Abortion, Choice, Responsibility

Renegade · March 16, 2006

Drea,

By your own account you only pursued the father for child support when the welfare authorities forced you to do so. In addition, you only pursued for the minimium amount. You did however, apply for welfare as a low income single mother.

Why is it you felt that it was fair that the taxpayer should be forced to pay the financial obligation of a supporting a child, when that obligation (at least partly) belonged with the biological father?

Perhaps if the father was forced to contribute according to his responsibilites, he would be less prone to knock-up future girlfriends.

Black Dog · March 16, 2006

That's one anectdote. I know a very good friend of mine who pays $2000/month in child support (two kids) to an ex wife who drives a mercedes (remarried). No lie.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

Perhaps I should tweak my position: why should me have ANY obligation for a child they didn't want or never see.

"Me"? Freudian slip, perhaps?

Because they are responsible for the child's existence.

Renegade · March 16, 2006

That's one anectdote. I know a very good friend of mine who pays $2000/month in child support (two kids) to an ex wife who drives a mercedes (remarried). No lie.

If you want to get an idea of how much the child support the non-custodial spouse pays (assuming a sole-custody situation) see here: The Survey of Child Support Awards See Figures 10 - Figures 13.

Of course it varies by income, but the median monthly payment ranges from a low of $118 for one child, to a high of $3444 for 3 children.

JerrySeinfeld · March 16, 2006

Because they are responsible for the child's existence.

no-as long as choice remains entirely the woman's decision she should be responsible.

btw I'm a single bachelor no kids dude. only path to happiness

Black Dog · March 16, 2006

no-as long as choice remains entirely the woman's decision she should be responsible.

Well I disagree, for reasons already stated:

No one should be forced to bear any undue burden as a result of choices someone else made. However, that also applies to the child, who is the innocent party in all this. The primary justification of child support is that it is in the best interests of the child and society as a whole to keep children out of destitution when possible, and child support payments are a reasonable way to do this.

Riverwind · March 16, 2006

The primary justification of child support is that it is in the best interests of the child and society as a whole to keep children out of destitution when possible, and child support payments are a reasonable way to do this.

There is another option for new borns: adoption. There are two choices that the mother makes: 1) to have the child 2) to raise the child herself. If the mother choses to have the child against the wishes of the father and _not_ give it up for adoption then the father should have no obligation to the child.

geoffrey · March 17, 2006

Way to miss th epoint, which is, it's interesting that the only time we want to make people pay for their choices is when it comes to unwanted pregnancy.

"We" being who?

I had a buddy that got a $5,000 rescue bill for getting pulled of a mountain, which I admit was a 'irresponsible choice' in a 'high risk' situation. Which is kind of like having unprotected sex with an uncommitted partner just for the thrill of it??

Smokers should be last on the list for transplants in my opinion, and I'd even consider having them pay their own way in treatment, same with alcoholics and drug addicts.

No need for you or I to pay for someone else's stupidity.

tapanga12 · March 17, 2006

Because they are responsible for the child's existence.

no-as long as choice remains entirely the woman's decision she should be responsible.

btw I'm a single bachelor no kids dude. only path to happiness

it takes 2peole to make a baby so it should take 2parents to raise or abortion the baby

Renegade · March 17, 2006

No need for you or I to pay for someone else's stupidity.

The irony geoffrey is that we ("we" being the taxpayer) are going to pay much much more for a birth than an abortion. Even the medical cost of an abortion are far less than childbirth, leaving aside the other social costs such as welfare, education, childcare etc which the taxpayer will subsidize or pay for.

Renegade · March 17, 2006

it takes 2peole to make a baby so it should take 2parents to raise or abortion the baby

So you're ok to "abortion the baby" if it's a decision made by "2parents"?

Drea · March 17, 2006

Way to miss th epoint, which is, it's interesting that the only time we want to make people pay for their choices is when it comes to unwanted pregnancy.

"We" being who?

I had a buddy that got a $5,000 rescue bill for getting pulled of a mountain, which I admit was a 'irresponsible choice' in a 'high risk' situation. Which is kind of like having unprotected sex with an uncommitted partner just for the thrill of it??

Smokers should be last on the list for transplants in my opinion, and I'd even consider having them pay their own way in treatment, same with alcoholics and drug addicts.

