YMC
January 27th, 2008, 12:36 am
I created this thread out of another topic (here (http://lincolnparkforums.com/showthread.php?p=178860#post178860)) regarding the issue of Pro Choice and Pro Life. In the interest of not taking that topic too far off base, I moved some of my comments to this thread. That being said, let's try to keep this discussion off the subject of Pro Life and Pro Choice, but more on the matter of *Parental Rights & Responsibilities*.
In a nutshell, my contention is that men get the short end of the stick. It's bad enough we are virtually accused of being deadbeats any time we get a woman pregnant...but we have absolutely NO voice in what happens after our sperm fertilize an egg. The woman can abort it or put it up for adoption. We can't make a legal stance on whether we want her to have it or not. If she decides to abort it, then we don't get to raise what we helped create. If she decides to have it against our wishes, then we are stuck paying for it for 18 years. For a man, the choice is not as simple as a woman's. In fact, as a man, we have no choice. (Note, I am speaking in generalities when I say "we"...I am not referring to myself or any man in particular, but rather men in general).
ResidentJeff's comments on the matter spawned my opinion-tirade. Bear in mind, I understand there are exceptions to every rule and that no solution will make everyone happy...but consider my opinion to be the most fair solution I have been able to come up with after years of kicking around the inequality of it all.
Jokingly, I often say that men need to march on Washington to obtain rights equal to women. But sadly, it's not far from the truth. So without further adieu, I give you:
*Veritas Scriptor's Death Wish from Single Mothers
*(Working Title)
---Quote (Originally by ResidentJeff)---
I still wonder if the potential father has any rights at all here. I can't imagine him having sole say on any of it, but there should be, except in the cases of rape or incest obviously, some point at which he is at least made aware of what is happening. Why should he escape the emotional termoil he helped create.
I agree that most of us would ideally perfer that fewer abortions occured and I think both sides can work together to find a way to reduce the number.
ResidentJeff
---End Quote---
I once thought long and hard for a solution to this dilemma. I agree 100% that the father should be allowed a voice in the future of the baby he helped create. In contemplating answers, this is what I came up with:
1. Mother and father both decide to have the baby: No problems here. But if the mother or father decides to walk away after they have made their decision, they should be bound by child support.
2. Mother decides she wants the baby, but father doesn't: Once the father decides he does not want the child, he should not be obligated to pay child support...but then he should also lose all of his parental rights to the child forever (or until he agrees to pay child support).
3. Mother doesn't want the child, but the father does: Once the decisions are made, the mother should be obligated to have the child and the father should incur the medical expenses of the mother carrying the child through to birth. Once the child is born, the father would take sole custody of the child and the mother would not be responsible for child support. She would also lose all of her parental rights forever, unless she decided to pay child support later.
4. Neither father nor mother want the child: Abort it with a shared expense between the two.
The decision process would have to be something formal. If both parties agree, then perhaps something as simple as a notarized document signed in the presence of a court or hospital. If both parties cannot agree, then there should be a SWIFT court hearing that would legally bind the parties to the courts decision.
Of course, the easier answer is to just disallow abortion altogether. If you think about it, it's really the only FAIR option to BOTH parties. The bottom line is that if you play, you pay. There is no shirking of responsibilities for ANYONE.
The more this topic is discussed, the further it sickens me. Women fought long and hard for equal treatment. But when faced with bringing a new life into the world, they want preferential treatment.
In court, a father is sewn to the wall when he donates sperm that creates a child, then tries to walk away from it. And yet, a mother is free to walk away from her child at any time from conception right up until 48 hours AFTER birth. The father is not allowed this luxury.
If a father were to tell a court "Your honor, I am pro choice and I choose not to have this baby", he would be laughed out of court...right after he was ordered to fork over a ridiculous sum of money every month to the mother. There are many fathers who rent apartments and barely make ends meet because they are paying mothers child support. Many of these same mothers have since married or remarried and are living in nice homes, driving nice vehicles, and living good lives...while the father struggles to put food on his table.
Pro Choice? A joke. Anyone who is REALLY pro choice would allow the man to have a voice as well. What's the first word that comes out of a woman's mouth when the father says "I don't want it?" It's usually something like "It takes two to tango". This is true...it does take two to tango. But apparently, it only takes one to make a life or death decision.
