Letters to the Editor
-
the real issue
He seems to be completely missing the point. This isn't about man vs. woman. It's about man vs. child. It's about whether society should support his child simply because he doesn't want to. So really, it's about him vs. everyone else.
-
All BS.
Courts have consistently ruled that women cannot sign away child support from the father. The support belongs to the child, not the mother. The same for when the father has custody. There are exceptions, of course, but for the most part the courts have been consistent on this.
If a mother did sign away child support, like this pin head wanted, the courts would allow her to begin collecting it again in the future, under that very argument.
This guy just does not want to pay child support. He probably should have thought about that before having sex.
-
I got a good laugh
out of the idea of how much of a terrible, terrible sacrifice $500 a month is. I'm sure that bitch is living high on the hog for $125 a week. Oh, wait, how much does it cost for child care? I don't know what it's like where he lives, but in my neck of the woods, a daycare center costs well over $150 a week. And I'm assuming that the baby needs pampers, food, a roof over its tiny head, medical care, a stroller, and clothes. So I'm gonna have to guess that the babymommy is still going to have to work a full-time job before she comes home at night to do the evening shift with the little angel. This poor aggrieved soul has a very warped sense of what "supporting a child" means if he thinks he's being martyred for that paltry sum.
-
It's not fair
Yeah, it's not fair that men do not have a choice, but life's not fair. There is only so much the law can do. One child is born into the world into wealth and happiness and another into poverty and chaos through no fault of their own. That's not fair, but that does not mean there should be a law that all that children have to be brought up in the same level of wealth.
Plenty point to the case where a poor shmoe has his finances ruined for the rest of his life because he has to fork over a chunk of his money to child support, but what about the case where the father is rich? Suppose a wealthy man impregnates his impoverished mistress. Should that wealthy man be able to "abort" his responsibility to pay child support just because he feels like it? If so, then as a result suppose the mother collects welfare/food stamps, etc. So, everyone's money, tax money, should go to raising a child because his wealthy father didn't feel like paying, even though he is perfectly capable? Even if the father is not wealthy, someone has to pay for the child to be raised. I have nothing against my taxes going to help feed children who would not be supported otherwise, but why should they go toward raising children that their father just found inconvenient to support? I don't think there is good reason it should.
On a practical note, no legislator in their right mind would agree to a law that allows men to just legally forget their own progeny. From a conservative point of view, that would serve to cultivate a culture of irresponsibility. And women who want to get around the law could just hide their pregnancy anyway. Some laws can be changed to be more fair probably, but letting men sign away their financial responsibility at the drop of a hat is a simple-minded solution. Perhaps men should not have to pay child support if the mother earns a certain amount of money or has a family that could and would support her better. There are so many variables, these things should be handled on a case-by-case basis.
-
Roe v. Wade
The Roe v. Wade decision was based on a substantive due process right of privacy. Women, like men, have a right to privacy and to decide what to do with their own bodies (i.e. abortion). I'm not sure how the plaintiff here is going to use this argument in his favor, since there's no fetus growing inside him. It's not the relevant case, from a constitutional law point of view. I'm not sure what to think of all this -- it's a hard question.
Now i have some points.
First, whoever made this matrix got it a little wrong:
Father wants child - Mother Wants child - Keep & Pay
Father wants child - Mother Does not want child - Abort*
Father Does not want child - Mother Does not want child - Abort
Father Does not want child - Mother wants child - Keep & pay
yes, if the father and the mother are married and have a child together, a large chunk (probably larger than his child support payment) of his income will go to raising the child.
Second
I'm really sick of anti-choicers here referring to people who sex and don't want children as people with "fabulous lifestyles" and "Mr. Playboy." The overwhelming majority of us want to have sex without the possibility, each time, of having children. Moreover, the demographic profile of the average woman having an abortion is not "club-hopping trust-fund law student", more like "poor, white, single".
Jeffrey,
Yes, i do want to do to law school. i don't want to have children. does that mean i have to become celibate?
Moreover, you write to enshrine the right to abortion in the constitution. Well. for one, it's pretty hard to get a consitutional amendment. Plus, are you saying that the only rights (the ones protected by the federal government) we have are the ones in the constitution?
-
anonymous
Anonymous, you clearly know so little about raising a child that it's laughable. Do you really think the child support check that the mother gets from the father even comes CLOSE to what it costs to raise a child, let alone that there's so much left over for her to be rolling in dough? Even when a man is paying support, the vast majority of child-rearing costs fall on the mother. That check barely even covers half of the basics most of the time.
Somehow, I doubt many fathers would choose the option to switch places. Would you really rather take care of a child full-time and be responsible for all of the costs with only a $500 check each month to help out?
If they really think that these women have it so great, why aren't they clamoring to switch places and have the woman support them while they take on this apparently carefree, fun burden of raising a child?