Parental Rights, Child Rights and Reproductive Rights

[Cain]

ETA: I don't know what's going on in Japan. However, I do know that some male clients of mine had wildly unrealistic ideas about child custody. I had one client who just demanded that he get custody of the two young children. I asked him how many hours a week he works.

- 60.

What does his wife do?

- Nothing. She dropped out of school to support him while he went through med school.

So, when your wife is sitting alone in her apartment and you're at work for two hours before and six hours after school, who will be watching the kids?

- My mom.

How does this make sense?

Why do you hate men?

 

[3point14]

Not sure why any of this his/her rights etc. comes into it once a child is born, the child is the one with the rights, not the mother, not the father, start from that premise and the "problems" disappear.

The mother can have the child adopted. Give it up completely.

The guy is going to be on the hook for child support and deservedly so, because once the kid is born, it's not about the parents anymore, it's about what's best for the kid, and what's best for the kid is that fathers take financial responsibility for the kids they help create. It can be as unfair as ****, but it doesn't matter because the alternative (letting fathers off the hook with their responsibilities) would be state-sanctioned child neglect.

What if the father has no money? Seriously, the demand seems to be that the pregnant lady can make all the decisions regarding the child regardless of the couple's combined ability to afford the child.


A child is a massive financial burden. In all other cases - buying a house, buying a car, starting a business, going on holiday - anything where two people combine their finances to be able to afford an expensive thing, both have to agree to the expensive thing. Except for children, there it seems to be a unilateral decision made for the couple on the part of the lady.

 

[Darat]

That's my whole point. The whole "you had sex, now be responsible" presumes a world where conception is the moment of no return. Abortion has really changed that. A woman is no longer a slave to her biology.

That's certainly not my argument. My argument is that the "parental rights" side of this discussion should be recast as what we should be discussing once there is a child is the child's rights.

 

[Darat]

Please elaborate, because I don't see how this could possibly be accurate.

As an example an ECHR perspective the child has a right to a family life so the state has an obligation to the child to ensure it has access to its family. So it does not become a matter a which parent has a right to custody - as neither of them do but that the child has a right to access to both its parents.

I think this is a dodge. You are omitting the social and legal aspects, which is what people are discussing here. These exact same arguments are made by anti-abortion advocates to justify abortion bans. The consequences being debated are those imposed by the State and society, which, as evidenced by the wide variety of ways that societies have dealt with these issues, are not universal or based on self-evident "natural law".

You've lost me, what am I meant to be dodging? What happens before a child exists has no bearing on the rights of a child. Once a child exists then we set its rights (as it is a human being) into motion. No matter how the child was conceived, no matter the relationship between its DNA donors has any bearing on the rights of the child to a family life, to education, to food, shelter and so on.

 

[Darat]

The mother can have the child adopted. Give it up completely.

Giving a child up for adoption as far as I am aware requires the consent of both parents - if both are known.

...snip...


A child is a massive financial burden. In all other cases - buying a house, buying a car, starting a business, going on holiday - anything where two people combine their finances to be able to afford an expensive thing, both have to agree to the expensive thing. Except for children, there it seems to be a unilateral decision made for the couple on the part of the lady.

Sometimes things are just different.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Giving a child up for adoption as far as I am aware requires the consent of both parents - if both are known.

Yes, the father has parental rights as well, even if he doesn't have physical custody at the time.

Some states even have putative father's registries, where fathers can enroll to inform the state that they wish to assert their parental rights in cases of estrangement from the birth mother. This prevents the mother from unilaterally putting the child up for adoption or otherwise terminating the father's parental rights.

Sometimes things are just different.

I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be the way it is now or has been in the past. Nor do I see it being reasonable to change in the foreseeable future. I'm just curious if at any point, the choice to not have an abortion may become the overriding moment of decision making.

We already have a carve-out for sperm donors. Even if the mother goes on state aid, assuming the proper channels are followed for the donation, the bio-dad is not culpable. We have accepted that in that particular scenario, the mother was the only one making any kind of decision that can be held responsible. The well-being of the child be damned, the dad is not responsible.

 

[3point14]

Giving a child up for adoption as far as I am aware requires the consent of both parents - if both are known.




Sometimes things are just different.

You and I are talking about different things. I believe we need to have the conversation about who has responsibility for the child starting at when the pregnancy is known.



However, in light of that:


I'm not really worried about 'different' or 'fair', I'm worried about outcomes.


Fathers forced to financially support and/or care for their children regardless of their desire or financial ability are not going to be very good fathers, they're really not.

