03-09-2006, 05:33 PM
I step out for a few days and this place gets all reproductive. Sheesh. I have 2 points that would have made better sense had I made them earlier, but here goes anyway:
Just something interesting that came to mind. Seems like a very awkward process, but something that might evolve.
Second,
To sum up: Buttercup 'is marry Humperdink in little less 'an half an 'our.
Seriously though, there are multiple levels of responsibility when it comes to reproduction. In some cases, where one party or the other wishes to abdicate their emotional, role-model, education, guidance et al. responsibilities, authorities seek to enforce a monetary responsibility to better society (in a "No child left behind" kind of way, and I intend the meaning of the phrase, not the educational objectives which are another topic for another time) by attempting to prevent poor and hungry children. Yes, criticism is deserved by a system that applies differing levels of enforcement for different parents who do not meet their imposed monetary responsibilities (under-zealous pursuit of "deadbeat" mothers in some cases). Yes, criticism is deserved by those who use the imposed monetary responsibility as self-support rather than child-support. Yes, improvements can be made for those who seek to be compliant, but have unfair expectations of support (those who are ordered to pay more than they could be expected to earn).
Throwing ethics out of this discussion is not possible. Child-support laws seek to legislate that those who want to walk away live up to their ethical responsibility to the child. I'm not generally in favor of legislating morality (or mortality for that matter) but in some cases it is the right way to go. Letting a man (or a woman) out of all responsibility for their progeny seems like a recipe for unhappy children (like those of parents who "stay together for the children" and would rather subject their kids to a warped template of adult relationships). Generally, it seems to me that unhappy children have a high likelihood to grow into unhappy adolescents, and soon after, unhappy adults. Yes, protections should be in place for situations of unwitting entrapment: fraud is fraud, be it financial or fertility. But personally, I would place a high burden of proof on the claiming party in such a case (personal responsibility is also something that we need get no further from).
Bottom line: keep child support: save the humans.
Occhidiangela,Mar 9 2006, 10:28 AM Wrote:-- snip --In the context of Doc's original post (abdication of male parental fiscal responsibility on the basis of choice, argued under equal protection clause) and combining with Occhi's comment on adoption, would a change in the system similar to what the lawsuit seeks allow for an "adoption of child support," e.g., kindly older couple with not to many years left, no kids of their own don't want to adopt, but want to help those who need it paired with young mother whose baby's-daddy decided to split (analogue to open adoption through private "broker").
FWIW, I think improving our formal adoption processes, so more options are open to those in dire financial straits, would lessen the down stream problem of deadbeat dads.
Occhi
[right][snapback]104029[/snapback][/right]
Just something interesting that came to mind. Seems like a very awkward process, but something that might evolve.
Second,
ShadowHM,Mar 9 2006, 08:14 AM Wrote:-- snip --I'll give you the unilateral nature of physical consequences ShadowHM, but I'd like to meet half-way on the emotional. Clearly the physical risks/experiences of pregnancy are vastly different for men and women, and though I have no idea how it feels to be pregnant, but I do have some concept of how my wife feels while she's (8 months) pregnant. (I just typed out a laundry list of the feelings that she and I have shared and discussed over the past months, but I realized that what they are is not important to my point, so I deleted it.) Suffice to say that no, I haven't felt the child move inside me, but I have seen it, and felt it move inside her. I've been kicked in the head while listening for his heart beat. There most certainly are some emotional consequences for an involved father.
Women carry (pun intended) the burden of child-bearing responsibility. There are health consequences to all aspects of that responsibility. Abortion, pregnancy and child-birth all can have serious health consequences to the woman, both physical and emotional. There are no such consquences for a man.
We are not equal in this matter.
[right][snapback]104011[/snapback][/right]
To sum up: Buttercup 'is marry Humperdink in little less 'an half an 'our.
Seriously though, there are multiple levels of responsibility when it comes to reproduction. In some cases, where one party or the other wishes to abdicate their emotional, role-model, education, guidance et al. responsibilities, authorities seek to enforce a monetary responsibility to better society (in a "No child left behind" kind of way, and I intend the meaning of the phrase, not the educational objectives which are another topic for another time) by attempting to prevent poor and hungry children. Yes, criticism is deserved by a system that applies differing levels of enforcement for different parents who do not meet their imposed monetary responsibilities (under-zealous pursuit of "deadbeat" mothers in some cases). Yes, criticism is deserved by those who use the imposed monetary responsibility as self-support rather than child-support. Yes, improvements can be made for those who seek to be compliant, but have unfair expectations of support (those who are ordered to pay more than they could be expected to earn).
Throwing ethics out of this discussion is not possible. Child-support laws seek to legislate that those who want to walk away live up to their ethical responsibility to the child. I'm not generally in favor of legislating morality (or mortality for that matter) but in some cases it is the right way to go. Letting a man (or a woman) out of all responsibility for their progeny seems like a recipe for unhappy children (like those of parents who "stay together for the children" and would rather subject their kids to a warped template of adult relationships). Generally, it seems to me that unhappy children have a high likelihood to grow into unhappy adolescents, and soon after, unhappy adults. Yes, protections should be in place for situations of unwitting entrapment: fraud is fraud, be it financial or fertility. But personally, I would place a high burden of proof on the claiming party in such a case (personal responsibility is also something that we need get no further from).
Bottom line: keep child support: save the humans.
but often it happens you know / that the things you don't trust are the ones you need most....
Opening lines of "Psalm" by Hey Rosetta!
Opening lines of "Psalm" by Hey Rosetta!