4 ms·

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 abor

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
      The legal obligation (child support) in this case may be intended for Bob Jr., but it is paid to Alice with an extremely weak enforcement mechanism to ensure it benefits Bob Jr. at all. Realistically, it tends to be responsible people who would have paid child support anyway who pay it, but often end up overpaying because money is fungible and it doesn’t take 15% of a good earner’s income to support a child. The irresponsible fathers who don’t care end up not paying regardless of court orders. Obviously most Alices are not blowing the money on nothing but it’s reasonable to question whether the current system is very useful for its intended purposes compared to other systems and what the second order effects are. There are probably better ways to ensure Bob Jr. is supported. For example, maybe in custody proceedings we should more highly weight financial ability to support the child when awarding custody. I understand why the system in the article exists - you can’t force people to pay (they can stop working or work under the table or…), so you need some sort of threat as an additional deterrent. I doubt it increases collections much, though.
      - michaelmrose 3y ago
        I don't think attacking professional or drivers licenses is useful nor do I think incarceration is. That said. > Realistically, it tends to be responsible people who would have paid child support anyway who pay it, This is a bold assertion that seems extremely unlikely. Most workers work for a wage and cannot trivially become an under the table construction worker to spite Alice. I would guess that given the enforcement mechanism most people who are able to pay end up paying. It's also pretty trivial to imagine that without the threat of at least garnishment or seizure lots of folks wouldn't pay. If you are going to assert it you should actually prove it. > For example, maybe in custody proceedings we should more highly weight financial ability to support the child when awarding custody. You already need to be able to support the kid including the other sides court ordered support in order to get custody in court now. Weighing it more heavily towards wealth to avoid charging Bob seems extraordinary. Why? > it doesn’t take 15% of a good earner’s income to support a child. You should probably redo the math on that and start with the median individual income and tell me how it went. > There are probably better ways to ensure Bob Jr. is supported. Bob Jr being supported unlike the many complexities of child rearing is a function of whether or not sufficient resources are transferred from Nonscustodial parent to custodial parent. Court orders, garnishment, seizure are the only way to get from A to B.
indymike 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. Bob needs to ensure he can't cause the woman to conceive for this to work.

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
    The legal obligation (child support) in this case may be intended for Bob Jr., but it is paid to Alice with an extremely weak enforcement mechanism to ensure it benefits Bob Jr. at all. Realistically, it tends to be responsible people who would have paid child support anyway who pay it, but often end up overpaying because money is fungible and it doesn’t take 15% of a good earner’s income to support a child. The irresponsible fathers who don’t care end up not paying regardless of court orders. Obviously most Alices are not blowing the money on nothing but it’s reasonable to question whether the current system is very useful for its intended purposes compared to other systems and what the second order effects are. There are probably better ways to ensure Bob Jr. is supported. For example, maybe in custody proceedings we should more highly weight financial ability to support the child when awarding custody. I understand why the system in the article exists - you can’t force people to pay (they can stop working or work under the table or…), so you need some sort of threat as an additional deterrent. I doubt it increases collections much, though.
    - michaelmrose 3y ago
      I don't think attacking professional or drivers licenses is useful nor do I think incarceration is. That said. > Realistically, it tends to be responsible people who would have paid child support anyway who pay it, This is a bold assertion that seems extremely unlikely. Most workers work for a wage and cannot trivially become an under the table construction worker to spite Alice. I would guess that given the enforcement mechanism most people who are able to pay end up paying. It's also pretty trivial to imagine that without the threat of at least garnishment or seizure lots of folks wouldn't pay. If you are going to assert it you should actually prove it. > For example, maybe in custody proceedings we should more highly weight financial ability to support the child when awarding custody. You already need to be able to support the kid including the other sides court ordered support in order to get custody in court now. Weighing it more heavily towards wealth to avoid charging Bob seems extraordinary. Why? > it doesn’t take 15% of a good earner’s income to support a child. You should probably redo the math on that and start with the median individual income and tell me how it went. > There are probably better ways to ensure Bob Jr. is supported. Bob Jr being supported unlike the many complexities of child rearing is a function of whether or not sufficient resources are transferred from Nonscustodial parent to custodial parent. Court orders, garnishment, seizure are the only way to get from A to B.

indymike 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. Bob needs to ensure he can't cause the woman to conceive for this to work.