited by GuessTheAltAccount on Sun Apr 24, 2022 4:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Diopolis
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17295
Founded: May 15, 2012
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Diopolis » Wed May 25, 2022 5:17 pm

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:
Major-Tom wrote:What safeguards are there against poverty in general is the real question?

There aren't. Even Scandinavia has some of it. You can't save everyone.

But right now people are being thrown into poverty by the exact same decision made by a supposed majority of guys; to have sex in their teen years. For any one of those guys, if his girlfriend kept the baby after saying she wouldn't, and went after him for the child support money, he'd have had to drop out and have all his ambitions and dreams ended. It is purely a matter of chance that it didn't happen to them. So why are they so averse to using the tax dollars they can more easily afford to spare, to offer anyone to whom that did happen a way to reconcile that circumstance with continuing to follow his ambitions? Is it because they are in denial that it could have happened to them, or are they just indifferent solely because it didn't?

As has been previously shown to you in this very thread, the majority of teenaged boys are virgins. Media gives a different impression because sex makes for entertainment and individual teenaged boys are loathe to contradict it because being a virgin is low status.
American society in general is not very sympathetic to sexually active teenagers, in part because it's comparably uncommon. You don't need much explanation beyond "the average american thinks asking teenaged boys to keep their pants on is a reasonable expectation and doesn't want to bail them out when they don't do that".
Texas nationalist, 3rd positionist, radical social conservative, post-liberal.
Did the moon landings end because there's a whites-only Nazi UFO base there and NASA didn't want to have to explain why they would never send a black astronaut? Almost certainly not. But it's less depressing than the reality that the moon landings were pointless. So too with all our great works.

User avatar
The Rich Port
Post Czar
 
Posts: 38088
Founded: Jul 29, 2008
Left-Leaning College State

Postby The Rich Port » Fri May 27, 2022 11:20 am

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:
Major-Tom wrote:What safeguards are there against poverty in general is the real question?

There aren't. Even Scandinavia has some of it. You can't save everyone.

But right now people are being thrown into poverty by the exact same decision made by a supposed majority of guys; to have sex in their teen years. For any one of those guys, if his girlfriend kept the baby after saying she wouldn't, and went after him for the child support money, he'd have had to drop out and have all his ambitions and dreams ended. It is purely a matter of chance that it didn't happen to them. So why are they so averse to using the tax dollars they can more easily afford to spare, to offer anyone to whom that did happen a way to reconcile that circumstance with continuing to follow his ambitions? Is it because they are in denial that it could have happened to them, or are they just indifferent solely because it didn't?


Yes... But nobody starves to death in Scandinavia and they somehow don't freeze to death outside.

That's what a social safety net is for, to make sure people don't suffer from poverty.

Previous

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Concejos Unidos, Emotional Support Crocodile, Free Algerstonia, Macadia, Senkaku, Spirit of Hope, Stellar Colonies, Sweitchland, The Alma Mater, The Caleshan Valkyrie, The Matthew Islands, The Nippon Teikoku, Ulajhan, Unitarian Universalism, Vavlar, Washington Resistance Army

Advertisement

Remove ads