NationStates

A few years ago on this site, the average NSer's response to a hypothetical about a guy having sex with a girl he met at a party but having to drop out to get a job to pay child support was met with "he should've gotten a vasectomy instead."

That moment gave me the impression that this debate consisted solely of:

Side A: Believes there should be exceptions for guys whose career aspirations would be ruined, and/or who'd be thrown into poverty, by having to pay child support bills, if she said before sex that she wouldn't keep the baby even if she got pregnant...

Side B: Thinks it is reasonable to expect every teenage boy to choose between abstinence that gets them mistaken for having been too undesirable to get laid, a vasectomy that shuts them out from future biological fatherhood, or a risk of live-ruining poverty every time he has sex.

But that sort of "judge each side by who defends it on webforums" line of reasoning has led me wrong before, and recently, this old thread came back to mind. *

So I felt compelled to follow up on it.

1: What safeguards; real safeguards (none of these "she wouldn't want to be a mother unless she had a promise from the father to stay" assumptions, I mean actual safeguards under law, not murky assumptions about human behaviour) are there against the sort of scenario described above happening and ruining the guy's life and career prospects and dragging him into poverty?

2: If these safeguards exist, why was the average NSer's first instinct to say "he should've gotten a vasectomy"? Doesn't that suggest, in their eyes, "he should've gotten a vasectomy" to be a stronger argument than any relating to whatever supposed safeguards exist?

3: As well, why wasn't the rest of side B distancing themselves from the "he should've gotten a vasectomy" talking point? Or for that matter, why weren't they actively calling BS on it? Why were the only people actively calling BS on it those of us from side A?

*(Yes, the reception of my thread about the new Bill Maher season was what got me thinking about previous such threads.)

Apr 21 edit: Poll included. On a technically-distinct topic but one that's closely related enough to belong here. I'm boiling it down to:

Category x: Voters so in denial that "she kept the baby after saying she wouldn't and dragged him into poverty with her" could even happen at all that even the legal system can't be trusted to assess the likelihood of this case by case.

Category y: Voters who grant that it can happen, but believe so strongly that he is obligated to stay even under that circumstance that the legal system should drag him into poverty with her if he tries to leave.

Category z: Other

And breaking it down by the sexes of each, as unless one attributes this to lobbyists, one needs the support of both sexes to maintain the status quo this way.

Well child support isn't a thing that normally happens, rather it's usually a result of some kind of legal proceeding like a divorce or annulment. Further, child support payments are calculated in some way based on the party's ability to pay. So a teenager in full time education who had a child would probably never be ordered to pay child support in the first place, because there aren't divorce proceedings when you fuck someone at a party, and even if a court did find such a party liable for child support payments it would probably also have to conclude that they are not in any position to pay anything.

Ifreann wrote:Well child support isn't a thing that normally happens, rather it's usually a result of some kind of legal proceeding like a divorce or annulment. Further, child support payments are calculated in some way based on the party's ability to pay. So a teenager in full time education who had a child would probably never be ordered to pay child support in the first place, because there aren't divorce proceedings when you fuck someone at a party, and even if a court did find such a party liable for child support payments it would probably also have to conclude that they are not in any position to pay anything.

Then why the "he should've gotten a vasectomy" part?

Does it vary depending on the jurisdiction?

Ifreann wrote:Well child support isn't a thing that normally happens, rather it's usually a result of some kind of legal proceeding like a divorce or annulment. Further, child support payments are calculated in some way based on the party's ability to pay. So a teenager in full time education who had a child would probably never be ordered to pay child support in the first place, because there aren't divorce proceedings when you fuck someone at a party, and even if a court did find such a party liable for child support payments it would probably also have to conclude that they are not in any position to pay anything.

Depends on the jurisdiction and how it treats imputed income. There can be a presumption that a healthy adult is capable of 40hrs a week at minimum wage and child support will be calculated based upon that. It doesn’t matter whether or not whoever is being sued for child support is actually working.

Divorce doesn’t come into this as child support is a separate issue. Further teenagers absolutely can be sued for child support, even when they are the victims of statutory rape.

This hypothetical is literally something you spun-up in your head, there is no “average NSer” and Side A is literally only you.

