Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Thu 03/09/2006 View Wed 03/08/2006 View Tue 03/07/2006 View Mon 03/06/2006 View Sun 03/05/2006 View Sat 03/04/2006 View Fri 03/03/2006
1
2006-03-09 Home Front: Culture Wars
Men's Rights Group Eyes Child Support Opt-Out
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Anonymoose 2006-03-09 09:00|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [547 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 I don't think they will have much luck. However, I predict there will eventually be a new regime, one based on the original principals of marriage.

That is, males have a biological prerogative to mate with multiple females. Females have both the prerogative to get the best genetic father for their offspring; and the best partner to help raise them. When there are a lot of males, most likely not the same male.

Marriage is a contract that for the male promises that the children he raises will be his. For the female, that she will only have his children, if he stays monogamous, using his resources for her children's benefit only. But this only works if the marriage contract is enforced.

So, to mimic this contract, legally, would most likely give the most satisfactory results. In some states, when a child is born, the mother is pressed to give the father's name--who must contest parenthood to deny financial responsibility.

This idea should be expanded so that when a child is born, a sample of their DNA is kept at the hospital for a set period of time, that being, for the father to assert parenthood. Once it is determined, compared to a paternal blood test, then the child is officialy his or not.

1) If the child is the father's, he is financially responsible.
2) If the child is not his, he can accept financial responsibility for it anyway.
3) If the child is not his, and he declines financial responsibility, he must also sever his relationship with the mother since he cannot support one and not the other. Otherwise he assumes financial responsibility for the child.
4) A male who is the biological father but not the female's partner, may assume financial support for the child besides her partner, but a court must determine if he has any other parental rights.

This mimics the prerogatives of marriage, in that, for the female, it legally guarantees that the real father of her children must pay support; for the male, that he only has to support the children that are his, unless he opts to support them anyway.

It is not clear-cut, but it does give what I think are the best results for all concerned.
Posted by Anonymoose 2006-03-09 09:22||   2006-03-09 09:22|| Front Page Top

#2 I'm getting radical about whole issue.

I'm for the government to get out of the marriage business all together. That all contracts are civil which can not obligate any third party to any benefits predicated upon said contract. The state's only interest is to act as impartial third party in the resolution of contract and to protect those unable to protect themselves, i.e. the children. What the state defines as 'husband' and 'wife' is the DNA validation of the child. Therefore, you may have a man or woman with several official mates. Those mates are responsible for the children till; the child comes of age, dies, or are officially relieved of responsibility by others assuming that responsibility. Any benefits are predicated upon the child, not upon the contract or the adults involved.
Posted by Clith Unaick2324 2006-03-09 10:26||   2006-03-09 10:26|| Front Page Top

#3 Clith Unaick2324: that actually sounds pretty status quo, given most current law. Certainly there are a lot of exceptions, sometimes egregious ones, here and elsewhere.

"Child law" is one of the most sensitive issues around, and it is very case-by-case driven. An eye opener as to how irrational it can get is with the degeneracy of divorce law in the US. Perjury is commonplace, even pro-forma, with wild and unsubstatiated accusations often encouraged by attorneys and ignored by judges.

Child custody and administration law is almost entirely anecdotally driven. One week there will be a tragedy of children returned to birth parents that promptly kill them; the next, of children taken away from birth parents who are killed by adoptive parents or in their foster home. Most State child welfare agencies are mad houses.

Perpetual investigations of "the system" exist in many States. There are no blanket answers.
Posted by Anonymoose 2006-03-09 10:56||   2006-03-09 10:56|| Front Page Top

#4 So, she told him she "couldn't" get pregnant, and now she is, with his child. He's an idiot who just wanted to screw her, and now he's screwed and is whining about it.

What a great dad, huh?

If you play with fire . . .
Posted by ex-lib 2006-03-09 11:53||   2006-03-09 11:53|| Front Page Top

#5 So, he told her he "couldn't" father a child, and now she is pregnant. She's an idiot who just wanted to screw him, and now she's screwed and is whining about it.

What a great mom, huh?

If you play with fire . . .

(Sorry - just want to contrast with a different 'viewpoint'... I think I've heard this story before....).

