Mindblown

Fun2saymukluks · 2012-10-22T01:05:35+00:00

The child support system is broken and needs to be reviewed and fixed in many ways. As a father who pays child support, I know from experience. My ex wanted to be a welfare mom and she knows how to work the system.

totally_jawsome · 2012-10-22T03:56:56+00:00

I brought this up to my SO when we had a terrible pregnancy scare recently. Having a child is something I've always wanted, for him, not so much. We're both young, he's a year younger than me, so children really isn't on our to-do list yet. But, abortion isn't an option for me, not because of religion but just because of my own personal beliefs and that I could never live with myself if I did that. I know I'd be a good parent and I'd be fine sacrificing my life to give my child everything the deserved.

However, my SO was not prepared for this, which is completely understandable, in fact, I applaud him on that. It's really really hard to go 50/50 on the whole parenting thing with a couple when both halves are at opposite spectrum's. He was more inclined that abortion was perfectly fine and I couldn't live with that. All of my stupid "pro-life" friends told me that it was my body and if he decided to have sex with me then it was just as much his responsibility as mine. But I felt like that was not true. He didn't want a child, I did. I told him countless times that if he wanted out he could. I wouldn't make him pay child support, I wouldn't beg him to stay around. I told him it wasn't fair for him to be a father if he wasn't ready. No child needs a father who doesn't really want them. Children know when they aren't desired and it shows through their behaviors. But he refused to walk out because he couldn't live with himself if he walked away on his own seed. At the same time, he was practically beating himself up for letting this happen and also declaring that his entire life was in the shitter now that he had a possible child on the way. It was entirely devastating. Luckily, I wasn't pregnant after a month of fretting.

Through this experience it taught me that in these kinds of situations men really have no choice whatsoever, which is so unfair. If a woman wants a child, then let her have it, if the father doesn't then he shouldn't have to. No child support or anything. I hate the system...

springy · 2012-10-22T06:31:07+00:00

I knew a guy whose wife threw him out of the house, and said she was going to keep the house, children, and savings, and squeeze a fortune in child support.

Knowing that she would also deny him access to his daughter, he made her an offer of something like: "Instead of a fixed amount each month, I will pay you $1 for every hour that I spend with our daughter, which you can then spend however you wish when she is with you." It seemed sensible to me, since it would then encourage his wife to not be a jerk about access to the daughter.

Of course, his wife wasn't interested in the deal, and said she was going to take him to court and get him for every penny she could.

Realising he was about be royally screwed, both financially and in terms of access to his daughter, the guy resigned from his job, and went back full time to university to study art history. He told me he loved it, and had only been doing his previous job to support his family. Now that his wife had taken his family from him, he had choices again.

TracyMorganFreeman · 2012-10-22T00:54:59+00:00

This is the standard response to the "a man should have thought about that before having sex" argument: it cuts both ways.

Really every argument to support the disparity cuts both ways, but people in support of the disparity seem to rather want to use drive-by rhetoric than honest, cogent, valid arguments.

danthemango · 2012-10-22T04:33:49+00:00

That's not a question. I really hate when people use yahoo answers to soapbox their opinions. The userbase is about 2 IQ point above clinically stupid.

Merawder · 2012-10-22T03:50:28+00:00

I think that if a women gets pregnant under the clear understanding that both parents were doing it on purpose, but then the guy backs out, child support. (Same with a girl, if she has the baby and the guy is single dad).

If it happened by accident, then they should both be able to opt out. Women wants to keep it? Then it's her choice. The only time anyone should get forced child support is when she has good reason to have expected support in the first place.

I_love_bees · 2012-10-22T02:25:48+00:00

Parents: why is it ok to save screenshots of text as jpgs?

2012-10-22T07:04:28+00:00

This is just another symptom of our ad hoc system. The rights of men and women have changed so much in the last hundred years and a lot of the systems we've had in place have not kept up with those changes.

This explanation can work for almost every system between women and men that has a high level game-ability. It was developed back when the system needed to be skewed one way or the other, but now that men and women have moved closer together in rights those old systems are now dividing us and holding us back from true equality for both sides.

yself · 2012-10-22T22:47:25+00:00

I'm pro-choice, but I also believe a baby has rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," at some stage even before birth; a stage determined by law. I believe the state has a constitutional interest in defining when the baby becomes a person for this reason, because I believe all people have rights and an unborn baby is a person too.