And why did you post YOUR OWN THREAD on Bill Maher from THREE MONTHS AGO as reference? Do you truly only think in three-month increments? What universe is this?

If you DO want an answer to your question, however, the answer is presented here in the most appropriate format.

this whole debate is just the purest example of crabs in a bucket fighting over the scraps. the OP is so caught up in fighting to the death for their morsel it never even occurs to then to look up and see the sky.

Ifreann wrote:Well child support isn't a thing that normally happens, rather it's usually a result of some kind of legal proceeding like a divorce or annulment. Further, child support payments are calculated in some way based on the party's ability to pay. So a teenager in full time education who had a child would probably never be ordered to pay child support in the first place, because there aren't divorce proceedings when you fuck someone at a party, and even if a court did find such a party liable for child support payments it would probably also have to conclude that they are not in any position to pay anything.

This is 100% false, at least within the United States. It is absolutely without any doubt or any ambiguity certain in every single case in which child support is pursued against a putative father that the putative father will be found liable for child support, regardless of age, personal circumstances, whether or not they were literally raped by the mother, whether they are completely and totally disabled, or any other factor of any sort always forever.

And if you are in school in full time education, the court will determine what you COULD make if you WERE working, and calculate your child support based on your theoretical earnings, plus, in addition to levying child support against your theroetical earnings, levy child support against any scholarships, grants, or tax credits due to education in addition to that (this means, in practice, an obligor parent who goes to school will pay MORE in child support than an obligor parent working full time).

If the father in question is not literally forced out of higher education, they no doubt will not be able to keep up with this burden, and will therefore be placed in debt for decades for failure to pay, along with high interest rates and fees for failure to pay while they were getting educated.

Most of the proceeds of that go to the state, not the child.

Ifreann wrote:Well child support isn't a thing that normally happens, rather it's usually a result of some kind of legal proceeding like a divorce or annulment. Further, child support payments are calculated in some way based on the party's ability to pay. So a teenager in full time education who had a child would probably never be ordered to pay child support in the first place, because there aren't divorce proceedings when you fuck someone at a party, and even if a court did find such a party liable for child support payments it would probably also have to conclude that they are not in any position to pay anything.

Actually, child support is based upon your prospective, potential ability to pay, so often grossly overestimated. Just saying.

Kerwa wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Well child support isn't a thing that normally happens, rather it's usually a result of some kind of legal proceeding like a divorce or annulment. Further, child support payments are calculated in some way based on the party's ability to pay. So a teenager in full time education who had a child would probably never be ordered to pay child support in the first place, because there aren't divorce proceedings when you fuck someone at a party, and even if a court did find such a party liable for child support payments it would probably also have to conclude that they are not in any position to pay anything.

Depends on the jurisdiction and how it treats imputed income. There can be a presumption that a healthy adult is capable of 40hrs a week at minimum wage and child support will be calculated based upon that. It doesn’t matter whether or not whoever is being sued for child support is actually working.

Divorce doesn’t come into this as child support is a separate issue. Further teenagers absolutely can be sued for child support, even when they are the victims of statutory rape.

And they can go to jail for non-payment while their rapists go scot-free, too, because in some places, women are totally immune to rape charges. Society is so convinced that men have all of the power and that women are always the victims that it never considers that the reverse may ever be true. It's about women as a protected class and men, or in this case, lads, as a never-to-be-protected oppressor caste or whatever.

What safeguards are there against poverty for teenage dads?

A robust social security system with services and benefits for both the dad in question and the rest of his family, ensuring their welfare. Governmental Child benefit payments, Cash-for-care benefits, subsidised / free child care, and welfare payments helps in that regard.

When it comes to the calculation of child maintenance payments, the parents’ incomes are always a factor, and the payment due is proportional to the income to ensure the parents aren't paying more than they're able. It's a shared income model based on a payment ability assessment with maximum payment restrictions.

In other words, great and effective safeguards.

Kingdom of Snoreway wrote:What safeguards are there against poverty for teenage dads?

A robust social security system with services and benefits for both the dad in question and the rest of his family, ensuring their welfare. Governmental Child benefit payments, Cash-for-care benefits, subsidised / free child care, and welfare payments helps in that regard.

