How do I refute the argument that the child has a right to financial support from all of his/her parents?

Illustrious_Bus9486 · 2023-11-03T02:08:38+00:00

Ask how the father is supposed to even be aware of this obligation when the mother hides the existence of the child?

Vose4492 · 2023-11-03T01:00:23+00:00

The custodial parent seeking financial support from the non-custodial parent is the only way for the child to receive support.

Imagine two hypotheticals.

Hypothetical #1:

The custodial parent chooses not to seek financial support from the non-custodial parent.

Hypothetical #2:

The custodial parent seeks financial support from the non-custodial parent and the latter does not pay the support.

In both of these hypotheticals, the child does not receive financial support from the non-custodial parent. Therefore, the child’s right to financial support is being violated in both scenarios. Therefore, if one is allowed, they should both be allowed.

Comfortable_Ad_9154 · 2023-11-03T02:09:53+00:00

Surrender to foster care/safe haven spots don't have a requirement for parental support

LateralThinker13 · 2023-11-03T02:34:27+00:00

>Just because the obligation is not enforced, that does not mean that the obligation does not exist.

For starters, any obligation that is not enforced, in practice DOES NOT exist. And further, is ripe for exploitation via its being selectively enforced against certain non-protected classes.

Angryasfk · 2023-11-03T01:40:20+00:00

If a child has a “right” to “financial support”, then they surely also have a “right to life”!

If abandoning financial responsibility is wrong, then abortion must be doubly or triply wrong!

The “paper abortion” should be available with similar restrictions to actual abortion.

LouisdeRouvroy · 2023-11-03T01:18:53+00:00

You are making it unnecessarily complicated by involving biology.

Childhood is first a biological definition.

If you don't want to involve biology, then you can't speak of children.

Furthermore, why should a minor have 2 parents in the legal sense if not because of the biological necessity of 2 genitors?

Legally, children can have 0 parent, 1 or 2. The question is why should this be the decision of the woman, and why can't men decide it too?

The argument shouldn't be whether parents should support their children. Legally they have to. The argument should be why can women chose whether or not they want to legally be a parent, but men cannot?

Realistic_Practice16 · 2023-11-03T01:02:08+00:00

Refute what argument exactly….? Seems like the debate went from one subject to another

princelydeeds · 2023-11-03T04:00:24+00:00

Ask if that person believes that the mother has the right to give the child up for adoption or legally abandon the child by leaving it at any firehouse, police station or hospital.

They will almost always say yes.

Once they say yes, you win.

If they believe the mother should have the right to give the child up or abandon the child they are a hypocrite. Almost all women are hypocrites when it comes to this issue.

Mantid7781 · 2023-11-03T04:50:13+00:00

The mother should be obligated to inform the father that he is a parent. If she is not forced to do this, then no such obligation exists. In other words, if the law is not enforced, then it is effectively not a law. Not sure if that answers your question.

sharksville · 2023-11-03T05:29:32+00:00

Real question here is why are both parents giving the child up for adoption? They both did the deed so they, the biological parents should be the one responsible for the child. That child shouldn’t be given up for adoption. It’s a different case if the child happens to be an orphan after both parents passed away in a car crash or whatever, but until then, the biological parents of the child should be the one taking care of the child. No matter if both parents want to give him/her up for adoption and another couple is looking for a child to adopt.

This is the problem with society, first a man and woman will do the deed, knowing full well what is the primary reason for the deed, but when time comes to harvest the fruits of the labour, they don’t want to do it. Instead of accepting responsibility like they should, they do something else that they shouldn’t.

Sam__Toucan · 2023-11-03T11:44:14+00:00

You don't because the child is innocent. However you can refute the suggestion that the only way to support a child is to pay money to the mother.

As someone who pays child support, I don't care about the money. What I want is control over how it is spent. I also want my children to know it came from me.

awesomeness6698 · 2023-11-04T03:55:25+00:00

Here is what OP should say in order to win the debate.

Point #1:In order for the child to receive financial support from the father, the mother would not necessarily need to be the one to enforce the obligation.

Suppose the woman who lives next door to you has a baby. She chooses not to seek financial support from her baby daddy. Let’s say that you believe that she should be seeking financial support from her baby daddy. Imagine if a legal precedent existed that allowed you to take the father to court and demand that the father support the child financially. That would be a way for the child to have a protected right to support from the father without any expectation for the mother to enforce the obligation. If this is about the well being of the child, what difference does it make if the mother is the one to enforce the obligation?

Point #2: What does it mean to say that an obligation exists?

To say that so and so is obligated to do thing X usually means that so and so will suffer consequences for not doing thing X. If the mother choosing not to seek financial support from the father automatically exempts the father from paying child support, then the child does not have a right to the support of the father, the mother has a right to seek support from the father.

The best analogy I can think of to demonstrate my point in a really simple way is this.

Under the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, education is a protected right. That means that parents have to send their children to school. If a child has a right to something, then parents have an obligation to enforce that right.

Parents are allowed to homeschool their kids if they want to. That does not mean that children have a right to be homeschooled, it means parents have a right to homeschool their kids.

Point #3: What makes a man a father?

Say that a man and a woman (let’s call the man Fred and the women Gina) have sex. A pregnancy results. Fred wants Gina to abort but Gina gives birth anyway just to spite him.

You say that Fred is obligated to support the child, because the child has a right to support from Fred, because Fred is the child’s father. What makes Fred the child’s father? It cannot be biology, you said that biology is irrelevant.

Point #4: What about abortion?

Should the father be able to force the mother to have an abortion if he doesn't want to be a father. If you answered no, then it follows logically that the mother should not be able to demand child support payments from the father.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot leave the father out of the decision about whether or not to abort but then claim that the father is more a part of the equation when it comes to who has rights.

Point #5: The child could receive welfare benefits to meet its basic needs.

Technically, taxpayers supporting children is already a thing that happens. If a child ends up in the foster care system because both parents died, taxpayers will have to support the child. If legal paternal surrender is implemented and welfare benefits are given to single parents to help make ends meet, all that will do is alter the criterion what does and does not result in the taxpayers having to support children.

That sounds good to me. As it currently works, a woman can rape a man or an under aged boy, get herself pregnant and sue the male victim for child support.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/w5ctpw/hermesmann\_v\_seyer/
https://www.reddit.com/r/FeMRADebates/comments/fgktv6/hermesmann\_v\_seyer\_precedent\_setting\_legal\_case/

Under the policy for which a advocate, if a man gets raped by a woman and a pregnancy results, he will still have to support the child through his tax dollars. However, every tax paying citizen will have as much responsibility to the child as the male rape victim does. This makes sense, as every tax paying citizen bears as much blame for the rape that caused the pregnancy as the male rape victim does.

randomthoughts1050 · 2023-11-03T01:23:32+00:00

I think the only way to discount financial support for a child, ignoring paternity for simplicity, is during the abortion stage.

Speak now or forever hold your peace.

Too many stories, true or not, of the father abandoning the child shortly after s/he was born.

Is it slightly unfair that she can still give the child up for adoption? Ya, but one hill at a time.

Title	How do I refute the argument that the child has a right to financial support from all of his/her parents?
Author	bigelow6698
Upvotes	25
Comments	34
Date	November 3, 2023 12:43 AM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/17mimq8/how_do_i_refute_the_argument_that_the_child_has_a/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/how-do-i-refute-the-argument-that-the-child-has-a.1237192 https://theredarchive.com/post/1237192

Comments