No need for you or I to pay for someone else's stupidity.

What about overweight people? They are high risk to the medical establishment.

Not all unplanned pregnancies are a result of unprotected sex. No contraceptive is 100% effective.

My tenant that got pregnant the second time -- she was on the birth control patch.

My brother was dating this woman... she got pregnant and now he pays her $500 a month for his daughter whom he NEVER sees! That BITCH!

He didn't even know she was pregnant until she showed up with a one year old! They only dated for a very short time.

The one good thing is she lets my father (the little girl's granddad) visit.

She is cute as a button (she's 5) and we all would love to get to know her better.

My bro is getting married this summer (to an awesome woman) and they are going to fight for custody.

In June I take my son to see his biological father. We try to get up north to see him at least once a year. I firmly believe that removing the father from the child's life is always detrimental, unless the father is a drug addict or abusive.

geoffrey · March 17, 2006

What about overweight people? They are high risk to the medical establishment.

Absolutely. They should all be forced into activity programs and have their food rationed. Unless of course they have a medical condition. But all those 50% of kids that are just fat and lazy, no sympathy. They should pay their own way, or have their parents pay for their complete failure to take away the video games for a few hours in the afternoon.

I have no sympathy for fat people, its an easily preventable situation with a little effort (unless of course there is a genetic medical condition, in which case, I do feel sorry for them and we should cover the costs).

Not all unplanned pregnancies are a result of unprotected sex. No contraceptive is 100% effective.
My tenant that got pregnant the second time -- she was on the birth control patch.

My brother was dating this woman... she got pregnant and now he pays her $500 a month for his daughter whom he NEVER sees! That BITCH!

He didn't even know she was pregnant until she showed up with a one year old! They only dated for a very short time.

The one good thing is she lets my father (the little girl's granddad) visit.

She is cute as a button (she's 5) and we all would love to get to know her better.

My bro is getting married this summer (to an awesome woman) and they are going to fight for custody.

In June I take my son to see his biological father. We try to get up north to see him at least once a year. I firmly believe that removing the father from the child's life is always detrimental, unless the father is a drug addict or abusive.

Well its good that you think that way about dads, way to go.

How reliable is the pill? Your right, no method is 100% effective, so if your having casual sex with some random, you should probably use two methods. Another example of how the pill/patch has created so much convience that its destroyed lives. Imagine all those that thought it protects from STDs when they use it by itself with randoms... I feel like I'm Sunday Night Sue now...

Black Dog · March 17, 2006

"We" being who?
I had a buddy that got a $5,000 rescue bill for getting pulled of a mountain, which I admit was a 'irresponsible choice' in a 'high risk' situation. Which is kind of like having unprotected sex with an uncommitted partner just for the thrill of it??

Smokers should be last on the list for transplants in my opinion, and I'd even consider having them pay their own way in treatment, same with alcoholics and drug addicts.

No need for you or I to pay for someone else's stupidity.

We being society. And the simple fact is we wouldn't get very far as a society if we simply let everyone hang. That's certainly not the kind of society I'd like to live in, that's for sure. Perhaps you're infallible, geoffery, but not every one is able to go through life mistake free.

geoffrey · March 17, 2006

"We" being who?
I had a buddy that got a $5,000 rescue bill for getting pulled of a mountain, which I admit was a 'irresponsible choice' in a 'high risk' situation. Which is kind of like having unprotected sex with an uncommitted partner just for the thrill of it??

Smokers should be last on the list for transplants in my opinion, and I'd even consider having them pay their own way in treatment, same with alcoholics and drug addicts.

No need for you or I to pay for someone else's stupidity.

We being society. And the simple fact is we wouldn't get very far as a society if we simply let everyone hang. That's certainly not the kind of society I'd like to live in, that's for sure. Perhaps you're infallible, geoffery, but not every one is able to go through life mistake free.

I'm far from infallible, but when I screw up, I get myself out of the mess. There are obvious things that people can prevent, like smoking, and being overweight (most of the time). These aren't things that I think society should be on the hook for, or if we pay for it, at least punish the people that are bringing the rest of society down. We can't let people just die. There is moral issues with that. But we can hold them responsible for their current state of affairs.