I think that the fewer children that are born to parents who are incapable, financially, of supporting them, the better off the future is.

I believe that fewer women would have children that they are ill able to afford if they were less confident that they could force the father into being a father when the male parent clearly doesn't want to be one.


In short, I believe that a prospective father, whose partner is gravid but is still within the term during which termination is an option, should be able to obviate their rights and responsibilities to that child.

Forcing the burden of parenthood on men, many of whom are little more than children themselves, has a lousy outcome for society.


It's a little related to the Freakonomicsd assertion that legal abortion affects the crime rate.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

You and I are talking about different things. I believe we need to have the conversation about who has responsibility for the child starting at when the pregnancy is known.



However, in light of that:


I'm not really worried about 'different' or 'fair', I'm worried about outcomes.


Fathers forced to financially support and/or care for their children regardless of their desire or financial ability are not going to be very good fathers, they're really not.

I think that the fewer children that are born to parents who are incapable, financially, of supporting them, the better off the future is.

I believe that fewer women would have children that they are ill able to afford if they were less confident that they could force the father into being a father when the male parent clearly doesn't want to be one.


In short, I believe that a prospective father, whose partner is gravid but is still within the term during which termination is an option, should be able to obviate their rights and responsibilities to that child.

Forcing the burden of parenthood on men, many of whom are little more than children themselves, has a lousy outcome for society.


It's a little related to the Freakonomicsd assertion that legal abortion affects the crime rate.

I also think there's a weird bit of cultural irrationality around abortion decisions.

If a young woman were to say "I'm going to get pregnant with some guy I just started dating. We have no money to support this child, but we're going to do it anyway", most people would conclude that the woman was being very foolish.

But if the very same woman were to say "I accidentally became pregnant with a partner I have no deep relationship with. Despite having no desire to have a child prior to this accident, I am not going to take the relatively easy steps to terminate this unplanned pregnancy and instead will just let the chips fall where they may" somehow, that decision is immune from criticism. People may judge them for being careless, but the actual decision to not abort is considered off the table for judgement.

I think that's just the residual shame and stigma surrounding abortion. If we lived in a less shame-filled and socially conservative world, I suspect people may view this decision much differently.

 

[Loss Leader]

Why do you hate men?

They have dingleberries. Isn't that enough?

What if the father has no money? Seriously, the demand seems to be that the pregnant lady can make all the decisions regarding the child regardless of the couple's combined ability to afford the child.

If the father has no money and no ability to make money, then his child support obligation will be very low - as little as $25.00 a month in New York. His visitation privileges would be the same. They don't depend on money. The two are completely separate concepts.

However, the non-custodial parent (and even the custodial one) may be forced by the court to find a job - even if it's wearing a paper hat and serving burgers. The child has a right to be supported by two parents. It's the child's rights which come first.

 

[Giordano]

The mother can have the child adopted. Give it up completely.






What if the father has no money? Seriously, the demand seems to be that the pregnant lady can make all the decisions regarding the child regardless of the couple's combined ability to afford the child.


A child is a massive financial burden. In all other cases - buying a house, buying a car, starting a business, going on holiday - anything where two people combine their finances to be able to afford an expensive thing, both have to agree to the expensive thing. Except for children, there it seems to be a unilateral decision made for the couple on the part of the lady.

1. To reiterate Loss Leader: courts decide how much child support is mandated based on how much money the father has available. A father with little money and little prospect of obtaining it owes proportionally little child support. The pregnant lady must make her financial decisions with the constraints of the awarded child support plus her own financial resources.

2. You seriously undercut your argument by comparing a child to a car. Further, having sex is not a unilateral decision. And the guy presumably understands that one of the possible outcomes of heterosexual coitus is a child.

But to continue with your analogy, flawed or not, once two people sign a contract to buy a car, or a house, or start a business, they have made an irreversible financial commitment despite the risks involved. The guy can't just say: "Well, this didn't turn out the way I had planned. The car crashed, the house flooded, and the business tanked. I'm walking and the debts are all her problem." Why should it be different for agreeing to have coitus given one well-known, although unexpected and unwanted outcome can be a child?

I realize that some have argued in this thread that it is only a child "once born" and that in a perfect world there should be no societal shame about abortion. So insist the mother abort: no child, no problem. I strongly agree embryos are not children (I assume we are defining the embryo to child transition around the time of independent viability) and I am fully pro-choice. But having no societal shame about abortion does not mean that in a perfect society the individual woman has no right to her own moral judgement about her own body, her embryo, and her abortion. I am pro-choice, but this means the pregnant lady has the right to make her own decision as to the humanity of the embryo and whether to bring it to term or not based on her own moral judgements. Her choice. Personally although I do not see an embryo as human, I don't see it as a nothing either and I can repect a wide range of legitimate views as to the morality of aborting one, with the views of the person carrying the embryo being the important ones in this regard. As I stated up thread, the idea that the father, to save money, can mandate (under huge financial threat) the woman have an abortion based on his own moral views (or lack there of) is as abhorrent to me as having a priest insist she carry it to term.