When it comes to the calculation of child maintenance payments, the parents’ incomes are always a factor, and the payment due is proportional to the income to ensure the parents aren't paying more than they're able. It's a shared income model based on a payment ability assessment with maximum payment restrictions.

In other words, great and effective safeguards.

my friend, this is not a game thread. it is something far worse.
flee now, while you still can

Hemakral wrote:

Kingdom of Snoreway wrote:What safeguards are there against poverty for teenage dads?

A robust social security system with services and benefits for both the dad in question and the rest of his family, ensuring their welfare. Governmental Child benefit payments, Cash-for-care benefits, subsidised / free child care, and welfare payments helps in that regard.

When it comes to the calculation of child maintenance payments, the parents’ incomes are always a factor, and the payment due is proportional to the income to ensure the parents aren't paying more than they're able. It's a shared income model based on a payment ability assessment with maximum payment restrictions.

In other words, great and effective safeguards.

my friend, this is not a game thread. it is something far worse.
flee now, while you still can

Game thread?

This is a description of the Norwegian system, which is pretty similar to every Nordic system.

Nilokeras wrote:this whole debate is just the purest example of crabs in a bucket fighting over the scraps. the OP is so caught up in fighting to the death for their morsel it never even occurs to then to look up and see the sky.

While cutting down on all potential reasons for poverty is the ideal, the reality is that even progressives seem to have a blind spot on this issue, having this caricature of deadbeat dads as guys who lied to their girlfriends about whether or not they'd stay, when (apparently now depending on the jurisdiction, as it turns out) the poverty that happened to them could have happened to anyone, including a guy who thought he was just engaging in mutual pleasure with a girl who had no intention of keeping the baby anyway. Or a guy whose partners are far enough older than him that under the law it's counted as rape even if he was willing; as in, the legal system has the option both of sentencing her to prison and alternatively the option of dragging him into poverty and ruining his life, depending presumably on what they feel like doing. If that's the kind of poor judgment that led to this system, what else could it be wrong about?

There's already an abundance of people fighting against workplaces that underpay their workers, and I'm with them on things like those. I'm no fan of capitalism. But I also feel compelled to focus on the stuff everyone else isn't focusing on, to offset the biases of everybody else.

Ignoring all the 4chan gender politics and obvious mischaracterisations - child support is about the needs of the child, not those of its parents. The child doesn't suddenly stop needing food and nappies just because one parent didn't want them, so unless you're proposing that the taxpayers foot the bill, parents should remain responsible for ensuring basic needs are being met.

As far as safeguards against poverty go, the same safeguards apply to parents as do to non-parents. These may or may not be insufficient, but being a parent doesn't really factor in to this argument.

Terruana wrote:Ignoring all the 4chan gender politics and obvious mischaracterisations - child support is about the needs of the child, not those of its parents. The child doesn't suddenly stop needing food and nappies just because one parent didn't want them, so unless you're proposing that the taxpayers foot the bill, parents should remain responsible for ensuring basic needs are being met.

As far as safeguards against poverty go, the same safeguards apply to parents as do to non-parents. These may or may not be insufficient, but being a parent doesn't really factor in to this argument.

If child support bills are what pulled them into poverty in the first place, it absolutely factors into it. Just because it's not the only reason someone can be in poverty doesn't mean it can't make or break someone's ability to stay out of it.

The needs of the child can be just as easily met if the taxpayers met them as if the father met them. Perhaps more easily, as the taxpayers as a whole have more money to spend than he does, and can get at least some of that money back if he becomes a successful engineer or doctor instead of having to drop out. As well, welfare dollars are held to a much higher level of scrutiny on how recipients are spending them than child support dollars are. And it has the added bonus of, you know, pooling the resources of everyone who took the exact same risk instead of singling out a few for whom the exact same risk happened to end badly.

. . .

So does anyone have anything more specific on how this varies by jurisdiction? I see a lot of dispute in this thread already on the material facts of the case, let alone defensibility thereof, but not much in the way of specifics. No wonder European posters are the most averse to my "of course males are horndogs, why else do they risk ruining their own lives for a night of pleasure with their girlfriends?" talking point.

