End Mandatory Child Support

Published on February 9, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Current Events

One of the endless stream of contradictions streaming from the left is the concept of mandatory child support. It's enforced, and usually the money is directly debited from the nuncustodial father's paycheck. This leads, in effect, to many fathers taking under the table work or skipping between jobs before a court order can be obtained to garnish their current wages.

But most importantly, when it is taken against the will of the noncustodial father, it represents a glaring contradiction. Because court rulings have consistently ruled that a fetus is a part of the mother's body, and represents a "choice", the mother's "choice" should come with willingness to absorb the entire cost of raising the child to adulthood. The mandatory child support laws give her a gun to hold to her ex husband or boyfriend's head for the next 18 or so years.

It would be entirely different if the father had a say in whether or not the mother was to have an abortion. Then HE should foot the bill if he chose to keep the baby. But because the choice to keep or abort belongs entirely to the mother, so do the consequences of her decision.

Comments (Page 1)

ParaTed2k

on Feb 09, 2005

I am all for mandatory child support. That being said, I agree with your point here. If it is a woman's "right to choose" whether she's willing to take on the responsibilities of parenthood, then it should be the father's "right to choose" also.

It exposes the term "Pro Choice" for what it really is. A meaningless buzzword that can't live up to its own rhetoric. I laugh in the face of anyone who claims to be "pro choice", but then supports laws against "choice" for the father.

kingbee

on Feb 09, 2005

so you'd suggest a father (who may or may not have used any form of birth control believing its the woman's responsibility...or worse, convinced the woman he was incapable of getting her pregnant) should be able to force a woman who is opposed to abortion to terminate a pregnancy?

it would make a much more fair solution as long as custody was assigned objectively--say by flipping a coin (with the new mother being credited for the nine months of gestation, of course)--with neither parent permitted to dump the kid on parents, relatives, friends, etc. more than 10 hours per week.

what's the basis for your obvious concern about women taking advantage of men by conceiving? (this is the 2nd blog in which you've expressed it). carrying, delivering and raising a child seems like a lotta work just to earn about 4800 a year.

Gideon MacLeish

on Feb 09, 2005

kingbee,

My problem is in several areas. First of all, the $48k figure a year is not a set amount. Child support is set based on a father's ability to pay; in one high profile case (Barry Bonds), it was $20,000 a month.

Second, the issue is, we are repeatedly told by the prochoice lobby that we, as men, do NOT have the right to have a say regarding abortion. Either the child is our offspring or it is not. If it is, we most definitely DO have a say; if it is not, we should have no obligation. Even if the mother chooses to keep the child, she should be willing to support the child.

As to the basis to my concern, it is with the double standards set forth by the abortion movement. That you, and other pro abortion liberals fail to see the double standard is yet another reason why you are increasingly marginalized and pushed aside. And doesn't the concept of indentured servanthood, allegedly outlawed in the United States, come into play?

In short, king, my concern is based solely on the concern that we return to the concept of "blind justice" and that we begin to set right the numerous wrongs we have begun over the years. While you may be hoping to extract a skeleton from my closet in an illegitimate child or somesuch, king, you've failed in that endeavor. With over 600 blogs, I have covered a wide variety of topics, and this topic appearing in TWO articles puts it as common to .33% of my total articles (less, actually, but you get the point). That hardly amounts to a consistent soapbox.

Dr Guy

on Feb 09, 2005

what's the basis for your obvious concern about women taking advantage of men by conceiving? (this is the 2nd blog in which you've expressed it). carrying, delivering and raising a child seems like a lotta work just to earn about 4800 a year.

You must live in a dream world. Mine was $1400/month! Another guy I know had it for $1000/month, and he was only making $32k per year.

shadesofgrey

on Feb 09, 2005

I suppose that I would agree with you if the father had a signed affadavit from the first five months of the pregnancy saying that he requested the woman abort the fetus--if not, he's S.O.L and needs to pay.

I have a funny feeling the entire conversation would be different if men could have babies!

messybuu

on Feb 09, 2005

What's funny is that women really have no reason to have a child, since abortion is still legal, so by having a child, they are consciously choosing to have one. If the father isn't married to the mother, then I don't see how he comes into play (except for the sperm, which still doesn't change the fact that the child is her property and her choice).
However, if a woman has a child when she's married to the father, and after the child is born (or after the time for a legal abortion), then the father should be forced to pay child support, since she had the child because the father was there.

Texas Wahine

on Feb 09, 2005

Men

ParaTed2k

on Feb 09, 2005

Men

Now that was a female Chauvanist pig reply!! ;~D

shadesofgrey

on Feb 09, 2005

So what you are saying is that the female is totally responsible when premarital sex results in conception--she either has to foot the bill and the emotional turmoil of an abortion or else foot the entire bill of raising a child?