I'll be totally honest in the fact that I am up in the air about whether or not I am pro life or pro choice. But from a purely FAIR CHOICE standpoint between man and woman, I am inclined to support pro life. It is the only real way to ensure that both man and woman are treated equally.
(This is where this post ends, and a new one begins)
More comments about the child support problems:
Why is that a man earning $30,000 a year must pay child support to the mother of his child who earns $60,000 a year? Think about that...after his child support payments are made, he is on the verge of poverty...while the mother is earning in excess of nearly DOUBLE the national income even BEFORE she receivers her child support payments! How much financial support does she really need?
And what about the mothers who live off child support? The term CHILD SUPPORT insinuates that the payments are meant to support the CHILD...not the mother. So why do some mothers get away with being unemployed, going to school full time, or living beyond their means...all the while using the mans CHILD support payments to finance these things? You may as well call it "Booty Tax"...the woman being a recipient of a prostitution fee amortized over 18 years.
And why does child SUPPORT always have to equate to money? Can't a father support his child morally? Can't he support him by virtue of just BEING A FATHER? There are married couples in this world where the wife is the breadwinner and the man stays home with the children. If this couple were to divorce, suddenly the man must begin paying the mother...even though for many years, the mother got by without any income from the man. Obviously, it IS possible for women to head a household...so why do we still throw the book at men financially?
What about a father who is unemployed? Why is he threatened with prison sentences, wage garnishments (when he does start working again) and tax liabilities if he simply CANNOT AFFORD to pay child support? What if he is legitimately a good father who is just down on his luck? Why is it so easy for the woman to say "To heck with you, pay me or go to jail."?
Why is it that the more money a man earns, the more he must pay in child support? There are mothers receiving $35,000 a MONTH in child support payments...all because they got lucky and got knocked up by a rich man. How much money does the Friend of the Court think a mother needs to raise a child?!
Child support laws need to be dramatically changed. If you're going to stick it to the man, even though he has no choice in whether or not the baby is born or aborted, then at least make the laws more fair. Establish parameters that the mother must follow in order to receive support. For instance:
* Just as the Federal Bankruptcy court does, establish IRS tables (based on State and County) for allowable living expenses. Pro-rate a portion of this expense to the support of the child. For instance, if the mothers county IRS tables establish $1,200 a month in housing (rent, mortgage, etc), $300 in food, $500 in transportation, and $100 in clothing...then pro-rate, say, 20% of these amount to the child. The father would be responsible for $420 in monthly expenses to support the child. This might raise, or lower, some mothers payments...but it's FAIR.
* Any expenses in excess of this amount that the mother wishes to claim should have to be PROVEN by requiring her to keep receipts of said expenses. When she does her taxes, these figures should be turned in with her returns and scrubbed through the IRS system (just like an ordinary deduction). Whatever the total comes out to be, hold the father accountable for 50% of the amount. So if little Johnny needs braces, and the out of pocket expense is $600...then the father should cough up $300 of that. Accidental expenses occurred while in the care, custody, and control of the mother should be handled EXCLUSIVELY by the mother. So if little Johnny falls off his skateboard and breaks his wrist...the mom should foot the bill. If he breaks his wrist while visiting his father, then the father foots the bill.
* Child support payments should be tax deductible to the one making the payments and taxable to the one receiving the payments. I don't know if they are or aren't already, but they should be.
* Child support payments should not be made directly to the mother. They should be made to the court (or the IRS directly and stored in a Child Support Fund) in the form of a tax. Call it a Child Support Tax, if you will. In turn, the governing entity would make the payments to the mother. This ensures timely payments and reduces the possibility of either party abusing the system (see next point, below).
* Back child support payments should be dischargable in bankruptcy...so long as fraud or willful neglect cannot be proven. Bankruptcy laws are being written in such a way that it only forgives CONSUMER debts...which is not the intent of bankruptcy. Bankruptcy should give the debtor a clean plate...not a half-eaten piece of chicken. This being said, a father should not be allowed to go more than, say, a few months without paying...unless he has a bona fide reason that he can prove in court. This way, fathers cannot refuse to pay child support for several years then suddenly wipe it all clean in bankruptcy. A Child Support Tax would serve as the watchdog to ensure he is not falling too far behind. Let's face it...the Friend of the Court is no friend to mothers seeking past due payments.