Well, comprehensive, fact-based sex education along with free (in terms of both cost and stigma) access to birth control and abortion as well as having the sort of society where young people feel like they have hope for the future and thus want to delay parenthood would certainly help reduce the number of teenage fathers (and teenage mothers).

Otherwise, financial, emotional and practical support for parents (of all ages), free/affordable child care, free access to higher education (universities as well as trade schools), affordable housing etc (for everyone, not just parents) would all help reduce poverty among young people and young parents.

If I hadn't seen the OP before, I'd wonder why he's so hung up on poverty among teenage fathers when teenage mothers are much more affected and impoverished by teenage pregnancy, but having seen the OP, his agenda is obviously to go on at great length about how men have it the absolute worst.

Dakini wrote:teenage mothers are much more affected and impoverished by teenage pregnancy,

This link doesn’t seem to back up this claim - in fact it doesn’t seem to compare poverty rates between teen mothers and fathers at all.

(It also, problematically, refers to poverty rates based on income rather than cash flow - this is usually measured in a manner where child support paid by the obliged is counted as available to the obligor despite not having it, and not income to the obligee who does have it)

Edit: What IS an interesting claim in this article is that teen mothers are choosing to become mothers. This contrasts with teen fathers who are by and large forced into it against their will and have little in the way of choices whatsoever. I'm not sure what the basis of this claim is that these are by and large not "oops" pregnancies, but conscious specific decisions of teen mothers.

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:

Terruana wrote:Ignoring all the 4chan gender politics and obvious mischaracterisations - child support is about the needs of the child, not those of its parents. The child doesn't suddenly stop needing food and nappies just because one parent didn't want them, so unless you're proposing that the taxpayers foot the bill, parents should remain responsible for ensuring basic needs are being met.

As far as safeguards against poverty go, the same safeguards apply to parents as do to non-parents. These may or may not be insufficient, but being a parent doesn't really factor in to this argument.

If child support bills are what pulled them into poverty in the first place, it absolutely factors into it. Just because it's not the only reason someone can be in poverty doesn't mean it can't make or break someone's ability to stay out of it.

The needs of the child can be just as easily met if the taxpayers met them as if the father met them. Perhaps more easily, as the taxpayers as a whole have more money to spend than he does, and can get at least some of that money back if he becomes a successful engineer or doctor instead of having to drop out. As well, welfare dollars are held to a much higher level of scrutiny on how recipients are spending them than child support dollars are. And it has the added bonus of, you know, pooling the resources of everyone who took the exact same risk instead of singling out a few for whom the exact same risk happened to end badly.

. . .

So does anyone have anything more specific on how this varies by jurisdiction? I see a lot of dispute in this thread already on the material facts of the case, let alone defensibility thereof, but not much in the way of specifics. No wonder European posters are the most averse to my "of course males are horndogs, why else do they risk ruining their own lives for a night of pleasure with their girlfriends?" talking point.

Why are child support bills any more significant as a cause of poverty than credit card debt, rent costs, legal/medical fees, gambling addictions, etc? The exact cause of the poverty shouldn't matter if you're talking about effective safeguards to prevent anyone from having to live in poverty.

But yes, finally something we can agree on. It would be much better if the cost of providing all children with their basic needs was covered by the taxpayer. Its a simple and effective way of ensuring that no child has to go without basic necessities, although it would obviously need to be applied to ALL children, not just those with teenage parents or where one parent doesn't want to accept parental responsibility.

Terruana wrote:

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:If child support bills are what pulled them into poverty in the first place, it absolutely factors into it. Just because it's not the only reason someone can be in poverty doesn't mean it can't make or break someone's ability to stay out of it.

The needs of the child can be just as easily met if the taxpayers met them as if the father met them. Perhaps more easily, as the taxpayers as a whole have more money to spend than he does, and can get at least some of that money back if he becomes a successful engineer or doctor instead of having to drop out. As well, welfare dollars are held to a much higher level of scrutiny on how recipients are spending them than child support dollars are. And it has the added bonus of, you know, pooling the resources of everyone who took the exact same risk instead of singling out a few for whom the exact same risk happened to end badly.

. . .

