Abortion Rights Question

[Astarial]

I don't think Flagg meant with an agreement. A mother can simply not seek support from the father, for whatever reason. She can, of course, always change her mind.

In which case she hasn't 'given up the child's right to support from the father' she simply not exercising that right at that moment in time.

Right. His quote was two sentences: "Yes she can" and "In the same way that she can just not seek child support." I was speaking to the second part, really.

As for the first, I would imagine that the two parents could go before a public officer and get a legally binding agreement that one does not owe child support to the other (rather than a private agreement), but I don't actually know.

[Plekhanov]

Right. His quote was two sentences: "Yes she can" and "In the same way that she can just not seek child support." I was speaking to the second part, really.

Which I never denied, I was quite obviously taking issue with Flagg's denial of my claim that:

"The mother can't give up the child's right to support from the father as they aren't her rights to give up."

As for the first, I would imagine that the two parents could go before a public officer and get a legally binding agreement that one does not owe child support to the other (rather than a private agreement), but I don't actually know.

Well you'd be wrong, there are numerous cases from many countries where courts have ruled against the validity of such agreements whether informal or written up in legal sounding language & signed by the parents.

Superior Court Judge Patrick R. Tamilia wrote that the oral contract between McKiernan and Ferguson is essentially worthless, because the rights for child support belong to the twins, not to either parent.

"The oral agreement between the parties that [McKiernan] would donate his sperm in exchange for being released from any obligation for any child conceived, on its face, constitutes a valid contract," Tamilia wrote in a six-page decision.

"Based on legal, equitable and moral principles, however, it is not enforceable," Tamilia wrote.

There links to similar cases here.

[zircon]

But you still seem to be working on the assumption that single parent families even with child support from the absent parent will live in poverty and consequently (& rather confusingly) conclude that unwilling dads should be able to arbitrarily cut off their kids, do you have any evidence for this assumption?

For the first part, yes.

Well that's an erroneous assumption, my best friend for several years when I was a kid was in a single parent family, they lived in a 4 bedroom detached house & both he and his sister went to private school. I'm pretty sure their dad paid child support but even if he hadn't their mum (a pathologist) earned more than enough to keep them comfortable.

Your point being? I've already said that a single woman with a good economy would have no trouble caring for a child with or without support.

It's not a matter of inevitably failing, single moms with a good economy would have no problem properly caring for a child.

NCCP Statistics

No stats about the proportion of single parent families below the poverty line are present on that page. Nor are there any stats about the proportion of single parent families below the poverty line where the absent parent pays child support.

Unicef Statistics

And precisely which part of that 40 page report are you claiming backs your position?

*sigh*

While this is for Canada it should suffice...
Stat1

Stat2
Single parent family, without support 36% are in poverty.
Single parent family, with support 15% are in poverty.

That's a decrease by 50% but it's not like i didn't know that already, my point from the start would be the causation that enough economic pressure would automatically result in the removal of the child. Which has been deemed false, not thanks to you

[Plekhanov]

Your point being?

My point being that your working assumption on which you based your policy is fundamentally flawed, in that by clumsily attempting the push the very poorest women with unplanned pregnancies towards abortion you are fucking over all the rest.

I've already said that a single woman with a good economy would have no trouble caring for a child with or without support.

And what about women on the brink who'd be in poverty or damn near it without support, do you not realise that your proposal would completely fuck them over?

No stats about the proportion of single parent families below the poverty line are present on that page. Nor are there any stats about the proportion of single parent families below the poverty line where the absent parent pays child support.

And precisely which part of that 40 page report are you claiming backs your position?

*sigh*

While this is for Canada it should suffice...
Stat1

Stat2
Single parent family, without support 36% are in poverty.
Single parent family, with support 15% are in poverty.

That's a decrease by 50% but it's not like i didn't know that already, my point from the start would be the causation that enough economic pressure would automatically result in the removal of the child. Which has been deemed false, not thanks to you

You do realise right that those facts rebut your entire position by demonstrating that child support lifts children out of poverty, as I've said all along your proposed policy would work directly against your statd aim.

[zircon]

*snip* Beating dead horse

I've acknowledged that the proposition was fundamentally flawed/broken/caput/sönder in the last three posts, what is it that's not getting through?

[Plekhanov]

*snip* Beating dead horse

I've acknowledged that the proposition was fundamentally flawed/broken/caput/sönder in the last three posts, what is it that's not getting through?

I dropped the points you conceded & only argued the ones you continued to defend.