This thread led me to an interesting thought experiment. I'm probably not the first to consider this idea, and I'm interested in learning what others think about this thought experiment.

Suppose, in the future, we had medical breakthroughs making it possible to sustain the life of an embryo in vitro, without requiring anything from the mother after conception, and sustain the life until it becomes a fully developed baby. Furthermore, suppose these medical breakthroughs could also make it possible to transfer a developing human from a female body at any stage of development. Thus, the transfer could happen as early as removing an egg from the female body, or at virtually any other stage of development. This would put the issue of the rights of the mother to control her own body in a different perspective. If a mother decided that she did not want to sustain the pregnancy in her body she could schedule a transfer. However, doing so would still obligate her legally to exactly the same kind of responsibilities as those faced by a father. She would also have the same kind of custody and contact privileges granted legally to a father.

Philosophically, I believe we currently only have a vaguely defined sense about when the life of a human person begins. We then use this as a basis for our legal demarcation of when the life of a human person begins. If we had the kind of technologies described in the thought experiment, then I think the state would face a different issue about the legal rights of an embryo. Since we have no scientific way of knowing precisely when the life of a human person begins, and the life of every living embryo could potentially become a human person, the state, in the thought experiment scenario, could face law suits forcing it to become responsible for protecting the life of every living embryo. Otherwise, it would run the risk of potentially terminating living persons with rights guaranteed by the constitution. Currently, the rights of the mother to control her own body complicate this issue.

I don't understand the legal reasoning that leads to saying that the state must legally obligate fathers to have financial responsibilities over their unborn developing embryo while also allowing mothers to terminate their unborn developing embryo. It seems inconsistent to me. If a woman wants to have a child, but the father would prefer an abortion, I can understand that the woman should have the right to decide about what happens to her own body and refuse to have an abortion. However, this would seem to mean that she should also assume full legal and financial responsibility for the child after birth, unless the father willingly agreed to assist. It seems to me inconsistent to say the developing fetus is not a human person until after it reaches a certain stage and also say that the sperm of the father carries with it certain legal financial obligations when it reaches the stage of conception.

2013-02-19T16:33:59+00:00

Another good question would be, if a man gets a woman pregnant and wants to keep the baby, why is it OK for her to abort it without his consent? If he aborted the baby without HER consent, it would be illegal.

So then that makes it HER baby. Not HIS baby. So why then would he be forced to pay child support for HER baby?

badforedu · 2012-10-22T03:02:13+00:00

Why is that mindblowing?

lookaboveyou · 2012-10-22T01:53:05+00:00

There should be contracts made before sex/relationship where a man can claim he is doing everything possible to avoid a baby and isnt capable of supporting it, ive had women lie about BC pill and break condoms because they want my awesome genes, there must be something to secure our side of it.

xenostrife · 2012-10-22T09:52:49+00:00

Here is a suitable joke which I read many years ago. :

A man said :"If I want to buy a drink from a vending machine, I insert the coins, then I push the button, wait the machine shaking for a few seconds then my drink is out. Now, the drink is mine or the machine's?"

lookaboveyou · 2012-10-23T08:49:10+00:00

Financial abortions must be developed in a reasonable manner

Highly_Literal · 2013-02-10T07:47:47+00:00

Well it's not "her body" it's her child's body it's not okay to end the life of a child. Messed up world when we separate people do what the sandy hook shooter did and get paid for it legally

Trosso · 2012-10-22T16:16:17+00:00

I've been suggesting to people I know for years that men should be able to have a 'legal abortion' which basically means they don't have to pay anything towards that child but they do give up any parental rights they might otherwise have. People look at me like I'm crazy at first but the more I explain it the more they see I make sense.

2012-10-22T21:12:41+00:00

I have never understood the mentality of "you shouldn't force someone to be a parent if they don't want to be!" Why the hell not?? As an adult, if you sleep with someone and make a baby, then guess what, you have to be a parent now. We don't get to just bugger off and abandon the kid we create - or worse, kill it outright before it has a chance to be born. It doesn't matter if it was in your little plans or not. What matters is that you step up to the plate, take responsibility for yourself, and do the best you can as a parent to that kid. That's what adults are supposed to do. It is incredibly selfish and cowardly to cast off your child because you can't be bothered to raise him.

actanonverba8 · 2012-10-23T01:16:18+00:00

It's so obvious. But, women (nearly all anyway) want TOTAL control. They're even against a birth control pill for men. Somebody is madly power hungry...not saying who...but somebody is.