 

[3point14]

1. To reiterate Loss Leader: courts decide how much child support is mandated based on how much money the father has available. A father with little money and little prospect of obtaining it owes proportionally little child support. The pregnant lady must make her financial decisions with the constraints of the awarded child support plus her own financial resources.

I accept that. The man's life is still irrevocably changed at that point.

2. You seriously undercut your argument by comparing a child to a car.

Not at all. What we're talking about, certainly with absent fathers, is a significant financial commitment. Just like buying a house.

Further, having sex is not a unilateral decision. And the guy presumably understands that one of the possible outcomes of heterosexual coitus is a child.

An outcome that is both undesired and mitigated against sensibly. But still a possible outcome.

But to continue with your analogy, flawed or not, once two people sign a contract to buy a car, or a house, or start a business, they have made an irreversible financial commitment despite the risks involved.

I don't believe two people having casual sex while using contraception have made any commitment at all at that point.

The guy can't just say: "Well, this didn't turn out the way I had planned. The car crashed, the house flooded, and the business tanked. I'm walking and the debts are all her problem."

What you describe here is not an accurate parallel. You describe a financial commitment gone bad and one party withdrawing. I'm talking about a financial commitment being made. The two are poles apart. Walking away from a previously agreed commitment that's gone bad is not the same as not wanting to make the commitment in the first place.

Why should it be different for agreeing to have coitus given one well-known, although unexpected and unwanted outcome can be a child?

Because it's an undesired outcome, specifically mitigated against.

I realize that some have argued in this thread that it is only a child "once born" and that in a perfect world there should be no societal shame about abortion. So insist the mother abort: no child, no problem.

Or, because the expectant mother is, rightly, not compelled to do anything with her body that she doesn't want to do, allow the young man, who doesn't want to be a father, can't afford a child and has big plans that will be wrecked by this situation, to advise the mother that he does not want to be a father and allow him to give up both all rights and all responsibilities towards the child. This decision, of course, must be made before termination ceases to be an option.

I strongly agree embryos are not children (I assume we are defining the embryo to child transition around the time of independent viability) and I am fully pro-choice. But having no societal shame about abortion does not mean that in a perfect society the individual woman has no right to her own moral judgement about her own body, her embryo, and her abortion.

She has every right. I just don't believe that she should have the right to compel a man who does not want to be a father - which should be the single biggest commitment a man makes in his entire life, made with forethought and wisdom and knowledge - to be a father.

I am pro-choice, but this means the pregnant lady has the right to make her own decision as to the humanity of the embryo and whether to bring it to term or not based on her own moral judgements. Her choice. Personally although I do not see an embryo as human, I don't see it as a nothing either and I can repect a wide range of legitimate views as to the morality of aborting one, with the views of the person carrying the embryo being the important ones in this regard. As I stated up thread, the idea that the father, to save money, can mandate (under huge financial threat) the woman have an abortion based on his own moral views (or lack there of) is as abhorrent to me as having a priest insist she carry it to term.

I agree. Terminations should not be forced upon women who do not want them.

Similarly, fatherhood, with all that entails, should not be forced upon young men. (or any men)

 

[Loss Leader]

1. To reiterate Loss Leader: courts decide how much child support is mandated based on how much money the father has available. A father with little money and little prospect of obtaining it owes proportionally little child support. The pregnant lady must make her financial decisions with the constraints of the awarded child support plus her own financial resources.

Almost. In calculating child support the resources of both parents are considered and then each parent is obliged to pay his/her percentage up to a cap (with some room for judicial discretion).

A custodial parent who makes $40,000 and a non-custodial parent with an income of $60,000 have a combined income of $100,000.00. For two children, the child support required would be $25,000.00 per year. (I'm rounding out some exceptions for FICA and such).

The non-custodial parent's proportionate obligation is 60% ($60,0000/$100,000). 60% of $25,000.00 is $15,000 or $1,250.00 per month. Beyond that, the non-custodial parent will likely be required to pay 60% of educational expenses, extracurriculars, health expenses not covered by insurance and other things.

