The Case for Allowing Fathers to Opt Out of Paying Child Support

My mom and I never got a penny from my biological father...he signed away his parental rights as fast as he could.

I agree with Grooglesrux that the peen should be lopped off, but you can't make a man be a father if he reaaaally doesn't want to.

 

How about we tie the woman's tubes?

I agree its offensive to compare murder to declining parental responsibility. I'm very pro-life, but I think if the woman deserves a choice, so does the father.

Or how about we don't allow abortions and make both parties be adults and take care of what they created?

 

Great, and this is substantiated by what exactly? Nice that whoever this author is has feelings, but this is just some random guy. As has been pointed out already, it doesn't seem an extremely logical position.

A man is otherwise good and moral, but wants a bigger say in his reproductive choices, and because he doesn't get it, when he does father a child feels no responsibility towards that child and thus doesn't or doesn't want to pay child support?

Of course problems ensue. The issue at hand is how to best deal with those problems. And any argument that says the best way to deal with those problems is to allow the father to freely "take a hike" doesn't seem right. In some cases, this may actually be the best method. But on the whole, I have to imagine forced child support payments are a better cure to some of the problems that arise.

With regard to the mother hypothetical, if the mother is being a bad mother, she should be coerced to be a better mother, if possible, and lose her rights as a mother otherwise.

already discussed. Man has a right to choose when he becomes a father, 99%+ of the time.

Yes, and the woman bears a bigger burden, in the pregnancy and afterwards. The issue is child support. If a man, as discussed and as the author concedes, has every bit of the ability to prevent childbirth as he so desires, than his decision not take preventative action resulting in him ONLY having to pay child support seems like a slap on the wrist... to me. No one is forcing him to carry the child to term or actually BE a father.

Substantiated?? Again, seems like some twisted logic. Father's are abandoning their children because they don't have a bigger say in their reproductive rights?? C'mon... it's not a rights issue. It's the father not actually wanting to be a dad. If it's a rights issue, the father should be still there as a father, and voluntarily supporting the child financially to the best of his ability, while simultaneously arguing for increased rights, not abandoning the child and arguing for increased rights. It's a correlation, not a causation. The cause of the abandonment is the dad not actually wanting to be a dad.

discussed repeatedly and conceded by the author to be not true. men have the ability to control whether they reproduce. in various ways.

AGAIN, I don't understand this logic? Giving men the option of not only not being around but not being financially liable is likely to make them be around and act like a dad???

Maybe, in select cases. But on the whole, that doesn't make sense. Men being less concerned about impregnating girls, and even if concerned but it happens being less responsible for what happens thereafter, would logically on its face result in more fathers choosing to not be financially responsible for their child.

 

The best pro-choice argument I can think of is that men have "abortions" every day: just move outta town, work very little and only pay or get paid in cash.

 

The article in the OP is completely r****ded.

 

Men SHOULD pay SOMETHING.

But the reproductive playing field is NOT level with the birth control.

My "dance floor" analogy may be a bad one, I see it as...

Woman allows access to her "dance floor".
Man sees dance floor open, he dances.
Woman doesn't keep dance floor intact. She allows cracks and wet floors.
Man SLIPS from that ... (conception. if you're not following the analogy)

Woman wants MAN to take ALL the accountability and the BRUNT of the cost, even when she herself did NOT take the precautionary measures to keep the dance floor safe. Even if there's a waiver at the entry that dancer knows the risks involved, the woman still didnt do her part.

Even more is that women LIKE the "bad boys". Women court in the DANGER element. Then want to shake the finger at the bad boy they willingly were enamoured by.

The CHILD needs BOTH parents regardless. Which is why the man should pay SOMETHING if he's not going to be a father. But to put it ALL on the man as being "deadbeat in advance" is too simplistic and absolving women some of their part in it.

 

I like how people are saying the father has a choice by just not having sex.

So did the woman. Why does she get the choice afterwards?

 

No, they merely suffer.

 

The main issue here is that the article is looking at "fairness" and a "level playing field" between the mother and the father, while, once a child is born, it's not about that anymore, but about what is best for the child - and the writer completely fails to look at it that way. Whatever unfair thing or mistake the mother or father might have made, it's not the child's fault, and all that matters then is that whoever fathered the child is responsible for fulfilling his duties to the child. Simple as that.

 

Well said, Jackie! -

 

For real. Repped.

 

Another one of the great cnservative canards is that we can take care of children in this country by requring minimum wage dads to pay child support.

It appeals I guess to some sort of simplistic notion of individual repsonsibility when it takes a village to raise kids, it is deeply irresponsble from a societal point of view and except for the private prison industry no one benefits.

 

Let's Require Birth Control Shots for All School Age Kids?

I consider myself pretty liberal and into civil rights I have been a member of the ACLU off and on and did an internship there in law school. However, I have to wonder what would be the problem in requiring kids to prove they had their birth control shot prior to registering for school, just like the other vaccinations.
What right is it of kids to have kids? It creates a mess when they do. They are many rights that adults have that we deny to children.

As Bristal Palin, bless the Palin's hearts, shows, the rightist approach is ineffective and stupid, though I would urge kids to not have sex till say 18.

In fairness, I understand that boys should have the shot, too. though I don't know if it is available.

For argument's sake, let's assume that the shot is free of health side effects, though pregnancy has health risks, too.

 

That's an argument that can be made, but it can't be used to relieve the father from his duty to pay for the child later. Again, the child cannot be punished for something the mother did...and the mother should not be allowed to waive her child's right to child support from the father.

 

I agree the child is all that matters, but the mother should be looked at as possibly unstable if she tried to trap someone, right?

Maybe a court appointed financial advisor to control the money..
DD

 

Maybe, some. My dad was a deadbeat dad. My family just got along without him. Sure it would have been better and easier for my mom if she had more help from him. Instead he didn't show up one weekend to pick up his kids for visitation and a bit later checks stopped coming. Eventually in court my mom got them to garnish his wages, but he got the support reduced. I am doing fine though. I am not suffering. We would have made things work even without the money we ended up getting ($150/month). The same could not be said had I been aborted. That is why it is offensive to compare the two. It is the difference between a mother's budget being a couple hundred dollars tighter each month and a child being murdered. Neither is good, but one is SO much worse than the other.

 

Two different topics all together. Comparing them is stupid. Its your child, its your responsibility unless you AND the mother decide that you can give up all your rights.. Period, end of story. Nothing to talk about.

 

Repped and repeated for truth.

 

The article mentioned:

Its LESS about if a father should be obligated, of course he should. Its about the LEVEL of enforcement and how MUCH your balls need to be put in her purse.

Can it be TOO draconian and TOO SLANDEROUS to men's image casting the "deadbeat" label on them? A label assigned by women ARBITRARILY, depending on HER value system and HER demands? Can it be DEMORALIZING to man's motivation in and of itself?

While those women intentionally WANT the system to work as a Monthly Visitation Fee for the man to do.

It goes as:
- No pay, no see child.
- Even if you WANT to be in his life, must keep away and use child as leverage.
- I need to save face and maintain MY MOTHERLY image. Who CARES how much society carves YOU up.
- I'm going husband hunting now, please stay away so you don't ruin MY LOOK and my chances. After I get mine, MAYBE you'll get more generosity.

Its creating better atmosphere for the kids. But creating some Momzillas with it.

 

Reported