The abortion thread pt. 2.
Quote:
I was talking about my divorce with a dude at work, and it kind of devolved into him ranting about having to pay child support for a kid that he can't even see but a couple days a year. He doesn't know his son and doesn't have an emotional attachment to him. He remarked that he wished his ex had an abortion because the only difference it would make to him is a couple hundred dollars a month. That got me thinking that it's bullshit that a man has to be responsible for an unwanted pregnancy, which, I think we established, is not a crime. I haven't had the chance to look into it or think on it much, but that's my immediate gut reaction. Thoughts? |
The right to abortion and the right to not pay child support is a false equivalence. A woman can decide what happens to her body, whether to be pregnant or not. But once there's a child, its up to both parents to provide under the law. They can decide to give the child up for adoption, raise the kid together or have one raise the kid and one pay child support.
Child support is actually not paid up that often. The US Census Bureau says that $35 billion dollars are owed in child support (http://www.census.gov/newsroom/relea.../cb11-206.html). The average payment a month is only 300 dollars. If you're poor, how are you going to afford to take legal action against the other parent? Dad stopped paying child support and there wasn't really anything we could do about it. Child support is considered the right of the born child, not the custodial parent. Without it, the custodial parent often needs to rely on the state. If this weren't a capitalist society, that probably wouldn't be an issue, but if the government can get away with not providing services, they will do their best to put the cost on someone else. |
Shouldn't a father have the right to see the child he's expected to provide for though? I understand if there's a reason for them not to be able to see them such as if they're abusive or violent or if they have to have supervised access but surely, if there's no reason that should keep them apart, a father should be able to see their child not just be forced to support them when financial support is only part of what a child needs.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The data also doesn't determine the average income of parents who owe child support. I think it's just as safe to assume that 30% of non-custodial parents also fall beneath the poverty line because I could easily owe my wife 20% of my pay check in most states, and I'm not exactly wealthy. Also, it doesn't say anywhere that the 70% of custodial parents who did not make claims for "child support issues" didn't because they couldn't afford it. I think you're drawing conclusions, but to be fair, I can only speak from personal experience that a court order is a binding contract from the state. I don't think it costs anything to enforce that. Quote:
Quote:
|
Oh, look! My post count is over two thousand.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
While reading this I commented this thread to my boyfriend and we were thinking about how awesome could it be if there was something like this: What if the government could put some type of 'birth control' type thing, or something that would stop the girls, woman etc from getting pregnant, and then when they want to get pregnant they go to get approved.
Do you make enough money? yes Are you mentally stable? yes so and soo, and if they do then they can deactivate the birth control and the can have a baby This would solve foster care, alot of people wouldn't be in jail & I can keep going.. What do you guys think? I know we would have to live in a society where people are not prejudiced, and they are fair but yeahhhh That would be pretty cool (I thought about this when Saya mentioned the case of the parents disagreeing and the baby going on foster care :/ |
Quote:
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/poli...abreasons.html Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And beans on toast is delicious. <3 |
Quote:
... so maybe he should have been more responsible with the birth control in the first place, so there wasn't an unwanted pregnancy? Meanwhile the poor kid is stuck in the middle - not really wanted by either parent - what a great life that kid is going to have... NOT! Should just put the kid up for adoption - chances are that they will at least be put with a family where they will be wanted. |
Quote:
Quote:
And the kid's mother does want him. It's the guy at work who never can see his kid that doesn't. |
Quote:
Really makes me sad for everyone involved. |
Quote:
Plus, most women who get an abortion are already mothers, so they're already parents. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
eugenics has a bad connotation :/. it's obvious it can be abused every system can because humans are involved. u say this is not "cool" Are abortions cool? Are children born to mentaly unstable parents cool? (A Child Called It) Are children born to a financially distraught family cool? (child starvation) just saying... :/ this i think can fix more things than it can break. |
I saw something awesome on Murdoch Mysteries, which is a Canadian crime drama if you're not in the know. They were talking about eugenics, and the inspector was like, "We've been exercising eugenics for centuries, and if that" he says, while pointing to a portrait of Queen Victoria "is the best we can amount to through it, then I want no part in it."