Great weight is placed on the couple's plans for the child pre-divorce. A $100,000 family is probably not planning to send the child to a $40,000/year private boarding school in Connecticut. So, if the custodial parent comes to the non-custodial one with such a bill, that will probably be rejected.

Parties are free to waive child support, so long as it doesn't harm the child. If Anna Kendrick and I have a child together and then we split up (which would NEVER happen, Anna and I would be soulmates forever), the chance is pretty great that the court isn't going to force me to pay any support at all from my social security check to our son Connor Joseph.

On the other hand, if I get custody of little CJ, the court would probably order Anna to pay far more than the usual child support percentage up to the $143,000.00 cap. Assuming she still has some of that sweet "Up In The Air" money, she's going to pay me way more than 17% of $143,000.00.

[Probably, she and I would agree to create specific trusts for the child, 529's, etc. so as to make sure CJ Leader is well taken care-of for his entire life.]

ETA: This is all totally hypothetical. Anna and I are just friends.

 

[Giordano]

I accept that. The man's life is still irrevocably changed at that point.




Not at all. What we're talking about, certainly with absent fathers, is a significant financial commitment. Just like buying a house.




An outcome that is both undesired and mitigated against sensibly. But still a possible outcome.



I don't believe two people having casual sex while using contraception have made any commitment at all at that point.



What you describe here is not an accurate parallel. You describe a financial commitment gone bad and one party withdrawing. I'm talking about a financial commitment being made. The two are poles apart. Walking away from a previously agreed commitment that's gone bad is not the same as not wanting to make the commitment in the first place.




Because it's an undesired outcome, specifically mitigated against.



Or, because the expectant mother is, rightly, not compelled to do anything with her body that she doesn't want to do, allow the young man, who doesn't want to be a father, can't afford a child and has big plans that will be wrecked by this situation, to advise the mother that he does not want to be a father and allow him to give up both all rights and all responsibilities towards the child. This decision, of course, must be made before termination ceases to be an option.




She has every right. I just don't believe that she should have the right to compel a man who does not want to be a father - which should be the single biggest commitment a man makes in his entire life, made with forethought and wisdom and knowledge - to be a father.




I agree. Terminations should not be forced upon women who do not want them.

Similarly, fatherhood, with all that entails, should not be forced upon young men. (or any men)

I can be brief: Your response clearly illustrates the ways in which we differ in our views. I am surprised (and sorry to be frank, somewhat dismayed) by how you see these issues, which is so very different from how I see them. But I guess there is not much else I can put forward to convince you otherwise.

 

[qayak]

I accept that. The man's life is still irrevocably changed at that point.

Well, yeah but his life is irrevocably changed often throughout its span. He started walking, he learned to ride a bike, he accidentally shot hos brother, he graduated school, he got his driver's licence, he got addicted to drugs, etc., etc. Irrevocable change is not something people can, or even should, be saved from.

I don't believe two people having casual sex while using contraception have made any commitment at all at that point.

Two people casually driving down the road have no commitment either. Unless something unfortunate happens, like one crosses the centre line and causes a head-on collision. At that point there are commitments and responsibilities. No one intended for the accident to happen, they all took precautions but . . .

Walking away from a previously agreed commitment that's gone bad is not the same as not wanting to make the commitment in the first place.

That's where you, the courts, and I disagree. If he didn't want to make the commitment he shouldn't have had sex.

Because it's an undesired outcome, specifically mitigated against.

No one said being an adult was going to be easy. We mitigate against a lot of bad outcomes in life, ie.- the car accident I mentioned earlier, and yet we are still held responsible when undesired outcomes happen.

Or, because the expectant mother is, rightly, not compelled to do anything with her body that she doesn't want to do, allow the young man, who doesn't want to be a father, can't afford a child and has big plans that will be wrecked by this situation, to advise the mother that he does not want to be a father and allow him to give up both all rights and all responsibilities towards the child. This decision, of course, must be made before termination ceases to be an option.

All you are doing is putting the full burden on women. It is just another way of forcing women to make choices you want. Meanwhile, the boys, I wouldn't call these immature asshats men, get to have their cake and eat it too. Right now the burden is shared as it should be.

She has every right. I just don't believe that she should have the right to compel a man who does not want to be a father - which should be the single biggest commitment a man makes in his entire life, made with forethought and wisdom and knowledge - to be a father.

If it is the biggest commitment a man can make you would think he would put a little more thought into the actions that can **** it up, wouldn't you?

No kid was ever the reason a man didn't reach his full potential. More likely he didn't reach his full potential because he was an immature asshat who thought the world should bend over to make life easy for him.

I agree. Terminations should not be forced upon women who do not want them.

