The problem with the Child Support debate when utilizing "Pro-Choice" as reason to consider the idea of financial abortion.

oneiorosgrip · 2013-05-23T04:22:13+00:00

From a historical standpoint, your entire argument is off the mark.

Prior to the introduction of the Tender Years Doctrine, when default custody of children in divorce went to men, there was no such thing as child support.

The only reason child support exists at all was because when women first began to receive custody of their children outside of marriage, it occurred during a time when it was not traditional for women to support themselves, much less a family.

Today, that is simply not the case. From a legal standpoint, women have the same earning capacity as men. Child support payments do not go to support the child per se, but to support the woman's choice to not strive to meet her earning potential - in other words, the state substitutes a payment from the father so that custodial mothers don't have to seek payment from an employer.

The fact is that the system is outdated. Its purpose was to make up for a problem that no longer exists - the issue of women being unable to support their own household. The issue now is completely different. Women today are not unable, but unwilling. It is not the state's business to force men to support that.

GregoryPanic · 2013-05-23T02:52:56+00:00

Visitation enforcement

The problem: $1 is spent enforcing visitation for every $340 spent recovering child support. Criminally restricting visitation is not seen for what it actually is: child abuse.

A solution: Consider it child abuse under the law, and let it be used as evidence to support fitness for custody.

MRB2012 · 2013-05-23T04:46:52+00:00

What I find extremely frustrating is the inability of some MRAs to separate the physical abortion debate from the financial abortion debate. They are separate issues

No they're not. If life does not begin at conception and it is solely the choice of the mother to bring a child into the world, then she should solely be responsible for that choice.

AceyJuan · 2013-05-23T06:16:29+00:00

in the legal eye, is not subjugation of men to the convenience of a woman, it's the subjugation of men for the betterment of a child.

The mother chose to bring the child into the world. It's a chain of responsibility, and the mother has final responsibility. We're just cutting through the bullshit here.

inability of some MRAs to separate the physical abortion debate from the financial abortion debate

We're well aware of the difference. The problem is that you can't just separate the two. The right to make all the decisions is given to one party, and the responsibility to pay for those decisions is (partially) placed on the other. Nobody should be forced to take responsibility for a child they didn't want.

Financial abortion actually introduces more unintended consequences by unilaterally allowing any parent to be absentee without risk, putting children (and by extension, societies) at risk.

The right to opt-out will change people's behavior. What will really change is that we won't have so many fatherless children and so many unwilling fathers paying the bills. What won't really happen is a ton of welfare babies, because women aren't that stupid.

soulcakeduck · 2013-05-23T03:32:30+00:00

in the legal eye... it's the subjugation of men for the betterment of a child.

Women can and do pay child support. Clearly child support disproportionately impacts men, but we should not claim that the law sees child support as male-vs-child.

A far left solution to men's issues with child support would be to place a large part of the expense of young children onto the state. This doesn't get discussed much among men's movements because we've come to think of statists as 'feminists'--welfare is replacing the role of traditional male providers etc. That's only because the state has been very effective in solving many recent women's issues.

The state providing, for example, free or heavily subsidized medicine, child care (for working parents), and maybe some staples like diapers could remove the need for any system of personal child support payments. It also solves some of the adverse effects of the current system (eg the cost of child care is often so high that parents have to work less while trying to provide for their children).

The drawback is that this slightly increases the extent to which the childless subsidize parenthood, but they already do this to a large extent and it is in their interest to do so (and most childless could easily become parents themselves so these groups are not impermeable). I expect the overall cost would be much lower as a result and the economy benefits from freeing able/willing parents to work and by expanding certain child care jobs.

ClaudeKenni · 2013-05-23T07:34:06+00:00

Ok, I think you're off on this one, and will explain why. Let's ignore all the extremes of the debate (rape, spermjacking etc), and work from the beginning.

Sex is a consensual act, that both partners choose to engage in. Where there are no other factors involved, such as the extreme cases I mention above, we can agree that both partners are equally responsible for the consequences of sex, such as pregnancy.

Now we move on to the pro-choice position. If someone argues that abortion should only apply to those who are forced to become pregnant through rape, then fair enough. If someone argues that it should apply to those who are at severe medical risk from going through with pregnancy, then again fair enough.