So does anyone have anything more specific on how this varies by jurisdiction? I see a lot of dispute in this thread already on the material facts of the case, let alone defensibility thereof, but not much in the way of specifics. No wonder European posters are the most averse to my "of course males are horndogs, why else do they risk ruining their own lives for a night of pleasure with their girlfriends?" talking point.

Why are child support bills any more significant as a cause of poverty than credit card debt, rent costs, legal/medical fees, gambling addictions, etc? The exact cause of the poverty shouldn't matter if you're talking about effective safeguards to prevent anyone from having to live in poverty.

But yes, finally something we can agree on. It would be much better if the cost of providing all children with their basic needs was covered by the taxpayer. Its a simple and effective way of ensuring that no child has to go without basic necessities, although it would obviously need to be applied to ALL children, not just those with teenage parents or where one parent doesn't want to accept parental responsibility.

Well, there are safeguards for credit card debt, legal medical costs, etc. You can go for bankruptcy and get that debt wiped out so you have a chance to start over.

This isn't true with child support.

Notably, ONLY fathers are required by law to accept parental responsibility in practice. Mothers can disclaim responsibility, unilaterally, with almost no paperwork and with absolutely no input or consent of the father - after birth. Now, you may think a parent being able to disclaim responsibility is wrong, in which case we need to reduce women's rights in this area. Or you may think that this is an essential safeguard of child welfare, which means we need to increase men's rights in this area.

To say that women and ONLY women should have the right to disclaim parental responsibility after birth - which is the current status quo - on the basis of their gender is sexist and wrong.

Galloism wrote:

Terruana wrote:
Why are child support bills any more significant as a cause of poverty than credit card debt, rent costs, legal/medical fees, gambling addictions, etc? The exact cause of the poverty shouldn't matter if you're talking about effective safeguards to prevent anyone from having to live in poverty.

But yes, finally something we can agree on. It would be much better if the cost of providing all children with their basic needs was covered by the taxpayer. Its a simple and effective way of ensuring that no child has to go without basic necessities, although it would obviously need to be applied to ALL children, not just those with teenage parents or where one parent doesn't want to accept parental responsibility.

Well, there are safeguards for credit card debt, legal medical costs, etc. You can go for bankruptcy and get that debt wiped out so you have a chance to start over.

This isn't true with child support.

Notably, ONLY fathers are required by law to accept parental responsibility in practice. Mothers can disclaim responsibility, unilaterally, with almost no paperwork and with no input or consent of the father. Now, you may think a parent being able to disclaim responsibility is wrong, in which case we need to reduce women's rights in this area. Or you may think that this is an essential safeguard of child welfare, which means we need to increase men's rights in this area.

To say that women and ONLY women should have the right to disclaim parental responsibility after birth - which is the current status quo - on the basis of their gender is sexist and wrong.

I think the paper abortion discussion is probably a bit off-topic for this thread, although if every child's basic needs were met at taxpayer expense, this would certainly strengthen the case for it in my eyes.

It does also make me wonder if there's any precedent yet for same sex couples having a child with the help of the various available medical procedures, and then the non-pregnant partner deciding they no longer want the child prior to the birth. If anyone is aware of such a situation, I would be interested to hear how it played out!

Terruana wrote:

Galloism wrote:Well, there are safeguards for credit card debt, legal medical costs, etc. You can go for bankruptcy and get that debt wiped out so you have a chance to start over.

This isn't true with child support.

Notably, ONLY fathers are required by law to accept parental responsibility in practice. Mothers can disclaim responsibility, unilaterally, with almost no paperwork and with no input or consent of the father. Now, you may think a parent being able to disclaim responsibility is wrong, in which case we need to reduce women's rights in this area. Or you may think that this is an essential safeguard of child welfare, which means we need to increase men's rights in this area.

To say that women and ONLY women should have the right to disclaim parental responsibility after birth - which is the current status quo - on the basis of their gender is sexist and wrong.

I think the paper abortion discussion is probably a bit off-topic for this thread, although if every child's basic needs were met at taxpayer expense, this would certainly strengthen the case for it in my eyes.

I do agree the taxpayer support is necessary in cases like these (we kind of do that now, except then we go after the obligor parent for years to repay the state. I forget the exact number, but IIRC something like half of all back child support is owed to the state, and the child will never ever see it even if it were paid in full).