Last time I checked--it takes two to tango, therefore they should split the accountability and responsibility. If he wasn't interested in the consequences he should have kept his pants zipped.

messybuu

on Feb 09, 2005

So what you are saying is that the female is totally responsible when premarital sex results in conception--she either has to foot the bill and the emotional turmoil of an abortion or else foot the entire bill of raising a child?

Considering that it's her choice, and considering that she the choice not to have the child (thanks to birth control and abortion), I don't see how she could have that child against her will.
It'd be just like if a man offered a woman a dog, and she had the choice to decline it or keep it, and she decided to keep it. The dog would then be her responsibility.

Last time I checked--it takes two to tango, therefore they should split the accountability and responsibility. If he wasn't interested in the consequences he should have kept his pants zipped.

It does take two to tango, but remember. It's her body and her choice. Now, if you're saying that the embryo is also partly his responsibility (and therefore partly his property), then perhaps it isn't just the woman's choice.

ParaTed2k

on Feb 09, 2005

Last time I checked--it takes two to tango, therefore they should split the accountability and responsibility.

Yes, it does take two to tango, but in terms of the law, apparently "choice" only works one way. She has choices, but if her choice is to have the baby, he is given no choices at all.

If he wasn't interested in the consequences he should have kept his pants zipped.

That works both ways also. If SHE isn't interested in the consequences, SHE should also keep HER pants zipped. ;~D

"Pro choice" is either about "choice" or it's just another meaningless rhetorical buzzword. (much like "Pro-Life")

Angloesque

on Feb 09, 2005

I agree with your premise, Gideon--the idea that a woman has the right to choose an abortion and the man has no say--is wrong. Funny thing, though--I've never heard of a case where a man contested an abortion a woman had. I'm sure they're out there, but in order to rectify this, they have to be brought to light and the discrepancies shown.

I tend to disagree, however, that a man shouldn't be forced to pay child support. If a man asks a woman to have an abortion and she declines, or if a woman asks to have an abortion and the man objects, then I think both sides need to remain responsible. (It would be interesting to see if a man could file a petition within, say, five weeks of being told that he's going to be a father, saying he wants nothing to do with it, and he won't be held liable (as it were). OTOH, though, it seems like more "morally upstanding"--or whatever the hell you want to call them--guys would be taken advantage of because they'd feel obligated to pony up, whereas jackasses would sign and forget.)

Of course, I think all parties should keep their pants zipped until they're at a point where they can deal with an accident if it comes along. Marriage seems like a good line to me, but hey, America's not gonna agree with me on that one.

-A.

P.S. Good accidents happen, too--I'm one.

kingbee

on Feb 09, 2005

While you may be hoping to extract a skeleton from my closet in an illegitimate child or somesuch, king, you've failed in that endeavor

nope...i got no interest in closet skeletons altho rereading the question i posed, i can see where you could have reasonably arrived at the conclusion. i was just a bit puzzled because in the earlier blog, you alluded to the possibility of a woman discovering she was pregnant and then filing a rape charge. in the thread for that same blog, you mentioned women who seem to aggresively leap on any erect penis available in hopes of knocking themselves up(i dont recall the exact wording unfortunately).

perhaps im fooling myself and i have, in fact, led a much more sheltered life then i thought. while im not saying either is outside the realm of reasonable possibility, i've no personal knowledge nor do i recall even vague rumors even about my friends' friends' casual acquaintaces.

nor have i known any women who decided to keep an unwanted or unexpected child in order to benefit from child support payments.

Either the child is our offspring or it is not. If it is, we most definitely DO have a say; if it is not, we should have no obligation

you may disagree with me (in fact, im sure you will) but in my experience, men who insist a woman to whom they arent married give birth to a child the two of them werent actively trying to conceive are most likely motivated by a determination to dominate her in one way or another rather than out of any sense of fatherly obligation to provide the child a wonderful life.

kingbee

on Feb 09, 2005

"Pro choice" is either about "choice" or it's just another meaningless rhetorical buzzword. (much like "Pro-Life")

"much like 'pro-life' is hardly an accurate characterization. those who are opposed to abortion are not that respectful or concerned for the sanctity of post-partum life. if they were, they wouldnt be the ones standing in the way of providing desperately poor women third world countries with a sterile cloth on which to give birth so as to minimize the chances of them contracting deadly infections.

messybuu

on Feb 10, 2005

Even if they were, so what? Don't they have a say in who is also their child when it comes to money?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!