CptSeaCow · 2012-10-21T23:45:12+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Maslo55 · 2012-10-22T04:34:21+00:00

Makes sense, but only before the abortion limit has passed. There should be a kind of a male "legal" abortion, giving up both rights and responsibilities.

themountaingoat · 2012-10-22T14:07:37+00:00

This is why there are "dead beat dads" but no "dead beat moms". If you're a dead beat mom, you just get an abortion.

BoneyAz · 2012-10-22T09:11:05+00:00

Wouldn't the logical extension of this be that if the man wants to keep the child and the woman doesn't that he has the right to deny the woman an abortion? That's a moral minefield.

ArgonGryphon · 2012-10-22T11:43:31+00:00

Even as a woman I've never understood why men can be forced into paying support for a child they don't want. Makes me glad I am one though, cause I'm not fucked in the ass if my partner doesn't have that abortion.

Quazijoe · 2012-10-22T11:46:49+00:00

One of my first comments on reddit was on this very subject.

The thread was discussing something called the financial abortion, whether that's a real thing or just a name we gave it I don't know. I outlined a set of rules as follows.

Rules:

1 - It is presumed that under circumstances where no documentation exists a father wishes to not take part in pregnancy and child rearing, waiving all rights of parenthood to the subsequent child, and thus the mother may decide whether to pursue pregnancy and child rearing with limited to no financial support. Details to be expanded by the following subsections.

1.sA - should the father wish to pursue child rearing the father may, sign an affidavit to that extent with the stipulation that all rights and responsibilities, inclusive of child support may be levied against the father.

**1.sA.1 - **The father also acknowledges the right of the female to abort under current abortion guidelines, due to personal wishes regarding use of her body.

**1.sA.2 - **This document must be signed prior to delivery of child, or within 6 months of learning of pregnancy.

2 - should the female wish to carry through with the pregnancy, they will be eligible for support payments to subsidize the cost of pregnancy, as outlined under reasonable expenses for pregnancy.

3 - if pregnancy results from rape or other sexually violent acts against the victims wishes, the perpetrator will loose all rights to the child, and may be expected to cover additional child support payments to be garnished from their wages for the life of the perpetrator.

3.sA - should the perpetrator be female and wish to carry the child forward to term, the victim may choose to raise the child or release the child to adoption. The victim may attain parental rights at anytime prior to adoption or delivery, whichever happens latest.

4 - in situations of marriage, it is presumed that the father wishes to pursue pregnancy and child rearing.

4.sA - if the father does not wish to pursue parenthood under marriage, the father will have 1 month to inform the significant other and declare the intent to waive the right to parenthood and financial obligation.

**4.sA.1 - **the father may be required to financially support the child until the age of 6. Despite current marital status.

**4.sA.2 - **should divorce proceeding occur child rearing costs and expenses are eliminated from the proceedings and negotiations as long as the father has filed the declaration to waive the right to parenthood and financial obligation form as discussed in 4.sA

5 - any coercion, deceit or dealing in bad faith in relation the the above mentioned rules may force the perpetrator to waive their right to parenthood of said offspring, and be subject to fines, penalties, child support payments, and possible jail time for no more than 6 months.

5.sA - a person may dispute these allegations and evidence may be provided against or for their case, in the form of signed affidavits, prenuptial agreements, forms declaring the waiving of rights and responsibilities to child bearing as outlined in 4.sA, Etc.

Summary:

These rules presume the right to a person(male or female) to wish to not be a parent, and to not support child rearing. Under this assumption the parent may sign a pre arranged document citing their witnessed denial or acceptance of child rearing and financial obligation.

This way should a woman wish to decide on whether child rearing is an option for them they will have an informed decision on what support is available for them. They may then choose to pursue pregnancy, adoption, or abortion. The only child support to be offered by unwilling parents would be to split the cost of pregnancy.

The last rule is there to make sure no one can be tricked into being a parent through coercion or deceit. I can't go to a woman, promise I will support the child, have sex with her, and back out; a woman can't steal a mans sperm and try to turkey baster a baby under rule 5.