|
Quote:
Second of all, eugenics or governmental regulation over reproduction wouldn't be that easy. Yes, it's sad that some children are born to unstable or struggling families, but who are we to decide who gets to have a family and who doesn't? What if a family were to be extremely loving but they are below the poverty level? Who sets the standards? Every time there is a form of state control over society, this control tends to be a form of biopower that shapes society to normativize it in a very specific manner. Hell, if you did this shit before institutional racism was done away with, you'd immediately see that minorities would get rejected for raising families at a much higher rate than most other people. So yes, it is eugenics in one of the worst possible manners. |
Quote:
Quote:
I don't like quoting wikipedia, but we did study this in first year women's studies and I sold that text book. Not to mention the castration of prisoners disproportionally affected men of colour and gay men. |
No question that the United States has delved into eugenics.
But they were mentioning a very specific form of eugenics that hasn't been tried and they argue would be somehow good. I'm mentioning this merely because of the argument that "that is different." I am fully aware the hypothetical is different than the historical eugenic project in the United States, but the historical examples show just what would happen. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Everything that a man has to do with, will be corrupted. That being said, you guys don't think that there would be ANYTHING positive that would come from this? Just from the financial point of view, do you not think this would would save the government TONS of money? & regarding your comment towards my spelling: you are tripping BALLS |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Before birth, women have the option to escape being responsible for that child, while men do not. Why is it that, if contraception fails, men do not have a choice to opt out during the pregnancy? The weight of these decisions is still sheltered by gender. It's not a choice of it's only a woman's choice. Quote:
You're right, and since most custodial parents are women, it is mostly a problem for women. I think that is a separate issue, though. You're arguing that because a good deal of child support isn't paid, and men are more likely to differ from the responsibility of being a father, that they should not have the option? I'm not sure because you haven't out right said it. XD But still, I think those aren't related to the issue. Honestly, it looks detrimental for children to be raised without a father. STATISTICS FOR CHILDREN WITHOUT FATHERS *63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census) -- 5 times the average. *90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes -- 32 times the average. *85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes -- 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control) *80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes -- 14 times the average. (Justice and Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26) *71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes -- 9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report) *75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes – 10 times the average. (Rainbows for All God’s Children) *70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Sept. 1988) *85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes -- 20 times the average. (Fulton Co. Dept. of Correction) Clearly, fathers represent a lot more than just a paycheck to a child; they represent safety, protection, guidance, friendship,and someone to look up to. http://www.children-ourinvestment.or...utFathers.html But I don't think that means that men shouldn't have the choice. It's not fair, yo. Quote:
|
Quote:
No, I do not think it would save ANY money, and I do not think you have a degree in economics or political science or even some experience in it. |
Hey, dude. She's entitled to her opinion, too.
|
Quote:
And no, before birth women do not have the option of being responsible for that child, they have the option not to be pregnant anymore, in most places before 12 weeks of pregnancy. Its not like they can be nine months pregnant and then be like "Lol no you guys, I don't want to be a parent, kill the fetus." and get an abortion then. They do not want to be responsible for a potential child, but there is no child at that point to be responsible for. After birth happens, then there is a child that needs rearing and the parents have to come to some sort of consensus on what happened to that child that now exists in the world and is a person and has rights. Unless you're advocating that men should force women to have abortions, its still a false equivalency. Abortion is a bodily autonomy issue. I think the only equivalence a man would in theory have to worry about is the state forcing him to donate a kidney if his offspring should need one. Or forced sterilization according to the other conversation going on. Quote:
Quote:
Let's just look at the prison one. Most people in prison are also poor, and in America, black. I'm not sure if they were the one's who's mothers were able to embezzle a lot of money from their poor hapless fathers who didn't get to see them often. There's far more factors at play there than just being fatherless, there's also poverty and racial discrimination. Quote:
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:58 AM. |