* If the father can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he cannot afford to pay child support, or can only afford a reduced amount, then let it go at that. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip...and throwing him in jail will not make the child's life any easier. In fact, it only gums up the legal system with more bullcrap. This being said, a very thorough audit of his personal finances should be made to determine how much he can afford to pay. Every discretionary expense should be cut out...from smoking to entertainment. If, after these things are cut out, he still cannot afford to pay...then cut him slack. If it's determined that he has the means to pay (or pay more than he says he can), then find him guilty of fraud and throw him in jail.
* If the mother earns substantially more income than the father, then don't hold his feet to the fire to pay...especially when he cannot afford it. In other words, if the man earns $30,000 a year and the mother earns $60,000 (or is married to a man earning $60,000), then reduce his child support factor from 20% to, say, 5%. Using the example above, instead of paying $420 a month, he would pay only $105. Let's face it...the mother doesn't need his money to support their child. It's just a stab in his ribs.
My two cents on the matter. Love it or hate it...but I think it's FAIR.
For the record, I don't have any children...nor do I pay child support. But working in personal finance, I see the effects it has on both parties. Women coming in wearing Prada and driving a BMW while receiving child support from a man driving a Datsun. I also see mothers who are barely getting by, while the man may be earning substantially more income. But I can also see where her money is going...and it's not always going to the benefit of the child. Lottery tickets, casinos, drugs and alcohol, low-paying jobs because she is complacent to use the mans support as supplemental income. I've even seen a situation in which a man had a child with an ex girlfriend and is ordered to pay $800 a month...even though he barely clears $40,000 a year. He has since remarried and has another child with his wife. But he cannot afford to buy a home for his wife and second child because he is paying so much to his ex girlfriend every month. His ex girlfriend lives in a house, alone with one child...and yet he is sharing a two bedroom apartment with his wife and second child. Is this fair? If so, how?
This is where I will cordially ask single mothers who don't think they get enough financial support to please be honest: How much money do you squander every month on unnecessary expenses? Why do you feel you deserve more money from a man who is barely getting by himself when you have not fully grasped the concept of managing the money you are already receiving? I'm seeking honest feedback here...not temper-tantrums.
There are exceptions to every rule, but the vast majority of cases I see are pretty much these mentioned. My little outline would not solve all the problems...no solution would. But at least it's more fair to everyone involved...especially the child for which the support is intended.
More... (http://lincolnparkforums.com/showthread.php?t=15272&goto=newpost)
In a nutshell, my contention is that men get the short end of the stick. It's bad enough we are virtually accused of being deadbeats any time we get a woman pregnant...but we have absolutely NO voice in what happens after our sperm fertilize an egg. The woman can abort it or put it up for adoption. We can't make a legal stance on whether we want her to have it or not. If she decides to abort it, then we don't get to raise what we helped create. If she decides to have it against our wishes, then we are stuck paying for it for 18 years. For a man, the choice is not as simple as a woman's. In fact, as a man, we have no choice. (Note, I am speaking in generalities when I say "we"...I am not referring to myself or any man in particular, but rather men in general).
ResidentJeff's comments on the matter spawned my opinion-tirade. Bear in mind, I understand there are exceptions to every rule and that no solution will make everyone happy...but consider my opinion to be the most fair solution I have been able to come up with after years of kicking around the inequality of it all.
Jokingly, I often say that men need to march on Washington to obtain rights equal to women. But sadly, it's not far from the truth. So without further adieu, I give you:
*Veritas Scriptor's Death Wish from Single Mothers
*(Working Title)
---Quote (Originally by ResidentJeff)---
I still wonder if the potential father has any rights at all here. I can't imagine him having sole say on any of it, but there should be, except in the cases of rape or incest obviously, some point at which he is at least made aware of what is happening. Why should he escape the emotional termoil he helped create.
I agree that most of us would ideally perfer that fewer abortions occured and I think both sides can work together to find a way to reduce the number.
ResidentJeff
---End Quote---
I once thought long and hard for a solution to this dilemma. I agree 100% that the father should be allowed a voice in the future of the baby he helped create. In contemplating answers, this is what I came up with:
1. Mother and father both decide to have the baby: No problems here. But if the mother or father decides to walk away after they have made their decision, they should be bound by child support.
2. Mother decides she wants the baby, but father doesn't: Once the father decides he does not want the child, he should not be obligated to pay child support...but then he should also lose all of his parental rights to the child forever (or until he agrees to pay child support).