Black Dog · March 17, 2006

I'm far from infallible, but when I screw up, I get myself out of the mess. There are obvious things that people can prevent, like smoking, and being overweight (most of the time). These aren't things that I think society should be on the hook for, or if we pay for it, at least punish the people that are bringing the rest of society down. We can't let people just die. There is moral issues with that. But we can hold them responsible for their current state of affairs.

It's the assumption that people don't pay now that gets under my skin. It's not like many harmful behaviours are self-rewarding. For example, if someone smokes and develops health problems as a result, why add insult to injury? What about compassion? What about humanity? Now, if you're talking about deterrence, people know that some behaviours will have negative consequenses, that doesn't seem to stop them. I doubt further punitive measures would prevent such behaviours.

August1991 · March 18, 2006

Smokers should be last on the list for transplants in my opinion, and I'd even consider having them pay their own way in treatment, same with alcoholics and drug addicts.

The last time I checked data (from Ontario), taxes on cigarettes covered all the public medical costs related to smoking. So, smokers pay their way.

As to children, it seems to me that we should create the correct incentive for both parents. In the past, when the father could avoid financial responsibility, the incentive was incorrect.

Incidentally, since we are talking about consensual sex (meaning both parties presumably agree to have unprotected sex and both take the risk of conception), then the cost could fall on either one or they could share it.

Riverwind · March 18, 2006

Incidentally, since we are talking about consensual sex (meaning both parties presumably agree to have unprotected sex and both take the risk of conception), then the cost could fall on either one or they could share it.

There is a case in the US where a woman kept a man's sperm after oral sex and later impregnated herself with it. The man was forced to pay child support by the courts. In that case the man never consented to any activity which carried a risk of pregnancy yet he was forced to pay anyways. This case illustrates the absurdity of the law as it stands today.

Drea · March 18, 2006

Incidentally, since we are talking about consensual sex (meaning both parties presumably agree to have unprotected sex and both take the risk of conception), then the cost could fall on either one or they could share it.
There is a case in the US where a woman kept a man's sperm after oral sex and later impregnated herself with it. The man was forced to pay child support by the courts. In that case the man never consented to any activity which carried a risk of pregnancy yet he was forced to pay anyways. This case illustrates the absurdity of the law as it stands today.

That really made me laugh!

Poor s.o.b. -- guess yah gotta be careful where yah deposit yer sperm. :lol:

"Hey bitch, you were supposed to swallow!" :lol:

sorry, it's not funny but I can't help it.

It's only recently that fathers have had to pay any support at all. There are going to be a few that "fall through the cracks" so-to-speak, but for the most part child support is fair to both parties. Of course we are going to hear horror stories of men paying exhorbitant amounts, and women who never recieve a cent. Most fathers are glad to pay support for their children as long as it's fair.

I used to not believe in alimony, but lately I've changed that thinking. If a woman sacrifices her career to have children (stays home) and then the couple split later, he should have to pay because she does not have the earning capacity to maintain a household. (This is another good reason to keep your careers ladies).

Renegade · March 18, 2006

Most fathers are glad to pay support for their children as long as it's fair.

and, they have reasonable custody and access arrangements.

I used to not believe in alimony, but lately I've changed that thinking. If a woman sacrifices her career to have children (stays home) and then the couple split later, he should have to pay because she does not have the earning capacity to maintain a household. (This is another good reason to keep your careers ladies).

Alimony should only be relevant to the extent the woman has made a career sacrifice. If she had no skills or career prior, there was no sacrifice and hence no alimony should be payable.

What do you think if she "invested" in him. eg, she helped put him through medical school. Let's assume no children for the moment. Should she be entitled to a share of his earnings post split?

Riverwind · March 18, 2006

Most fathers are glad to pay support for their children as long as it's fair.
and, they have reasonable custody and access arrangements.

You touched on the key issue here. Too many woman are allowed to deny father's access to their children without any repercussions because the courts do not take the issue seriously. Child support is a two way contract if the woman fails to live up to her side of the agreement the father should not be forced to live up to his. For every 'deadbeat' dad that does not pay child support there is a 'deadbeat' mom who actively prevents a father from being involved with his children.

Drea · March 18, 2006

Most fathers are glad to pay support for their children as long as it's fair.

and, they have reasonable custody and access arrangements.