[zircon]

*snip* Beating dead horse

I've acknowledged that the proposition was fundamentally flawed/broken/caput/sönder in the last three posts, what is it that's not getting through?

I dropped the points you conceded & only argued the ones you continued to defend.

Ok then, we continue.

My point being that your working assumption on which you based your policy is fundamentally flawed, in that by clumsily attempting the push the very poorest women with unplanned pregnancies towards abortion you are fucking over all the rest.

If all people reasoned by economics the problem wouldn't exist at all. Those that can't properly support a child doesn't get one. Those that do get children.

And what about women on the brink who'd be in poverty or damn near it without support, do you not realise that your proposal would completely fuck them over?

Same thing here, if all people reasoned by economics the ones at the borderline would be suggested to further improve their economics, since these people rationalize by the use of economics they wait until they can properly support them.

You do realise right that those facts rebut your entire position by demonstrating that child support lifts children out of poverty, as I've said all along your proposed policy would work directly against your statd aim.

Yes, i was the one who brought them up, remember?

However, once more, if people did rationalize with the use of economics the effect would be the reverse.

All of them boil back to the same point, aka, nothing new.

[Darth Wong]

Zircon, you are confusing two different propositions:

1) "Irresponsibility" means refusing to lift a finger to help your offspring.
2) "Irresponsibility" means doing everything in your power to help your offspring, but being too poor to do a good job.

I don't see how you can treat those as equivalent.

[zircon]

Zircon, you are confusing two different propositions:

1) "Irresponsibility" means refusing to lift a finger to help your offspring.
2) "Irresponsibility" means doing everything in your power to help your offspring, but being too poor to do a good job.

I don't see how you can treat those as equivalent.

I'm a little confused but i guess i was thinking along the lines of removing the core issue, (bypassing emotion/irrationality) which in turn would remove both forms of irresponsibility since there would be no unplanned offspring at all.

Obviously the second form of Irresponsibility is better but the situation shouldn't have occurred in the first place.

[Flagg]

The mother can't give up the child's right to support from the father as they aren't her rights to give up.

Of course she can. The same way a mother can decide not to seek child support from the father.

Legally she can’t, there have been cases involving such ‘contracts’ and they’ve been ruled to be illegal & unenforceable.

A mother can of course choose honour such an agreement & never go after the father for child support but if she falls on hard times & tries to claim benefits chances are the state will go after the father to make him support his child or if alternately she has a change of heart the father & goes to court to demand child support in either case the father will be in for a nasty surprise.

Where? And how does this jive with the existance of sperm banks? How is it also that parents can essentially tell the kid to "fuck off" by signing away their rights and turning them over to the state? I'm guessing this is a difference in nationality.

The only thing she can't do is refuse to allow a father the right to share in custody of the child without good reason. But in the scenario he posited the father isn't interested in helping raise the child. If he changed his mind afterwards, then he can fight for his parental rights, and that agreement would mean dick.

Similarly if she falls on hard times/changes her mind & decides to demand he help out with child support the agreement ‘would mean dick’.

I don't know that it would in the US, depending on the circumstances. For instance if it was a donation of sperm. In fact my earlier statement may very well have been wrong, as I think in certain states the "contract" could be legally enforced.

[Spin Echo]

Of course she can. The same way a mother can decide not to seek child support from the father.

Legally she can’t, there have been cases involving such ‘contracts’ and they’ve been ruled to be illegal & unenforceable.

A mother can of course choose honour such an agreement & never go after the father for child support but if she falls on hard times & tries to claim benefits chances are the state will go after the father to make him support his child or if alternately she has a change of heart the father & goes to court to demand child support in either case the father will be in for a nasty surprise.

Where? And how does this jive with the existance of sperm banks? How is it also that parents can essentially tell the kid to "fuck off" by signing away their rights and turning them over to the state? I'm guessing this is a difference in nationality..

Unfortunately, it doesn't. There have been cases where sperm donors have been taken to court for child support after the woman's relationship has fallen apart.

[Spin Echo]

Sorry for the double post, but I found the caseI was thinking of:

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court (search) is currently considering a legal appeal that could set a wide-reaching precedent for both child support policy and fertility clinics in the United States.

As one report states, "sperm donors who thought they were getting $50 for their genetic material" — a standard clinic fee — and nothing more may be in for a real shock.