Personally I think if the guy can prove that she said she could not get pregnant (or would not hold him responsible) he should have an 'out'. OR perhaps he should have some say ( as in CHOICE...) in the decision to 'abort' since, after all, the child is his as well....
Posted by CrazyFool 2006-03-09 12:21||   2006-03-09 12:21|| Front Page Top

#6 Human cruelty abounds. I knew of a man who married a beautiful woman, who gave birth to their triplets, all male, without ever informing him that males in her family suffered from congenital blindness.

In those days, it was said, that people admired and respected him for his willingness to stay with her to raise those boys, and once they were adults, people could not condemn him for strangling her to death.
Posted by Anonymoose 2006-03-09 12:51||   2006-03-09 12:51|| Front Page Top

#7 "Dubay says he has been ordered to pay $500 a month in child support for a girl born last year to his ex-girlfriend. He contends that the woman knew he didn't want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that — because of a physical condition — she could not get pregnant."

Poor, dumb bastard. Look, here's how it works:

1) She has a vagina.

2) You have a paycheck.

3) Therefore, she gets your paycheck. No exceptions.

See how easy that was? Nothin' to it.

In the future, try to remember this general rule: if it floats, flies or f*cks, it's usually cheaper to rent.

Posted by Elmater Angoger6598 2006-03-09 13:23||   2006-03-09 13:23|| Front Page Top

#8 This only proves the classic motherly advice, "Never trust the object of your affections to provide the birth control, unless you want to make a baby." The gentleman's mistake was not using a condom every time, regardless what the woman said. Very stupid on his part, given how many girls historically have deliberately attempted to trap men into marriage this way. Even in these liberated times, there are as many users of both sexes that the basic rules haven't changed.

It seems to me that unless the gentleman can show (pharmacy receipts perhaps, or neighbors complaining about used condoms on their lawns?) that he took precautions of his own, he should be stuck paying for his pleasure. After all, the lady has a child to raise, which hopefully will seriously interfere with her ability to have fun for about fifteen years.
Posted by trailing wife 2006-03-09 16:16||   2006-03-09 16:16|| Front Page Top

#9 Great answer, tw.

Some of you guys sound like idiot, misogenist Moslems. Really.

"Very stupid on his part, given how many girls historically have deliberately attempted to trap men into marriage this way." My point, as well, CrazyFool. BTW, which method of abortion do you support? Can you describe it for us?

Look, he took his chances and got burned. But he didn't have to. It's spelled C-O-N-D-O-M or A-B-S-T-A-I-N. It was his choice.

Men have been wanting to blame women for the consequences of their sexual decisions for centuries. It's too bad what happened to him, but maybe now he should step up and be a man about it.

It's not the baby's fault, right? Both PARENTS have responsibility here, not just one. Generally, responsibility is a good thing. Guess they're gonna have to grow up now, right along with junior.
Posted by ex-lib 2006-03-09 16:39||   2006-03-09 16:39|| Front Page Top

#10 Sigh. Too bad the old days when her daddy and brothers would shoot him in the leg and take escort him to the altar are over. Dubay (I won't call him Mr.) thinks $500 a month unfair to help raise a daughter he made. Yet he does nothing to take custody of his daughter and get his ex-F-buddy to pay that amount. Take half his paycheck and place it the daughters welfare and education account. Same for the mother. If either makes another baby, take the other half.

Is there any way citizens can force both of them to get their tubes tied until they grow up?
Posted by ed 2006-03-09 16:55||   2006-03-09 16:55|| Front Page Top

#11 Made a deposit at the bank? Don't be surprised that your balance has changed.

Birth control is EVERY person's responsibility, man AND woman. And a condom alone ain't gonna quite cut it-better add spermicide to make extra sure, if you don't want an abortion to happen or an obligation to pay child support for little kidlets. That kinda puts the damper on things, doesn't it.

If he was lied to, that is wrong. I do feel for men who don't want to raise children and did everything forseeable to avoid impregnating their sex partner, or men who have been manipulated. But no birth control is 100% safe and this isn't the first time a partner might have lied to get laid.