VictoryTongue · 2012-10-22T12:38:23+00:00

My step dad still pays child support.... His kids moved in with us 2 years ago but his crazy ex still managed to get the court to force him to pay for at least one of the kids.

Element519 · 2012-10-22T12:54:56+00:00

I have custody of my son and due to me not pushing an issue, the mother doesn't have to pay child support. The last time she had to pay was a year ago and it was $50 a month. She walked out when he was 4 months old. Also, the judge said that in Ohio if she had another baby, she wouldn't be obligated to owe child support because of obscure laws. Of course, she did that via one night stand with a barfly.

Nougat · 2012-10-22T13:48:01+00:00

Ay, there's the rub.

Let's say Man and Woman have sex, Woman becomes pregnant.

Woman has the choice whether to bear the child, or to abort the pregnancy. Man has no say in this choice whatsoever. If Man wants to keep and raise the child himself, and Woman wants to terminate, too bad for Man. If Man wants to terminate, and Woman wants to keep and raise the child herself, again, too bad for Man.

Most specifically, in this latter case, Man cannot choose to be relieved of responsibility for a child, and is forced to pay child support. Woman, through terminating the pregnancy, can choose to be relieved of that responsibility.

If Woman and Man do not want to remain in a relationship with each other, but each wants to raise the child, the child will almost always be raised with Woman, with Man visiting occasionally. Again, too bad for Man. If just one of the two, Woman and Man, does want to remain in a relationship, but the other does not, the child will certainly be raised by Woman. Too bad for Man.

Yes, it is absolutely true that for much of history, women did not have real control over their reproductive capability, and that was bad. Women were forced into positions of lifelong responsibility that they did not choose. Women should have the right to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, not to choose "what happens to their bodies," but to choose what they will and will not be responsible for.

However, the way this is implemented in the United States is to swing the pendulum entirely the other direction, giving female partners rights over their male partners. Men can and are forced by women and the state to accept a responsibility that the courts have decided that women should not be forced to shoulder. The cognitive dissonance here is deafening.

If women should have complete and total control over the choice to terminate a pregnancy - and it's quite arguable that they should - then men should never be forced to support any children in any long term way. I think a one-time monetary payment, in about the amount it would cost to safely terminate a pregnancy, would be appropriate. Beyond that, men should have the right to choose just like women have the right to choose.

drev · 2012-10-22T14:18:06+00:00

I was talking to my friend about this - he and I share very similar beliefs on politics, religion, gender rights, etc - and he was left speechless when I posited this idea. He's a forward thinking person, and the idea of a man being able to turn down financial obligations had never occurred to him. He just sat there with a "holy shit" look on his face, muttering "wow... That's true... Wow...."

2012-10-22T15:00:59+00:00

I completely agree with this.

I think it should be completely fair though, if a women must pay for an abortion, then the man must pay some sort of court fees/penalties for signing over his parental rights. It should be the approximate cost of an abortion for him to sign away his rights. It's important that this must be a legal issue, so that no one can be taken advantage of, and everyone understands it's a forever kind of thing. No signing away rights only to demand you see your child, no claiming them on taxes, or using them in any significant way. I think doing it that way will protect both the mother, and the father, while at the same time, maintaining some level of fairness.

Edit: Think of a fair way to establish financial abortions and get down voted because no one wants fair, they want easy.

SilencingNarrative · 2012-10-22T15:14:45+00:00

The best rebuttal of the old "well, if he didn't want to be respondible for paying child support, he shouldn't have had sex" I have yet seen.

Truly mind blowing.

ModerSvea · 2012-10-22T15:22:01+00:00

I agree that a man should be able to sign over his rights to a child before it's born (just like a woman can with an abortion) and therefore wave any monetary responsibility to it, however if a man doesn't wave his rights and tries to raise the child, but realizes 6 months down the line that it's "too hard" (not saying a lot of men do this, but I know men that have) then NO, keep supporting the child you said you would support. It's not fair to promise the mother support and then pull out the rug from under her feet once the kid is born.

