4 ms·

> but I assume you're being hyperbolic. Paying to support children you make is a moral obligation. The justice of any given court decision is going to vary. Bu

> but I assume you're being hyperbolic. Paying to support children you make is a moral obligation. The justice of any given court decision is going to vary. But beneath it all is a social contract that says if you made the kid, you support the kid.

willcipriano 3y ago
The assumption that the man must provide was largely due to the woman not having a choice in the matter either. I'm not sure if it applies anymore.
- lolinder 3y ago
  Bob gets Alice pregnant. They could have used birth control but for whatever reason they didn't—maybe they thought they wanted a kid, maybe they made a mistake. Alice thinks Bob is going to stick around and help but he gets cold feet and bails. Alice has the baby and now is a single mom. Why shouldn't Bob be required to support Alice as she raises their kid? What does availability of birth control change here?
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    Bob wouldn't be allowed to get upset had she instead choose to abort, seems sort of unfair that he has to support her and the kid for the rest of their lives should she decide not to. Alice could've married Bob if she wanted a longer term commitment like marriage.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - michaelmrose 3y ago
      Bob could have not fucked Alice without 2 forms of birth control
      - DangitBobby 3y ago
        This is exactly what they say to women when it comes to the right to choose! You love to see double standards.
        michaelmrose 3y ago
        When people say it to Alice they are explaining why Alice cannot be allowed to control her own body. When its told to Bob it's explaining why he can't control Alice's body. See the difference there bud.
        DangitBobby 3y ago
        Not quite! People are arguing about why a man should be required to pay even though he had no right to choose. You were so close to getting it, though.
        michaelmrose 3y ago
        There is no reason to imagine that your obligation to bob JR who you helped create ought to depend in any way shape or form on whether you were OK with aborting him. In the first place he wasn't part of the transaction. In the second place you never meaningfully made a decision you made a suggestion hanging your obligation on whether you made a suggestion in writing is nonsensical. If you want to point out Ascending from the moral to the societal perspective every unconnected man ever would file an order of NMPB (not my problem bitch) at every unplanned pregnancy with a woman they either weren't in a committed relationship or with whom they decided they didn't want to raise a kid with either at inception or at any time before the local limit to abort expired. One might predict an uptick of abortions. There would certainly be some additional further decreasing our birth rate which is already below replacement but the truth is there is already a strong incentive in that direction. It's already hard to be a single mother. It's already hard to make a fellow contribute. Many women already do without. I think the majority would have their baby and go their own way. We would see a generation of children raised with even less help, in greater poverty, in greater privation. Society would bear more costs in terms of medical benefits, food stamps, housing assistance or society would bear the cost in terms of crime and generally poorer social outcomes. I'm not "close to getting it" You are advancing the same position as 16 year old me. I just had an extra 27 years to think about it.
  - kortilla 3y ago
    Bob can very explicitly say from even before conception that he has no intention of ever supporting a child and wishes for any accidental pregnancies to be aborted. Alice can still choose to ignore all of that, have the child, and extract child payments from Bob. That’s not moral.
    - michaelmrose 3y ago
      You can't obligate Alice to an abortion nor opt out of the obligation to Bob jr. Also if you actually told Alice this before you got jiggy you wouldn't be getting jiggy because she would opted out of any further contact its immoral and farcical to try to ditch your kid like that.
      - kortilla 3y ago
        Two scenarios: - condom breaks, she refuses to abort - condom does its job, she uses the sample to artificially inseminate Does Bob still have the same obligation? If yes, that’s batshit crazy. If no, it does seem like Bob’s consent is pretty important.
        michaelmrose 3y ago
        The obligation is to Bob jr. It doesn't matter how manipulative Alice is because your responsibility is to the kid. You don't get to have consent as to her bearing a kid because its her body and the violation implied by either giving you direct say or even indirect force to apply to her by forcing her to solely bear responsibility for your kid if she refuses to have an abortion is immoral evil and gross. You can exercise absolute control by getting snipped. If that is too extreme you can keep it in your pants or insist on multiple concurrent methods of birth control. The number of men who wish to opt out of responsibility is legion the number of weirdos who saved their dudes sperm to "inseminate" is microscopic. The net average good of instituting the system you imagine is so far into the red its not off the page its off the continent.
        Amezarak 3y ago
  - Amezarak 3y ago