But if you argue the pro-choice position that women should have the right to abort under other circumstances (not wanting a child, or feeling they are not capable of raising them), then the only equal conclusion is that a man who feels the same should have the same right, on as similar terms as possible. By choosing abortion, the mother "does not want to have the obligation of being responsible for offspring that is legally theirs" (to use your exact quote). The only difference is that it's not acceptable under these conditions for a man to force a woman to abort, so the nearest equivalent solution is being able to abdicate all legal rights and responsibilites towards the child (financial abortion if you prefer). By giving this right under the same terms as an abortion (within the same time period that we allow abortion), it also means that a woman who's sexual partner has decided to take this option is in a position to decide whether, under the circumstances that she will be a sole parent, and have sole responsibility towards the child, whether or not to then take the option of an abortion.

GregoryPanic · 2013-05-23T02:52:05+00:00

False Paternity Claims

The problem: Contested paternity does not absolve men who have been acting as the provider to children of child support obligations.

This is huge, but extremely complicated. For example, a man who has been acting and providing as a father to children for years before discovering they are not his own… what is in the best interest of the child, and what avenues of recourse can we provide the man without harming said children?

While I'm not sure completely abandoning the child is in the interest of the child or society, I think providing these men an avenue for recourse is absolutely in order.

A solution: Allow suits for re-payment when the child has turned 18.

One thing is apparent.

A man who is not the biological father of a child, should not be subjected to 18 years of payments for someone else's child, especially when the mother has essentially committed fraud upon the state by claiming false paternity on the child's birth certificate.

A solution: Require a paternity test at birth in order to have a father's name placed on the birth certificate.

A complication: The legal ramifications of that are difficult to account for - fourth amendment rights of the child, for example, when the mother doesn't consent to a paternity test when a father claims she is carrying his child.

However, I believe this simple institutional change could solve a whole slew of problems. The only argument against this is to classify the paternity test as an attack on women, claiming institutional discrimination by essentially questioning the fidelity of every mother. The affirmative argument is to suggest we're not questioning fidelity, but paternity.

Gutierrezjm6 · 2013-05-23T04:59:59+00:00

You gotta wonder how this kind of stuff compares with baby Moses laws where a woman can legally drop off a kid at an orphanage and absolve herself of responsibility. A man is bound by law to bring up a kid he doesn't want but a woman can abort it, put it up for adoption, or just drop it off in front of a hospital and be rid of it.

GregoryPanic · 2013-05-23T02:52:16+00:00

Income based awards

This is something I struggle with, because as I understand each state's awarding structure is vastly different. Please pipe in with specifics, corrections, or concerns, as I am not nearly as educated on this as I would like to be.

A problem: Income based awards that exceed reasonable levels of expense a custodial parent may incur while raising the child; and, difficulty or reluctance to adjust of these awards when level of income drops or income ceases, unconstitutionally criminalizing citizens under what is functionally a debt.

Other problems? Remarrying / functional replacement of a parent not absolving child support requirements? I would really love more insight on this.

mikesteane · 2013-05-23T08:33:18+00:00

"The single most important fact ignored in this argument is that child support, in the legal eye, is not subjugation of men to the convenience of a woman, it's the subjugation of men for the betterment of a child."

However, in reality, it IS the subjgation of men to women's convenience." There is absolutely no mechanism for assuring that child support actually gets to the child and every mechanism for making sure it gets to the custodial parent, usually the mother.

The two arguments are not separate. They are intimately linked. The woman has all the rights, and none of the responsibility. She can give the child up for adoption which may not be in his best interest. In this case, she will have no financial obligation. Why should a man not have this same choice? She can have an abortion, which is definitely not in the child's interest.

GregoryPanic · 2013-05-23T02:51:48+00:00

Consent to Fatherhood

The Problem: When does a man consent to fatherhood? Legally, as it stands now, it's at conception. However, this doesn't take into account cases of rape or spermjacking.

The Solution: Make exceptions for cases of rape and spermjacking.

Other than that, there is the argument that women have the right to get an abortion, and therefore have the ability to opt-in or opt-out all the way up until they can no longer have an abortion. This is, to put it bluntly, legal inequity.

I really don't know if there's a logical solution to that which does not violate our current standings on abortion law. I do believe consent to fatherhood is at moment of consentual conception, and that the right to choose ultimate does lie with the woman.

This is a situation in which I believe we simply have to bite our tongues and realize men and women are different sometimes.

GregoryPanic · 2013-05-23T02:52:26+00:00

Fraudulent expenditure of child support

The problem: The usage of child support… to not actually support the child.

A complication: Any effort to monitor expenditures of child support could be considered unconstitutional when standing against the fourth amendment.