It is a hardship to owe child support for 18 years; it is more of a hardship to put your body through pregnancy and labor and struggle raising a child without a father to help. Maybe raising this issue is a good thing. Everyone needs to understand that unwanted pregnancies are not an "inconvenience", as the buzz has it lately-they are life changing events.
Posted by Jules 2006-03-09 16:58||   2006-03-09 16:58|| Front Page Top

#12 I do think its unfair that the woman has the decision to keep the child and the father has little say but to pay up and support the child. Still nobody said life was fair and you can't change the rules after the fact.
Posted by rjschwarz">rjschwarz  2006-03-09 17:07||   2006-03-09 17:07|| Front Page Top

#13 My rough paraphrase won't do the subject justice, but I'll always remember what Rush Limbaugh had to say on this subject more than a decade ago. Try as we might to *pretend* that men and women are "equal" in regard to the outcome of a pregnancy, the simple truth of the matter is that WOMEN will be disproportionately burdened with a child--both in the 9 months that it takes to bring them into the world and in regard to the toll it will take to raise them.

As a result, Rush believed that any effort to artificially "even-out" the "costs" involved actually served as a DISINCENTIVE for women to behave responsibly and limit their sexual partnering to only those with whom they wished to have children. He further pointed out that we could pass all of the "support" laws we wished, but there would always be men who simply picked up and left or beat the system by hiding their income.

The short summary was that women have 100 percent control over their bodies already--if they are not absolutely certain that they are ready for a child and not 100 percent certain that the man they are coupling with is a good and decent person that will support her and her child, they should decline sexual activity that might produce a pregnancy.

(The current system provides almost an incentive for the unwed to have kids--the government rushes in with a check to make a crappy moral decision bearable.)
Posted by Crusader 2006-03-09 17:37||   2006-03-09 17:37|| Front Page Top

#14 Don't want to be a Daddy? Put a condom on it. Every time. Or don't do screw. Simple choice - big responsibility.

Can't be bothered? Your choice and your responsibility equally. It's your tool. Use it wisely.

No sperm. No baby.
Posted by Hupomoger Clans9827 2006-03-09 17:58||   2006-03-09 17:58|| Front Page Top

#15 Crusader-That philosophy provides men with the "incentive" to "behave" irresponsibly-there would be no downside. It would follow that men would get sex less-women would have to live by your "behaving responsibly" dictate. Unless, of course, those men didn't limit themselves to having sex with WOMEN...

If that logical consequence is contained within your argument-that men will have to put up with having sex MUCH MUCH less often-then at least your position is consistent. If not, then your position is primarily about double standards.
Posted by Jules 2006-03-09 18:08||   2006-03-09 18:08|| Front Page Top

#16 I rent.
Posted by .com 2006-03-09 18:28||   2006-03-09 18:28|| Front Page Top

#17 Jules:

I assure you that I had already thought the "less sex" angle through and believe that such a scenario is a win/win one. Moral behavior is moral behavior--if women were adament about making correct choices (and knew that the incorrect choice might lead to economic hardship if a pregnancy developed), men would have no "high ground" from which to complain.
Posted by Crusader 2006-03-09 18:39||   2006-03-09 18:39|| Front Page Top

#18 Actually I don't support any sort of 'abortion' myself (except perhaps in case if rape or incest) but I think that choice is between a person and his/her God(s) / conscious / whatever...

I do, however think the responsiblity goes both ways. Its called C-O-N-D-O-M or P-I-L-L or I-U-D or A-B-S-T-A-I-N. If you choose not to take precautions you also accept the responsibilty for that choice regardless of your gender. Of course it's not the guys who have suffer the pregnacy and they can try to 'leave' (which is irresponsible!) - so I kind of see your point. But it seems that only woman have a 'legal' way to escape their choice.

Of course, like they say, life isn't fair - never has been and never will be.
Posted by CrazyFool 2006-03-09 18:42||   2006-03-09 18:42|| Front Page Top

#19 Not to beat a dead horse, but IUD's cause perforation of the uterus and instantaneous abortion, and scarring which prevents wanted pregnancies in the future, and the pill has so many adverse side effects hormonally, cancer link, etc.

So no easy answers. But "honey, I promise you won't get me pregnant" in a non-committed relationship gets the stupid award in my book. The guy should've known better. And maybe the girl was trying to trick him, or maybe she thought she couldn't get pregnant. Who knows. But what we DO know is he took his chances, and in his mind, lost.

Oh well.
Posted by ex-lib 2006-03-09 18:49||   2006-03-09 18:49|| Front Page Top

#20 "...if women were adamant about making correct choices... men would have no "high ground" from which to complain."

Crusader-Who was it who said "Where men are weak, there women fall?"

You want women to be stronger, to choose for men. Fair enough.