    Today, I think the more common modern scenario is Alice voluntarily leaves Bob because she decides (perhaps rightly!) she could be happier elsewhere. In this situation, custody is often contested, but Bob usually ends up paying child support anyway. I think this is more often the sort of situation that leads people to question if there's a moral obligation to pay Alice when she's a single mom because she made the choice to be. It is also important to note the while child support is the named purpose of the payment, in practical terms Bob is simply paying Alice and Alice treats the money as fungible and spends the money at her discretion; Bob may be (and usually is) directed to pay certain child-expenses separately and directly, such as daycare, school supplies, and health insurance. Child support is on top of these expenses and is usually assessed as a percentage of income; 15% is a common number. Generally, this number is much higher than the actual marginal cost of having a child living with you.
  - Projectiboga 3y ago
    What is Bob finds out belatedly that kid as actually Jim's and Mom neglected to ever mention that 'uncertainty' or worse knew but decided Bob has deeper pockets? Many states have decided that once your on the birth certificate your stuck, as otherwise the State suffers having a financial burden. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_fraud#:~:text=If%20a%20mother%20deliberately%20gives,paternity%2C%20she%20may%20be%20fined https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_fraud#:~:text=If%2....
    - michaelmrose 3y ago
      A deeper question might be is it reasonable to be able to take your name off in the first place after affirming it. In a contrived example we may imagine bob discovers he isn't the father while the ink is still wet after being deliberately deceived. Less contrived examples are apt to be on average more complicated. The uterus isn't an egg timer. Exact date of conception is liable to be fuzzy. The person on the birth cert is more apt to be the long term boyfriend or spouse than the richer fellow. The failure to communicate uncertainty a function of shame not greed. Discovery might be years later after the obligation is deeper than a signature. At that point do you have a right to reject the child you asserted was yours. I don't think so. I think if you asserted that position you own that obligation for your life. Sometimes the law affirms what we as a society hold to be general true and is optimized for the general case not edge cases.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      Yes. Acknowledging paternity (or marriage in a jurisdiction with a conclusive presumption of paternity) creates, and ought to create, obligations which cannot be abandoned easily unilaterally. It you are unwilling to accept that responsibility it's easy enough not to do those things.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
bill_joy_fanboy 3y ago
[flagged]
- hashiyakshmi 3y ago
  Er, the man actually plays a very significant role in "making" the kid...
  - bill_joy_fanboy 3y ago
    Who decides whether or not the child is born?
    - mrguyorama 3y ago
      You made your choice when you jizzed in her bits. Don't want a child? Don't jizz in the lady. Want a child but the lady doesn't? You gotta find a different lady to jizz in. Sometimes, if you trust a lady enough, you two will decide on a strategy on how you can jizz in her bits and still not have a kid. However, none of those methods are perfect and you are explicitly taking a chance. The risk you take when you jizz inside a lady that doesn't want an abortion is that you have a child. If a lady does not want an abortion and you don't want a kid, don't jizz inside her. You don't have to be a participatory father, but you will be expected to financially support whoever ends up raising the kid, unless you both choose to give up the child for adoption. Like, fuck guys, it's not this difficult. I'm an idiot and I've figured it out.
      - bill_joy_fanboy 3y ago
        Her body, her choice. My wallet, my choice.
      - DangitBobby 3y ago
        By this same argument, women should not have the right to choose.
IncreasePosts 3y ago
Lots of men who are not the biological father were tricked into believing they were the biological father, and when they find out the kid is not theirs, are still on the hook for child support.
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  How many is "lots of" because it's real hard to find concrete cases of this outside of the handful of high profile ones that reddit MRAs like to parade around whenever they get a chance to bring it up. But regardless, this is consistent and a well-understood compromise not an accidental injustice. The priority is stability in the child's life above absolute fairness for the adults. If you occupied the role of parent to a child, you may have to pay child support regardless of biological connection. We've settled on this approach over the alternative because when unfairness occurs, it is for the adults to experience not the child.
  - IncreasePosts 3y ago
    Regardless of the rate, the fact that it does happen shows that not all child support payments are moral.
    - giraffe_lady 3y ago
      Forcing someone to pay child support is moral actually. The alternative is the child not having support.
      - IncreasePosts 3y ago
        It sounds about equally as moral as forcing some complete stranger to pay the child support(which does not sound moral). The government could provide the child support. I would argue that forcing the victim of a paternity scam to continue paying for the child that is not theirs just continually revictimizes them.
      - pests 3y ago
zarzavat 3y ago
In your opinion. That’s the problem with morality, everyone has a different view of it. You draw the line of responsibility at having sex. Other people might draw the line at being in a committed relationship.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- indymike 3y ago
  The parent’s relationship has zero to do with assigning liability for supporting the child. Zero. None. The child's existence is caused by having sex. That is where the liability is created. I don't get to decide if a car wreck is my fault if I do not like my relationship with the other driver.