A solution: Segregation of funds awarded by child support into custodial accounts. Funds to be used for necessities (food, clothing) are awarded in cash. Anything above awards for necessities held in an account which must be accounted for with receipts (School supply expenditures for example).

The reason for funds being made readily available for use in a custodial account, and then submitting accounting documents is that sometimes expenditures may need to be in cash, or credit may not be reasonable available for use. The non-custodial parent could monitor the expenditures from this account, and seek recourse if there is proof of inappropriate usage.

I haven't thought of a good way to do this that doesn't inherently violate the 4th amendment rights of the custodial parent though. I do think funds under a certain level for necessities should be unmonitored.

GregoryPanic · 2013-05-23T02:52:34+00:00

Debtor's Prison - aka "Contempt of Court"

The Problem: Men are jailed for what is functionally a debt owed to the child, but is classified as "Contempt of Court". The idiocy of this is apparent: How can criminalizing this behavior solve anything, when labeling these men as criminals functionally strips their ability to actually resolve the debt. Men who lose jobs or take pay cuts are in danger of not only being homeless because of strain on finances, but also in danger of being put into jail for inability to pay child support.

A Solution: Proving intent. Parents ACTIVELY DODGING child support payments should be reprimanded legally, and potentially jailed. They actually ARE in contempt of court. If in the process of investigating/attempting to recover child support it is found that the parent's income cannot support the payment, it should not be addressed criminally.

The power to jail a person should not be placed in the hands of a custodial parent.

toptrool · 2013-05-23T03:30:40+00:00

The idea of financial abortion being allowed opens the door to suggest parents have no obligation to the children they are legally the parent of.

do you think pregnant women should not be obligated to provide for their children? more specifically, do you believe that abortion should be legal? if the law were truly for "the betterment of a child," then elective abortions would not be allowed. the reality is that jurisdictions that mandate child support but also allow elective abortions are being inconsistent -- that is where the men's rights issue comes in.

most abortions are done for inconvenience, i.e., simply because the mother didn't want to take on the full responsibilities of being a parent, or did not want to be pregnant. the law does not account for any inconveniences the fathers might face by mandating that they pay child support.

inconsistencies:

a) man wants child, woman doesn't and she aborts; he loses his wanted child.

b) man doesn't want child, woman doesn't abort; the law mandates him to take care of a child he did not want.

c) the law supports the woman no matter what choice she makes (abortion, child support, welfare, custodial rights, etc.).

the real equation under the law: men have 0% of the choice and 100% of the responsibility and women have 100% of the choice and 100% of the responsibility (assuming no safe haven trickery).

wdiscourse · 2013-05-23T09:00:17+00:00

Did the man consent to paternity? If not, he doesn't have to pay. That policy would ACTUALLY HELP CHILDREN as the mothers would have to actually LOVE the fathers to get their dna.

rightsbot · 2013-05-23T02:52:17+00:00

Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)

2013-05-23T07:36:20+00:00

Many people want to adopt children, particularly infants. If a woman doesn't want to abort, and can't support, the child should be adopted out, which provides a child to a family that wants one.

Not a complex situation.

MockingDead · 2013-05-23T19:34:58+00:00

The situation we're discussing is here is a child who has been born, it exists, what do we do.

The woman can put up the child for adoption or raise it.

The man can chose to provide financially or leave.

These are the only options that are worth considering. A Person is never under the obligation to any other person.

The problem with your argument is that ignore the women has sole right to decide if a child comes to term. the man has no right to say "I don't want to have a child". This distinction invalidates your necessary child support.

Currently, the man does not have any right except to provide for the child. The only solution that is tenable is to give him some power to divest himself of responsibility just as the woman may divest herself of responsibility. However, since a man cannot tell a woman to abort the baby, nor abort the baby himself, he must be able to withdraw from the situation the only thing he has, is production via his labor.

What's good for the child? Well, if the woman is considering abortion or adoption, what's best for the child was probably birth control.

thunder_mcshock · 2013-05-23T06:22:17+00:00

Many of these arguments seem based on the idea that a mother is 100% responsible for the choice to bring a baby into the world and is therefore 100% responsible for the child as it grows.

To those people my question is this. Why do father's have rights at all? By your reasoning they shouldn't.

Title	The problem with the Child Support debate when utilizing "Pro-Choice" as reason to consider the idea of financial abortion.
Author	GregoryPanic
Upvotes	10
Comments	193
Date	May 23, 2013 2:51 AM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/1evowu/the-problem-with-the-child-support-debate-when-/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/the-problem-with-the-child-support-debate-when.1613175 https://theredarchive.com/post/1613175

Comments