3. Mother doesn't want the child, but the father does: Once the decisions are made, the mother should be obligated to have the child and the father should incur the medical expenses of the mother carrying the child through to birth. Once the child is born, the father would take sole custody of the child and the mother would not be responsible for child support. She would also lose all of her parental rights forever, unless she decided to pay child support later.
4. Neither father nor mother want the child: Abort it with a shared expense between the two.
The decision process would have to be something formal. If both parties agree, then perhaps something as simple as a notarized document signed in the presence of a court or hospital. If both parties cannot agree, then there should be a SWIFT court hearing that would legally bind the parties to the courts decision.
Of course, the easier answer is to just disallow abortion altogether. If you think about it, it's really the only FAIR option to BOTH parties. The bottom line is that if you play, you pay. There is no shirking of responsibilities for ANYONE.
The more this topic is discussed, the further it sickens me. Women fought long and hard for equal treatment. But when faced with bringing a new life into the world, they want preferential treatment.
In court, a father is sewn to the wall when he donates sperm that creates a child, then tries to walk away from it. And yet, a mother is free to walk away from her child at any time from conception right up until 48 hours AFTER birth. The father is not allowed this luxury.
If a father were to tell a court "Your honor, I am pro choice and I choose not to have this baby", he would be laughed out of court...right after he was ordered to fork over a ridiculous sum of money every month to the mother. There are many fathers who rent apartments and barely make ends meet because they are paying mothers child support. Many of these same mothers have since married or remarried and are living in nice homes, driving nice vehicles, and living good lives...while the father struggles to put food on his table.
Pro Choice? A joke. Anyone who is REALLY pro choice would allow the man to have a voice as well. What's the first word that comes out of a woman's mouth when the father says "I don't want it?" It's usually something like "It takes two to tango". This is true...it does take two to tango. But apparently, it only takes one to make a life or death decision.
I'll be totally honest in the fact that I am up in the air about whether or not I am pro life or pro choice. But from a purely FAIR CHOICE standpoint between man and woman, I am inclined to support pro life. It is the only real way to ensure that both man and woman are treated equally.
(This is where this post ends, and a new one begins)
More comments about the child support problems:
Why is that a man earning $30,000 a year must pay child support to the mother of his child who earns $60,000 a year? Think about that...after his child support payments are made, he is on the verge of poverty...while the mother is earning in excess of nearly DOUBLE the national income even BEFORE she receivers her child support payments! How much financial support does she really need?
And what about the mothers who live off child support? The term CHILD SUPPORT insinuates that the payments are meant to support the CHILD...not the mother. So why do some mothers get away with being unemployed, going to school full time, or living beyond their means...all the while using the mans CHILD support payments to finance these things? You may as well call it "Booty Tax"...the woman being a recipient of a prostitution fee amortized over 18 years.
And why does child SUPPORT always have to equate to money? Can't a father support his child morally? Can't he support him by virtue of just BEING A FATHER? There are married couples in this world where the wife is the breadwinner and the man stays home with the children. If this couple were to divorce, suddenly the man must begin paying the mother...even though for many years, the mother got by without any income from the man. Obviously, it IS possible for women to head a household...so why do we still throw the book at men financially?
What about a father who is unemployed? Why is he threatened with prison sentences, wage garnishments (when he does start working again) and tax liabilities if he simply CANNOT AFFORD to pay child support? What if he is legitimately a good father who is just down on his luck? Why is it so easy for the woman to say "To heck with you, pay me or go to jail."?
Why is it that the more money a man earns, the more he must pay in child support? There are mothers receiving $35,000 a MONTH in child support payments...all because they got lucky and got knocked up by a rich man. How much money does the Friend of the Court think a mother needs to raise a child?!
Child support laws need to be dramatically changed. If you're going to stick it to the man, even though he has no choice in whether or not the baby is born or aborted, then at least make the laws more fair. Establish parameters that the mother must follow in order to receive support. For instance:
* Just as the Federal Bankruptcy court does, establish IRS tables (based on State and County) for allowable living expenses. Pro-rate a portion of this expense to the support of the child. For instance, if the mothers county IRS tables establish $1,200 a month in housing (rent, mortgage, etc), $300 in food, $500 in transportation, and $100 in clothing...then pro-rate, say, 20% of these amount to the child. The father would be responsible for $420 in monthly expenses to support the child. This might raise, or lower, some mothers payments...but it's FAIR.