The case involves sperm donor Joel L. McKiernan (search) and his former lover Ivonne V. Ferguson (search). Ten years ago, they entered a verbal contract that a three-judge panel of the Superior Court said was valid "on its face." In exchange for McKiernan donating sperm that led to the birth of twins through in vitro fertilization, Ferguson released him from any obligation toward the offspring.

(IVF involves fertilizing a woman's eggs with sperm in a lab dish and then placing the fertilized eggs back in the aspiring mother's uterus.)

Ferguson denies that an agreement to release McKiernan from responsibility ever existed. Nevertheless, she named her ex-husband as "father" on the birth certificate. Five years after the twins' birth, she filed against McKiernan for child support.


The tangled personal circumstances of this situation constitute a legal nightmare and the sort of "hard" case that makes bad law. And bad law is exactly what may result.

Both the trial court and the Superior Court called Ferguson's actions "despicable" and expressed sympathy toward McKiernan. Yet both found him liable to pay over $1,500 a month in child support plus arrearages to the now-divorced Ferguson. (McKiernan has married, moved, and now has two other children he is raising.)

Why was McKiernan considered liable? The original contract was deemed unenforceable due to "legal, equitable and moral principles." The main abrogating principle: Biological parents cannot waive the interests of a child — a third party — who has an independent "right" to support from each one of them.

It does not matter that a third party did not exist when the contract was forged and probably would have never existed without the contract. Nor does it matter that the law generally presumes a husband to be the father of any child born during the marriage. The donation of sperm alone makes McKiernan financially liable for the twins until they reach adulthood.

Or it will, if he loses the Supreme Court appeal, which weighs the extent of a sperm donor's liability. Presumably, the ruling would equally impact women who donate eggs for another's fertility treatment.

Pennsylvania, like most states, has not adopted a version of the Uniform Parentage Act, which protects sperm or egg donors from the responsibilities of parenthood. Many — if not most — donors merely presume that anonymity provides such protection.

In the case of Ferguson v. McKiernan, the identity of the sperm donor was always known. But the principle sustained by the courts could apply with equal force to anonymous donors.

Ferguson's attorney argued that her case did not threaten sperm banks or fertility clinics because such facilities had not been involved. McKiernan's attorney noted that the contract in question was virtually identical to the ones they offer: namely, anonymity or non-involvement in exchange for a donation. If a mother or father cannot waive the "right" of a potential child to support, then it is not clear how a fertility clinic could do so in its capacity as a broker for profit between the two "parents."

The danger this precedent would pose was expressed by Arthur Caplan, a professor and medical ethicist at the University of Pennsylvania. Caplan explained that anyone who donates genetic material on the basis of anonymity "ought to understand that their identity could be made known to any child that's produced and they could be seen by the courts as the best place to go to make sure the child has adequate financial support." The prospect becomes more likely if one parent is requesting support from a government agency.

Sperm banks are legally required to maintain a record of each donor's identity, often indefinitely.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Judge Ronald D. Castille was more blunt than Caplan in his assessment of the risk that donations would cease. "What man in their right mind would agree to that [sperm donation] if we decide this case in your favor? Nobody." What woman in her right mind would donate eggs?

Estimates on infertility in the United States vary but the rate is often placed at about 15 percent, even without including gay and lesbian couples. That is, 15 percent of couples fail to conceive after one year of regular, unprotected intercourse. If miscarriages are factored in, the rate increases.

According to Dr. Cappy Rothman of the California Cryobank, an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 artificial inseminations occur every year in the U.S. And that is only one form of infertility treatment. Though these procedures are usually performed using the sperm and eggs of the couple hoping to conceive, the use of donated sperm and eggs is a common solution to infertility.

If the Pennsylvania Supreme Court finds the sperm donor to be liable for child support, then many forms of infertility treatment in most states could become less available and more expensive. Those donors who step forward will want to be compensated for their increased legal risk.

The courts have pitted a child's "best interests" against the rights of biological parents to contract with each other on the terms of reproduction. They may have also opened a Pandora's box of complications involving a child's claim on a sperm donor's data and wealth.

But the worst consequence may be the denial of life itself to children who are desperately wanted by infertile couples. The law should not obstruct their chances of conceiving.

[Plekhanov]

Where?

I think pretty much through the west, the US & UK for sure.

And how does this jive with the existance of sperm banks? How is it also that parents can essentially tell the kid to "fuck off" by signing away their rights and turning them over to the state? I'm guessing this is a difference in nationality.

Sperm banks are a special case with anonymous sperm donors specifically freed from any obligations to any offspring created with the sperm they donate. Children produced through sperm donated informally are in the eyes of the law no different from those resulting from intercourse.