Yes, and that too.

Alimony should only be relevant to the extent the woman has made a career sacrifice. If she had no skills or career prior, there was no sacrifice and hence no alimony should be payable.

If all a woman ever wanted to do is be a mom and wife (and she meets a man who agrees with this decision) then she puts her entire life in the hands of her husband. She is completely dependent and so yes, in this case, she should recieve the maximum allowable alimony. After all by agreeing to her being a mom and wife he is saying he will support her for life.

For the woman who is in the middle of a career then decides to stay home, the onus is on her to resume her career.

What do you think if she "invested" in him. eg, she helped put him through medical school. Let's assume no children for the moment. Should she be entitled to a share of his earnings post split?

Depends on if she is like the woman in the example above and has no plans of a career of her own, or if she plans on a career. If she needs to go to school to get her career and she has waited while he went, but doesn't get to go because he leaves... then yes, he should be responsible for paying at least a portion of her training costs.

Renegade · March 18, 2006

If all a woman ever wanted to do is be a mom and wife (and she meets a man who agrees with this decision) then she puts her entire life in the hands of her husband. She is completely dependent and so yes, in this case, she should recieve the maximum allowable alimony. After all by agreeing to her being a mom and wife he is saying he will support her for life.

I don't think most man perceive that when they get married to a "stay-at-home" wife what they are agreeing to is to support her for life, regardless of the state of the marriage. I believe that they are committing to support her for the term of the marriage. How is it his commitment should outlive the marriage and her's shouldn't (I assume at least part of her commitment is to look after his household). Nothing like a prenup to clear up this kind of ambiguity, eh?

For the woman who is in the middle of a career then decides to stay home, the onus is on her to resume her career.

Even if she is mid-career, her career may be detrimentally impacted by the joint decision to have kids. I think this is a case-by-case issue. Some careers are impacted, others aren't. I can see that a woman who has had a career impact would have a legitimate claim on alimony.

Riverwind · March 18, 2006

If all a woman ever wanted to do is be a mom and wife (and she meets a man who agrees with this decision) then she puts her entire life in the hands of her husband. She is completely dependent and so yes, in this case, she should receive the maximum allowable alimony.

What happens if the woman refuses to try and find a paying career even after the kids are old enough? I know people in this situation - the woman loves the lifestyle of a stay at home mom and does not want the hassle of a 9-5 job. The husband wants her to go back to work but she just comes up with a million excuses why she can't do any of the jobs available or go back to school.

Drea · March 18, 2006

What happens if the woman refuses to try and find a paying career even after the kids are old enough? I know people in this situation - the woman loves the lifestyle of a stay at home mom and does not want the hassle of a 9-5 job. The husband wants her to go back to work but she just comes up with a million excuses why she can't do any of the jobs available or go back to school.

Had the couple had agreed in the beginning that she would stay home and her "career" would entail being a wife and mother?

Why does he all of a sudden need her to get a job? Did his career take a downturn? Is he earning less than before? If all was okay when the kids were little, why is it necessary for her to take a job now?

So many questions LOL.

JerrySeinfeld · March 18, 2006

If all a woman ever wanted to do is be a mom and wife (and she meets a man who agrees with this decision) then she puts her entire life in the hands of her husband. She is completely dependent and so yes, in this case, she should recieve the maximum allowable alimony. After all by agreeing to her being a mom and wife he is saying he will support her for life.

I don't think most man perceive that when they get married to a "stay-at-home" wife what they are agreeing to is to support her for life, regardless of the state of the marriage. I believe that they are committing to support her for the term of the marriage. How is it his commitment should outlive the marriage and her's shouldn't (I assume at least part of her commitment is to look after his household). Nothing like a prenup to clear up this kind of ambiguity, eh?

For the woman who is in the middle of a career then decides to stay home, the onus is on her to resume her career.

Even if she is mid-career, her career may be detrimentally impacted by the joint decision to have kids. I think this is a case-by-case issue. Some careers are impacted, others aren't. I can see that a woman who has had a career impact would have a legitimate claim on alimony.

Women are both blessed and cursed with their ability to give birth. I suppose we should cut them some slack and throw a few bucks their way when they have a baby.