Terminations shouldn't be forced on any women . . . PERIOD. And yet you are suggesting a system that in fact forces women to terminate.

Similarly, fatherhood, with all that entails, should not be forced upon young men. (or any men)

It wasn't forced on him. He volunteered for it when he decided to have sex. Life is just full of risks. Sometimes you get a safe landing and sometimes the parachute doesn't open.

 

[Giordano]

Well, yeah but his life is irrevocably changed often throughout its span. He started walking, he learned to ride a bike, he accidentally shot hos brother, he graduated school, he got his driver's licence, he got addicted to drugs, etc., etc. Irrevocable change is not something people can, or even should, be saved from.



Two people casually driving down the road have no commitment either. Unless something unfortunate happens, like one crosses the centre line and causes a head-on collision. At that point there are commitments and responsibilities. No one intended for the accident to happen, they all took precautions but . . .



That's where you, the courts, and I disagree. If he didn't want to make the commitment he shouldn't have had sex.



No one said being an adult was going to be easy. We mitigate against a lot of bad outcomes in life, ie.- the car accident I mentioned earlier, and yet we are still held responsible when undesired outcomes happen.



All you are doing is putting the full burden on women. It is just another way of forcing women to make choices you want. Meanwhile, the boys, I wouldn't call these immature asshats men, get to have their cake and eat it too. Right now the burden is shared as it should be.



If it is the biggest commitment a man can make you would think he would put a little more thought into the actions that can **** it up, wouldn't you?

No kid was ever the reason a man didn't reach his full potential. More likely he didn't reach his full potential because he was an immature asshat who thought the world should bend over to make life easy for him.



Terminations shouldn't be forced on any women . . . PERIOD. And yet you are suggesting a system that in fact forces women to terminate.



It wasn't forced on him. He volunteered for it when he decided to have sex. Life is just full of risks. Sometimes you get a safe landing and sometimes the parachute doesn't open.

^ Exactly!

 

[Lambchops]

You play, you pay. It really is as simple as that.

You don't want to get stuck with a kid you don't want? Then just don't shoot your load in a womans vagina. Contraception or not.

All the "real men" I know take responsibility for their actions. Are you a "real man" or a whiny little MRA? You decide.

"Bohoo, feeemales are eeevil..."

Man the **** up.

 

[cullennz]

You play, you pay. It really is as simple as that.

You don't want to get stuck with a kid you don't want? Then just don't shoot your load in a womans vagina. Contraception or not.

All the "real men" I know take responsibility for their actions. Are you a "real man" or a whiny little MRA? You decide.

"Bohoo, feeemales are eeevil..."

Man the **** up.

Unless your the woman

You play and insist on having a child as a result, he pays

 

[Loss Leader]

Unless your the woman

You play and insist on having a child as a result, he pays

It is always - always - more expensive for the custodial parent than the non-custodian.

Money, time, energy, worry - you name a measure and the custodial parent has it worse.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

You play, you pay. It really is as simple as that.

You don't want to get stuck with a kid you don't want? Then just don't shoot your load in a womans vagina. Contraception or not.

All the "real men" I know take responsibility for their actions. Are you a "real man" or a whiny little MRA? You decide.

"Bohoo, feeemales are eeevil..."

Man the **** up.

What a strange attitude. Smacks of the religious right's "sex must have grave consequences" moralizing.

Does your "man up" attitude also apply to women who decide to abort an unplanned pregnancy? Seems like they are ducking their responsibility. Plenty of anti-choice people think women shouldn't have the option to avoid their "responsibility". It's their punishment for being immoral.

Conception is no longer the point of no return for pregnancy. Abortion is a perfectly moral, safer alternative to giving birth that completely mitigates the massive detriments of an unplanned pregnancy. Why is it "whiny" for a man to strongly prefer that option and make it known?

 

[Darat]

....snip....


Not at all. What we're talking about, certainly with absent fathers, is a significant financial commitment. Just like buying a house.




An outcome that is both undesired and mitigated against sensibly. But still a possible outcome.



I don't believe two people having casual sex while using contraception have made any commitment at all at that point.
...snip...

I think this is where your analogy breaks down. The decision to have "causal sex" is the point where both accept the possibility of committing to supporting a child if a child is the result of the casual sex. Neither party may want a child, both may be taking all reasonable steps to ensure a child doesn't result from the casual sex but the chance still remains that a child could be the outcome of the casual sex.

If you don't want to have to face (however small it may be) the chance of having a child and being liable for supporting that child until it is an adult don't have sex that could result in a child. That applies to both people who decide to have sex with one another.