* Any expenses in excess of this amount that the mother wishes to claim should have to be PROVEN by requiring her to keep receipts of said expenses. When she does her taxes, these figures should be turned in with her returns and scrubbed through the IRS system (just like an ordinary deduction). Whatever the total comes out to be, hold the father accountable for 50% of the amount. So if little Johnny needs braces, and the out of pocket expense is $600...then the father should cough up $300 of that. Accidental expenses occurred while in the care, custody, and control of the mother should be handled EXCLUSIVELY by the mother. So if little Johnny falls off his skateboard and breaks his wrist...the mom should foot the bill. If he breaks his wrist while visiting his father, then the father foots the bill.
* Child support payments should be tax deductible to the one making the payments and taxable to the one receiving the payments. I don't know if they are or aren't already, but they should be.
* Child support payments should not be made directly to the mother. They should be made to the court (or the IRS directly and stored in a Child Support Fund) in the form of a tax. Call it a Child Support Tax, if you will. In turn, the governing entity would make the payments to the mother. This ensures timely payments and reduces the possibility of either party abusing the system (see next point, below).
* Back child support payments should be dischargable in bankruptcy...so long as fraud or willful neglect cannot be proven. Bankruptcy laws are being written in such a way that it only forgives CONSUMER debts...which is not the intent of bankruptcy. Bankruptcy should give the debtor a clean plate...not a half-eaten piece of chicken. This being said, a father should not be allowed to go more than, say, a few months without paying...unless he has a bona fide reason that he can prove in court. This way, fathers cannot refuse to pay child support for several years then suddenly wipe it all clean in bankruptcy. A Child Support Tax would serve as the watchdog to ensure he is not falling too far behind. Let's face it...the Friend of the Court is no friend to mothers seeking past due payments.
* If the father can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he cannot afford to pay child support, or can only afford a reduced amount, then let it go at that. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip...and throwing him in jail will not make the child's life any easier. In fact, it only gums up the legal system with more bullcrap. This being said, a very thorough audit of his personal finances should be made to determine how much he can afford to pay. Every discretionary expense should be cut out...from smoking to entertainment. If, after these things are cut out, he still cannot afford to pay...then cut him slack. If it's determined that he has the means to pay (or pay more than he says he can), then find him guilty of fraud and throw him in jail.
* If the mother earns substantially more income than the father, then don't hold his feet to the fire to pay...especially when he cannot afford it. In other words, if the man earns $30,000 a year and the mother earns $60,000 (or is married to a man earning $60,000), then reduce his child support factor from 20% to, say, 5%. Using the example above, instead of paying $420 a month, he would pay only $105. Let's face it...the mother doesn't need his money to support their child. It's just a stab in his ribs.
My two cents on the matter. Love it or hate it...but I think it's FAIR.
For the record, I don't have any children...nor do I pay child support. But working in personal finance, I see the effects it has on both parties. Women coming in wearing Prada and driving a BMW while receiving child support from a man driving a Datsun. I also see mothers who are barely getting by, while the man may be earning substantially more income. But I can also see where her money is going...and it's not always going to the benefit of the child. Lottery tickets, casinos, drugs and alcohol, low-paying jobs because she is complacent to use the mans support as supplemental income. I've even seen a situation in which a man had a child with an ex girlfriend and is ordered to pay $800 a month...even though he barely clears $40,000 a year. He has since remarried and has another child with his wife. But he cannot afford to buy a home for his wife and second child because he is paying so much to his ex girlfriend every month. His ex girlfriend lives in a house, alone with one child...and yet he is sharing a two bedroom apartment with his wife and second child. Is this fair? If so, how?
This is where I will cordially ask single mothers who don't think they get enough financial support to please be honest: How much money do you squander every month on unnecessary expenses? Why do you feel you deserve more money from a man who is barely getting by himself when you have not fully grasped the concept of managing the money you are already receiving? I'm seeking honest feedback here...not temper-tantrums.
There are exceptions to every rule, but the vast majority of cases I see are pretty much these mentioned. My little outline would not solve all the problems...no solution would. But at least it's more fair to everyone involved...especially the child for which the support is intended.
More... (http://lincolnparkforums.com/showthread.php?t=15272&goto=newpost)