willcipriano 3y ago

The assumption that the man must provide was largely due to the woman not having a choice in the matter either. I'm not sure if it applies anymore.

lolinder 3y ago
Bob gets Alice pregnant. They could have used birth control but for whatever reason they didn't—maybe they thought they wanted a kid, maybe they made a mistake. Alice thinks Bob is going to stick around and help but he gets cold feet and bails. Alice has the baby and now is a single mom. Why shouldn't Bob be required to support Alice as she raises their kid? What does availability of birth control change here?
- willcipriano 3y ago
  Bob wouldn't be allowed to get upset had she instead choose to abort, seems sort of unfair that he has to support her and the kid for the rest of their lives should she decide not to. Alice could've married Bob if she wanted a longer term commitment like marriage.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - michaelmrose 3y ago
    Bob could have not fucked Alice without 2 forms of birth control
    - DangitBobby 3y ago
      This is exactly what they say to women when it comes to the right to choose! You love to see double standards.
      - michaelmrose 3y ago
        When people say it to Alice they are explaining why Alice cannot be allowed to control her own body. When its told to Bob it's explaining why he can't control Alice's body. See the difference there bud.
        DangitBobby 3y ago
        Not quite! People are arguing about why a man should be required to pay even though he had no right to choose. You were so close to getting it, though.
        michaelmrose 3y ago
        There is no reason to imagine that your obligation to bob JR who you helped create ought to depend in any way shape or form on whether you were OK with aborting him. In the first place he wasn't part of the transaction. In the second place you never meaningfully made a decision you made a suggestion hanging your obligation on whether you made a suggestion in writing is nonsensical. If you want to point out Ascending from the moral to the societal perspective every unconnected man ever would file an order of NMPB (not my problem bitch) at every unplanned pregnancy with a woman they either weren't in a committed relationship or with whom they decided they didn't want to raise a kid with either at inception or at any time before the local limit to abort expired. One might predict an uptick of abortions. There would certainly be some additional further decreasing our birth rate which is already below replacement but the truth is there is already a strong incentive in that direction. It's already hard to be a single mother. It's already hard to make a fellow contribute. Many women already do without. I think the majority would have their baby and go their own way. We would see a generation of children raised with even less help, in greater poverty, in greater privation. Society would bear more costs in terms of medical benefits, food stamps, housing assistance or society would bear the cost in terms of crime and generally poorer social outcomes. I'm not "close to getting it" You are advancing the same position as 16 year old me. I just had an extra 27 years to think about it.
- kortilla 3y ago
  Bob can very explicitly say from even before conception that he has no intention of ever supporting a child and wishes for any accidental pregnancies to be aborted. Alice can still choose to ignore all of that, have the child, and extract child payments from Bob. That’s not moral.
  - michaelmrose 3y ago
    You can't obligate Alice to an abortion nor opt out of the obligation to Bob jr. Also if you actually told Alice this before you got jiggy you wouldn't be getting jiggy because she would opted out of any further contact its immoral and farcical to try to ditch your kid like that.
    - kortilla 3y ago
      Two scenarios: - condom breaks, she refuses to abort - condom does its job, she uses the sample to artificially inseminate Does Bob still have the same obligation? If yes, that’s batshit crazy. If no, it does seem like Bob’s consent is pretty important.
      - michaelmrose 3y ago
        The obligation is to Bob jr. It doesn't matter how manipulative Alice is because your responsibility is to the kid. You don't get to have consent as to her bearing a kid because its her body and the violation implied by either giving you direct say or even indirect force to apply to her by forcing her to solely bear responsibility for your kid if she refuses to have an abortion is immoral evil and gross. You can exercise absolute control by getting snipped. If that is too extreme you can keep it in your pants or insist on multiple concurrent methods of birth control. The number of men who wish to opt out of responsibility is legion the number of weirdos who saved their dudes sperm to "inseminate" is microscopic. The net average good of instituting the system you imagine is so far into the red its not off the page its off the continent.
        Amezarak 3y ago
- Amezarak 3y ago
  Today, I think the more common modern scenario is Alice voluntarily leaves Bob because she decides (perhaps rightly!) she could be happier elsewhere. In this situation, custody is often contested, but Bob usually ends up paying child support anyway. I think this is more often the sort of situation that leads people to question if there's a moral obligation to pay Alice when she's a single mom because she made the choice to be. It is also important to note the while child support is the named purpose of the payment, in practical terms Bob is simply paying Alice and Alice treats the money as fungible and spends the money at her discretion; Bob may be (and usually is) directed to pay certain child-expenses separately and directly, such as daycare, school supplies, and health insurance. Child support is on top of these expenses and is usually assessed as a percentage of income; 15% is a common number. Generally, this number is much higher than the actual marginal cost of having a child living with you.
- Projectiboga 3y ago
  What is Bob finds out belatedly that kid as actually Jim's and Mom neglected to ever mention that 'uncertainty' or worse knew but decided Bob has deeper pockets? Many states have decided that once your on the birth certificate your stuck, as otherwise the State suffers having a financial burden. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_fraud#:~:text=If%20a%20mother%20deliberately%20gives,paternity%2C%20she%20may%20be%20fined https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_fraud#:~:text=If%2....
  - michaelmrose 3y ago
    A deeper question might be is it reasonable to be able to take your name off in the first place after affirming it. In a contrived example we may imagine bob discovers he isn't the father while the ink is still wet after being deliberately deceived. Less contrived examples are apt to be on average more complicated. The uterus isn't an egg timer. Exact date of conception is liable to be fuzzy. The person on the birth cert is more apt to be the long term boyfriend or spouse than the richer fellow. The failure to communicate uncertainty a function of shame not greed. Discovery might be years later after the obligation is deeper than a signature. At that point do you have a right to reject the child you asserted was yours. I don't think so. I think if you asserted that position you own that obligation for your life. Sometimes the law affirms what we as a society hold to be general true and is optimized for the general case not edge cases.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    Yes. Acknowledging paternity (or marriage in a jurisdiction with a conclusive presumption of paternity) creates, and ought to create, obligations which cannot be abandoned easily unilaterally. It you are unwilling to accept that responsibility it's easy enough not to do those things.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