At least your acknowledgement about the logical reduction in sex matches your position on moral behavior.
Posted by Jules 2006-03-09 19:04||   2006-03-09 19:04|| Front Page Top

#21 Jules:

Another way of rephrasing Rush's argument is in terms of what would we tell our daughters? Would we say "If you're not careful and a baby results from your dalliances, you AND YOUR DATE are responsible"? Or are we much more likely to point out all of the negative ways in which HER life will be impacted, irrespective of the male's part? In that regard, the promise of a government check and/or a child-support check undermines the message we tell our daughters: that women and women-alone are responsible for their bodies. We're in effect providing a safety-net for a tight-rope act that should be saved for committed and mature adults.
Posted by Crusader 2006-03-09 19:49||   2006-03-09 19:49|| Front Page Top

#22 Crusader-I understood your paraphrasing of Rush's position on this issue in your first post-no clarification is needed. I simply don't share his views or yours. I don't have two different views of sexuality-one for men that excuses them of all and one for women which blames them for all. We'll just have to disagree on this issue.
Posted by Jules 2006-03-09 20:14||   2006-03-09 20:14|| Front Page Top

#23 "Mama told me not to come ...

He did and he is now a daddy.
Posted by anon 2006-03-09 20:26||   2006-03-09 20:26|| Front Page Top

#24 Ex-lib, the rub is when you find out via DNA that the child you were paying support for - is someone else's - yet the state says you have to continue. The wife/woman was a whore, and if you can't get that she f*&ked his lfe up via the courts and support, then I'd like to meet you personally too to tell you what I really think. I have a friend who's still paying for someone else's f*&k 15 yrs later, so if you think I'm misogynist, I just picture you
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2006-03-09 21:22||   2006-03-09 21:22|| Front Page Top

#25 Interesting comments. Good point about the IUD.

Q) So what do they call people who practice the 'Rhythm method' of bith control? (i.e. following a schedule)

A) Parents!
Posted by CrazyFool 2006-03-09 21:46||   2006-03-09 21:46|| Front Page Top

#26 Frank G, of course you are right, in the case of a cuckoo's egg. I read somewhere that as many as 1/4 to 1/3 of all children aren't the natural offspring of Mommy's husband -- although I have no idea whether or not that's actually a true fact. So the gentleman in this particular case, and probably in all cases of unedesired offspring, should have a DNA test done before discussing child support.

Nontheless, for all of you waxing moral in this thread, remember that you are also saddling women who didn't have the opportunity to say "No" with the results -- the victims of rape and incest, f'r instance. Women have historically borne the burden, while men have historically walked away scot free... and there were lots of bastard kids, lots of throwaway kids, and lots of back alley abortions. The behaviour isn't going to change until the men know that each time they unzip it could cost them, a lot and for a long time.

I feel for Frank G's friend, whose honour was taken advantage of. But not for the man who is indignant that what he thought was free turns out to have a cost.
Posted by trailing wife 2006-03-09 22:56||   2006-03-09 22:56|| Front Page Top

#27 fair enuf - although we're talking MUCH different circumstances. I've taught my boys - don't believe she's got protection - do it yourself.
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2006-03-09 23:11||   2006-03-09 23:11|| Front Page Top

#28 I'm so confused.


Posted by .com 2006-03-09 23:27||   2006-03-09 23:27|| Front Page Top

#29 Al Bundy:

And as we all know, affection is just a hammerlock away from sex...

Posted by badanov 2006-03-09 23:28|| http://www.freefirezone.org/cgi-bin/index.pl]">[http://www.freefirezone.org/cgi-bin/index.pl]  2006-03-09 23:28|| Front Page Top

00:04 .com
00:00 Nana
23:53 .com
23:52 Alaska Paul in Hooper Bay, AK
23:50 Nana
23:47 Nana
23:47 Alaska Paul in Hooper Bay, AK
23:44 Nana
23:42 Frank G
23:40 Frank G
23:40 Nana
23:40 Al Gore
23:38 Frank G
23:37 twobyfour
23:36 Frank G
23:30 Alaska Paul in Hooper Bay, AK
23:29 Rafael
23:28 badanov
23:27 .com
23:25 Ulaigum Ebbereck6419
23:20 Pappy
23:18 .com
23:17 .com
23:11 Frank G

Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
3.81.29.226

Merry-Go-Blog










Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com