Samccx19 · 2012-10-22T07:25:23+00:00

Don't know if I 100% agree with this. Yes I agree with it in the case of welfare mums, but child support was originally designed in the best interests of the child. Let's say the mum hotfoots it leaving a minimum wage dad with a child, it's in that child's interest that it gets the financial support it needs. This works both ways round. The system ain't perfect that's for sure, but scrapping it altogether would hurt children more than the other parent.

darwin2500 · 2012-10-22T07:39:16+00:00

It's not about either parent's rights, it's about the good of the child. Suggest a workable alternative that provides equal support for the child, and we can talk about it.

elebrin · 2012-10-22T03:45:55+00:00

To my mind this is a very good reason to support the Pro-Life agenda. If men don't get a legal way out then neither should women.

found314 · 2012-10-22T13:22:31+00:00

I'm with you up until your conclusion...

A father walking out on his kids is incredibly destructive and irresponsible.
A sexually promiscuous girl aborting her child is also incredibly destructive and irresponsible.

These are both bad things, not both things we should consider acceptable.

a_weed_wizard · 2012-10-22T01:01:08+00:00

[permanently deleted]

corpseflower · 2012-10-22T13:22:21+00:00

Is anyone else waiting for SRS to catch wind of this post?

ElixaRx · 2012-10-22T22:29:18+00:00

It's about allowing for the most resources for the child. It may seem a bit unfair but you STILL are taking the risk of fertilizing an egg.

Besides, an extra bill every month? You don't even have to stay in the PICTURE. You should thank God your child will have enough money for clothes and food.

Morel3etterness · 2012-10-22T11:28:07+00:00

There are rights and wrongs to both. Cant expect a girl who was raped to have a child or give birth to a child if shes too young or the baby will be born with a huge disability. Cant expect a father to pay child support to a woman who left him for another man or tricked him into having a child.

cocoPoulet · 2012-10-22T17:04:18+00:00

Correct me if I'm wrong. I thought if the guy doesn't sign the birth certificate, he has no legal obligations. So I guess, it is fair. If you do sign the certificate, that means you will have to pay for the child even if you're not living with the mother of the child.

ClaudeKenni · 2012-10-23T11:27:34+00:00

This is something I talk about a lot. To put it briefly, there is no argument that's pro-choice, besides the issues of rape and serious health risks, that can not then also be applied to men being allowed to sever all rights and responsibilities to a child within the same period that women can legally have the choice to abort a child.

The practicalities of putting something like that in to law are complex (requiring everything from notification of the father within that period, or issues of identifying parenthood in cases of uncertainty, good faith around contraception methods etc), but it's better to be complex and unbiased, than simple and completely favouring the mother in all cases.

2012-10-22T09:28:39+00:00

mehhhh.....as a dude even I think this is stretched at best, sometimes reddit acts like males get pregnant too.

Kiyano · 2012-10-22T08:24:30+00:00

My niece and nephews dad walked out on them. They deserve every penny he's forced to pay :)

AcerbicUserName · 2012-10-22T08:33:00+00:00

No one is forcing men to stay in a child's life. If they don't want the child and don't want to pay child support than they need to relinquish parental rights. However most men (I know) don't want to do that because they want some involvement in the kids life. You can't have it both ways.

Smackithdown · 2012-10-22T09:46:43+00:00

This seems to be accurate.

macgyverftw · 2012-10-22T07:40:22+00:00

If a man wants control over his reproduction, he can use a condom. If Little Lord Fauntelroy can't stand a bit of latex, what happens after is his own damn fault.

AndyWilson · 2012-10-22T08:00:57+00:00

Bad argument is bad. And you should feel bad.

pancakeman157 · 2012-10-22T05:15:03+00:00

Couldn't a father emancipate or disown the child? I would think that would legally remove any obligations for the child's welfare. He would lose visitation rights or really any future care for the child.

Or if the mother is shown to be mentally unsound, I'm sure he could arrange for adoption since she is no longer fit to be his or her mother.

Or just be abstinent. Or marry the mother.

Segaga · 2012-10-22T10:42:49+00:00

Isn't it a shitty thing to do to not support your child?

SleepingOnMoonshine · 2012-10-22T05:43:35+00:00

Why is this on yahoo answers first of all, second of all neither should be allowed. Men should usually pay child support and I believe abortion should be illegal unless it is medically dangerous for the woman to give birth.

Title	Mindblown
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	1776
Comments	414
Date	October 21, 2012 10:44 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/11v5du/mindblown/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/mindblown.1010829 https://theredarchive.com/post/1010829

Comments