bill_joy_fanboy 3y ago

[flagged]

hashiyakshmi 3y ago
Er, the man actually plays a very significant role in "making" the kid...
- bill_joy_fanboy 3y ago
  Who decides whether or not the child is born?
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    You made your choice when you jizzed in her bits. Don't want a child? Don't jizz in the lady. Want a child but the lady doesn't? You gotta find a different lady to jizz in. Sometimes, if you trust a lady enough, you two will decide on a strategy on how you can jizz in her bits and still not have a kid. However, none of those methods are perfect and you are explicitly taking a chance. The risk you take when you jizz inside a lady that doesn't want an abortion is that you have a child. If a lady does not want an abortion and you don't want a kid, don't jizz inside her. You don't have to be a participatory father, but you will be expected to financially support whoever ends up raising the kid, unless you both choose to give up the child for adoption. Like, fuck guys, it's not this difficult. I'm an idiot and I've figured it out.
    - bill_joy_fanboy 3y ago
      Her body, her choice. My wallet, my choice.
    - DangitBobby 3y ago
      By this same argument, women should not have the right to choose.

IncreasePosts 3y ago

Lots of men who are not the biological father were tricked into believing they were the biological father, and when they find out the kid is not theirs, are still on the hook for child support.

giraffe_lady 3y ago
How many is "lots of" because it's real hard to find concrete cases of this outside of the handful of high profile ones that reddit MRAs like to parade around whenever they get a chance to bring it up. But regardless, this is consistent and a well-understood compromise not an accidental injustice. The priority is stability in the child's life above absolute fairness for the adults. If you occupied the role of parent to a child, you may have to pay child support regardless of biological connection. We've settled on this approach over the alternative because when unfairness occurs, it is for the adults to experience not the child.
- IncreasePosts 3y ago
  Regardless of the rate, the fact that it does happen shows that not all child support payments are moral.
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    Forcing someone to pay child support is moral actually. The alternative is the child not having support.
    - IncreasePosts 3y ago
      It sounds about equally as moral as forcing some complete stranger to pay the child support(which does not sound moral). The government could provide the child support. I would argue that forcing the victim of a paternity scam to continue paying for the child that is not theirs just continually revictimizes them.
    - pests 3y ago

zarzavat 3y ago

In your opinion. That’s the problem with morality, everyone has a different view of it. You draw the line of responsibility at having sex. Other people might draw the line at being in a committed relationship.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
indymike 3y ago
The parent’s relationship has zero to do with assigning liability for supporting the child. Zero. None. The child's existence is caused by having sex. That is where the liability is created. I don't get to decide if a car wreck is my fault if I do not like my relationship with the other driver.