It does also make me wonder if there's any precedent yet for same sex couples having a child with the help of the various available medical procedures, and then the non-pregnant partner deciding they no longer want the child prior to the birth. If anyone is aware of such a situation, I would be interested to hear how it played out!

I'm not aware of one, but genetics would seem to play a legal factor here. Since the non-pregnant parent would have had to have gotten a genetic donor for the child to exist, the non-pregnant parent has no genetic connection to the child and may not be held legally liable due to that reason.

Terruana wrote:

Galloism wrote:Well, there are safeguards for credit card debt, legal medical costs, etc. You can go for bankruptcy and get that debt wiped out so you have a chance to start over.

This isn't true with child support.

Notably, ONLY fathers are required by law to accept parental responsibility in practice. Mothers can disclaim responsibility, unilaterally, with almost no paperwork and with no input or consent of the father. Now, you may think a parent being able to disclaim responsibility is wrong, in which case we need to reduce women's rights in this area. Or you may think that this is an essential safeguard of child welfare, which means we need to increase men's rights in this area.

To say that women and ONLY women should have the right to disclaim parental responsibility after birth - which is the current status quo - on the basis of their gender is sexist and wrong.

I think the paper abortion discussion is probably a bit off-topic for this thread, although if every child's basic needs were met at taxpayer expense, this would certainly strengthen the case for it in my eyes.

It does also make me wonder if there's any precedent yet for same sex couples having a child with the help of the various available medical procedures, and then the non-pregnant partner deciding they no longer want the child prior to the birth. If anyone is aware of such a situation, I would be interested to hear how it played out!

If men can get paper abortions, so should women. Especially teenage mothers who are often pressured into not getting an abortion or outright denied the ability to get an abortion by various restrictions.

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Well child support isn't a thing that normally happens, rather it's usually a result of some kind of legal proceeding like a divorce or annulment. Further, child support payments are calculated in some way based on the party's ability to pay. So a teenager in full time education who had a child would probably never be ordered to pay child support in the first place, because there aren't divorce proceedings when you fuck someone at a party, and even if a court did find such a party liable for child support payments it would probably also have to conclude that they are not in any position to pay anything.

Then why the "he should've gotten a vasectomy" part?

I wouldn't know.

Does it vary depending on the jurisdiction?

Obviously.

Dakini wrote:

Terruana wrote:
I think the paper abortion discussion is probably a bit off-topic for this thread, although if every child's basic needs were met at taxpayer expense, this would certainly strengthen the case for it in my eyes.

It does also make me wonder if there's any precedent yet for same sex couples having a child with the help of the various available medical procedures, and then the non-pregnant partner deciding they no longer want the child prior to the birth. If anyone is aware of such a situation, I would be interested to hear how it played out!

If men can get paper abortions, so should women. Especially teenage mothers who are often pressured into not getting an abortion or outright denied the ability to get an abortion by various restrictions.

They can. Right now. In every state in the union without even one single exception and almost every western country.

They can also force a paper abortion on men without their consent and generally with absolutely no recourse. Now. In every state in the union. In most western countries.

Galloism wrote:

Terruana wrote:
I think the paper abortion discussion is probably a bit off-topic for this thread, although if every child's basic needs were met at taxpayer expense, this would certainly strengthen the case for it in my eyes.

I do agree the taxpayer support is necessary in cases like these (we kind of do that now, except then we go after the obligor parent for years to repay the state. I forget the exact number, but IIRC something like half of all back child support is owed to the state, and the child will never ever see it even if it were paid in full).

It does also make me wonder if there's any precedent yet for same sex couples having a child with the help of the various available medical procedures, and then the non-pregnant partner deciding they no longer want the child prior to the birth. If anyone is aware of such a situation, I would be interested to hear how it played out!

I'm not aware of one, but genetics would seem to play a legal factor here. Since the non-pregnant parent would have had to have gotten a genetic donor for the child to exist, the non-pregnant parent has no genetic connection to the child and may not be held legally liable due to that reason.

That's definitely one way it could play out, although recent advancements in such treatments like mitochondrial replacement therapy would further muddy the waters if it were decided to act based on genetic links.