The point of this exception is obviously to enable wanted children to be created through the use of donated sperm to assist those with fertility problems. This is fundamentally different from giving reluctant fathers the ability to arbitrarily cut off unplanned children.

I don't know that it would in the US, depending on the circumstances. For instance if it was a donation of sperm. In fact my earlier statement may very well have been wrong, as I think in certain states the "contract" could be legally enforced.

I’d be rather surprised if you could find an examples of that, If you look up the page you’ll see I’ve provided examples of such agreements being dismissed as unenforceable.

[Norade]

I voted yes, for one reason that is a fairly limited and special case.

Say a couple have been discussing having a baby, the man says no and the woman says yes. They fight a while and all seems forgotten. Up until now she has been on the pill, but after the fight she decides to go the pill so she can have a child anyway figuring that once she's pregnate her husband will change his mind.

The man finds out she pregrnate and asks her to have a abortion, she says she won't. In this case would the man be justified in leaving without paying for the child?

[Flagg]

I voted yes, for one reason that is a fairly limited and special case.

Say a couple have been discussing having a baby, the man says no and the woman says yes. They fight a while and all seems forgotten. Up until now she has been on the pill, but after the fight she decides to go the pill so she can have a child anyway figuring that once she's pregnate her husband will change his mind.

The man finds out she pregrnate and asks her to have a abortion, she says she won't. In this case would the man be justified in leaving without paying for the child?

No dipshit, because it's not about them, it's about the kid. How fucking hard is that to understand?

[Plekhanov]

I voted yes, for one reason that is a fairly limited and special case.

Say a couple have been discussing having a baby, the man says no and the woman says yes. They fight a while and all seems forgotten. Up until now she has been on the pill, but after the fight she decides to go the pill so she can have a child anyway figuring that once she's pregnate her husband will change his mind.

The man finds out she pregrnate and asks her to have a abortion, she says she won't. In this case would the man be justified in leaving without paying for the child?

This hypothetical is complicated somewhat by the fact that no form of contraception is 100% effective.

[Darth Holbytlan]

Still no. Every time a man and woman have sex, there is a risk of pregnancy. Birth control can fail, and sabotage is a kind of failure. The support is still a right of the child, not the mother, and is still owed. Besides, the man can sabotage birth control as well—he can stick a pin through the condoms.

[Norade]

I voted yes, for one reason that is a fairly limited and special case.

Say a couple have been discussing having a baby, the man says no and the woman says yes. They fight a while and all seems forgotten. Up until now she has been on the pill, but after the fight she decides to go the pill so she can have a child anyway figuring that once she's pregnate her husband will change his mind.

The man finds out she pregrnate and asks her to have a abortion, she says she won't. In this case would the man be justified in leaving without paying for the child?

No dipshit, because it's not about them, it's about the kid. How fucking hard is that to understand?

That's true enough, but it seems to me that the guy gets the shaft in all this. I mean he has little say in things after the deed and even if he had no intention of having a child, and would have aborted had he been the one impregnated he is forced to pay. It just seems like there should be some cases where the man should be able to walk away to an extent, but like you said this isn't really about he man at that point it's about the child...

[Darth Wong]

That's true enough, but it seems to me that the guy gets the shaft in all this.

Whereas under your superior plan, the child gets the shaft, and he totally deserves it for being born to a woman who was not honest with her guy. Right? Can I get an "amen brother" from the "self-centred prick" demographic?

[Norade]

I admit that the child should come first, but at the same time a man should have some voice. I mean sure he doesn't have to deal with nine months and pregnancy or give birth, but he shouldn't be slapped with 'Well she decided to have he child so your footing the bill now'. I honestly don't think there's a better way to do things though so I concede that the man should pay his share for the child.

[Covenant]

This is an interesting question. I voted yes, but I'm considering adoption a version of opting out of childrasing. I consider it a valid form of giving up a child (technically, one could do this before the child is born) and I would consider that both parents have an equal right to raise the child on their own. I suppose if the Dad really wanted a kid, and the mom was a flake, he could take it on his own.

If we're talking about ways to end the pregnancy... I don't think the mother or father should consider an abortion a form of birth control, so while it's certainly legal to get an abortion just because you were dumb, I wouldn't consider it exactly admirable.

However, the argument seems framed around the idea of some kind of drunken fratboy night of passion on a washing machine in which he bones a girl and gets her pregnant, and she decides to have it and he wants to walk away.

