Male reproductive rights

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Espaldapalabras, May 19, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Cheveyo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 29, 2001
    star 5
    The law in this matter is rather sticky, and varies from state to state, if I understand it correctly; however, the basis is that if you are the father, but not married to the mother, you have significantly fewer rights pertaining to the child. You have more rights if you sign a paternity affidavit, and little to none if you do not. Conversely, if a father does not sign the affidavit at birth, it is more difficult and much more costly for the mother to seek child support from him (legal battles ensue).

    You can't be in the US, then; the only western industrialized nation the does not have nationalized universal health care coverage (even after Obama's reforms). I know this isn't your argument, but I believe that if someone is against basic health care provided for all, then they are for the individual taking responsibility at the individual level; therefor, a person who does not believe in some form of social health care should also be against a man's proposed right to absolve himself from his personal paternal responsibility... Unless this proponent was of the opinion that a father in such a predicament is not co-responsible for the actions that led to his current situation. I might even label such a rationale as narcissistic.
  2. Darth_Smileyface Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 22, 2004
    star 2
    "The law in this matter is rather sticky, and varies from state to state, if I understand it correctly; however, the basis is that if you are the father, but not married to the mother, you have significantly fewer rights pertaining to the child. You have more rights if you sign a paternity affidavit, and little to none if you do not. Conversely, if a father does not sign the affidavit at birth, it is more difficult and much more costly for the mother to seek child support from him (legal battles ensue)."

    Hmmm, I wasn't aware of that. Given that information, I suppose the playing field is somewhat even, though in a de facto state rather than de jure.

    I'm not sure how it works here in Canada. Both of my daughters were born in Panama and I was acutely aware of how few rights I had down there as the father. I find it very unfortunate that the father is given so few rights, but yet still expected to take on financial responsibility. Maybe I shouldn't sympathise with someone who is being wholly irresponsible, but I have been in that situation. Facing the prospects of an unwanted pregnancy with almost no rights/blessings whatsoever to offset my responsibilties/burdens. That I chose to support my daughter both emotionally and financially doesn't mean that I can't empathise with the men who chose the opposite path.

    In my experience, it is much easier for the mother to seek child support here. The government is very receptive (even eager) to garnish wages, suspend drivers licenses and passports etc.
  3. _Behemoth_ Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    May 22, 2010
    Some of the child support formulas are ridiculously unfair. In Australia for example, child support liability is calculated on gross annual income, so you are being assessed on income that actually goes towards income tax etc. If you have a study debt (called a HECS debt) that is also not taken into consideration. In many cases, child support payments completely and utterly financially cripple the paying father, resulting in difficuly for the father entering into any new relationships. Also the child support payments are made to the mother, who can then go and blow it on crack or shoes or whatever. Once the payment is made there is no follow up.

    Whilst I firmly believe that fathers should have a financial obligation to support their kids (whether they were planned or not) it also has to be done in such a way that does not ruin the father financially and in such as way that the father can be guaranteed that the payments are made for the benefit of the child and not for the benefit of the mother.
  4. Darth_Smileyface Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 22, 2004
    star 2
    "Whilst I firmly believe that fathers should have a financial obligation to support their kids (whether they were planned or not) it also has to be done in such a way that does not ruin the father financially and in such as way that the father can be guaranteed that the payments are made for the benefit of the child and not for the benefit of the mother"

    I would still prefer the possibility to sever the realtionship entirely, but I could live with this. Whether that could be enacted and enforced however is unlikely. Perhaps if the mother would given some sort of coupons that could only be used for food, clothing or basic needs? Even then, there would be no guarantees...
  5. Cheveyo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 29, 2001
    star 5
    I concur; however, I would amend that to include fathers who receive child support from divorced mothers (and vice verse for divorce), as well.
  6. WormieSaber Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 22, 2000
    star 5
    Darth Smileyface wrote:

    I would still prefer the possibility to sever the realtionship entirely, but I could live with this. Whether that could be enacted and enforced however is unlikely. Perhaps if the mother would given some sort of coupons that could only be used for food, clothing or basic needs? Even then, there would be no guarantees...


    I don't think the courts would ever go through with this. Really the only remedy is by visiting the child more often. You can deduce the money you have to pay to the mother every month by doubling up on your visitation to the child. Granted, that means you have to put more effort into fathering the child that you may not have planned or even want to begin with, but you can do this and save yourself about $100 every month on child support. If you would rather pay and not visit the child as often, then that is your choice. Other than that, it is a burden that the father will to have pay until that child is 18 years old (or finishes High School...because even if the child is already 18 years old and is still in High School, guess what...you have to pay until that kid graduates High School, under the law).
  7. Darth_Smileyface Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 22, 2004
    star 2
    Sorry Wormie, but that wouldn't be a "remedy" at all. It's actually the exact opposite of what we're discussing. And what good could possibly come from allowing people access to their "unwanted" children. That's a bad, bad idea. I work with kids at risk. I deal with the result of parents being forced to raise children they didn't want/couldn't manage. It's not pretty. Also, you'd have to allow for the fact that many parents simply flout the law and refuse the non-custodial parent access altogether.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.