In that case I would say no, he can't just opt out of his legal responsibility even if he has no responsibility to actually marry the woman and be the kid's father.

As was stated, the man who fathered the child has no rights or responsibilites to the kid of he decides to opt-out of their life... but he does need to send his silly little check to support them. While this is certainly not an ideal system, it's more ideal than a 'no fault' walkaway right by any Casanova who likes it bareback.

It may not be perfectly fair, but it's certainly more fair. I think it is far easier to justify a disincentive against casual sex than it is to justify the walkaway.

So while I voted yes, on the idea that they do have an equal right to just opt out of the kid's life, I'd say that they both have very little right to do that. The difference is that if the woman chooses to opt-out, she can do it one of several ways. The douche way that the dad does, ie, abandonment. The adoption way, in which case she needs to bring it to term. Or the abortion way, which removes the needs and rights of the third party by removing the third party.

Since a Dad can't abort his half, he can't control if or if not the kid is actually born. If the child isn't going to be born, it's out of his hands either way he feels. If it is, then he has no right to abandon a living child--even if it's not a child yet.

It's complicated in that sense. The Mother and Father entities have a responsibility to the Child, but the woman controls the womb. It's the trump card in the decision.

So yeah, it may seem that the guy has an unfairly out-of-his-hands situation here when it comes to what he does with his life, but it's not. It's an -equal- responsibility. The only unfair part about it is that he's not the one able to choose the third option and abort.

[Flagg]

I admit that the child should come first, but at the same time a man should have some voice. I mean sure he doesn't have to deal with nine months and pregnancy or give birth, but he shouldn't be slapped with 'Well she decided to have he child so your footing the bill now'. I honestly don't think there's a better way to do things though so I concede that the man should pay his share for the child.

When a man sticks his penis into a womans vagina and is not 100% sure of his and/or her sterility, then he's taking the chance that about 9 months down the line he's going to be responsible for a human life. That's really all there is to it.

[Flagg]

Where?

I think pretty much through the west, the US & UK for sure.

And how does this jive with the existance of sperm banks? How is it also that parents can essentially tell the kid to "fuck off" by signing away their rights and turning them over to the state? I'm guessing this is a difference in nationality.

Sperm banks are a special case with anonymous sperm donors specifically freed from any obligations to any offspring created with the sperm they donate. Children produced through sperm donated informally are in the eyes of the law no different from those resulting from intercourse.

The point of this exception is obviously to enable wanted children to be created through the use of donated sperm to assist those with fertility problems. This is fundamentally different from giving reluctant fathers the ability to arbitrarily cut off unplanned children.

I don't know that it would in the US, depending on the circumstances. For instance if it was a donation of sperm. In fact my earlier statement may very well have been wrong, as I think in certain states the "contract" could be legally enforced.

I’d be rather surprised if you could find an examples of that, If you look up the page you’ll see I’ve provided examples of such agreements being dismissed as unenforceable.

Well, I'll defer to your knowledge in this area because I don't know enough about the law concerning it and am not curious enough about it to look it up.

[Surlethe]

I admit that the child should come first, but at the same time a man should have some voice. I mean sure he doesn't have to deal with nine months and pregnancy or give birth, but he shouldn't be slapped with 'Well she decided to have he child so your footing the bill now'.

The reason you say this, if I might hazard a guess, is because intuitively you feel that it's simply not fair to the guy to have to pay for his girlfriend/wife/partner/one-night-stand's dishonesty. Well, there's a simple way of dealing with that intuitive objection: life really isn't fair. For example, it's also not fair that you were born in a first world country or upper-class family and don't have to worry about where your next meal will come from.

[Molyneux]

I admit that the child should come first, but at the same time a man should have some voice. I mean sure he doesn't have to deal with nine months and pregnancy or give birth, but he shouldn't be slapped with 'Well she decided to have he child so your footing the bill now'.

The reason you say this, if I might hazard a guess, is because intuitively you feel that it's simply not fair to the guy to have to pay for his girlfriend/wife/partner/one-night-stand's dishonesty. Well, there's a simple way of dealing with that intuitive objection: life really isn't fair. For example, it's also not fair that you were born in a first world country or upper-class family and don't have to worry about where your next meal will come from.

Bullshit. Life is fair without tempering of mercy or justice. It's just not nice.

To be more on-topic: if the father were able to prove that the woman engaged in such dishonest behavior, there should be legal repercussions for the mother. They must not, however, apply to the child. As for exactly what penalties could be applied...damned if I know. Any ideas?