You called the legislation bullshit and suggested that people who support it have cynical motivations. You suggested that more immediate consequences, like the bill proposes, will not influence the behavior of anyone.
I see the legislation as a really good idea. I wish I had thought of it. Even if it is reactionary in nature, our reactions are sometimes what push us towards better ideas and actions.
The way I see it, if you’re against something like this, which you seem to be, you’re against something that would generally and quite obviously benefit society without any real drawbacks that I can think of.
In other words, you’re sticking up for the deadbeat dads, all of whom would be against legislation like this. Who besides deadbeat dads would be against this?
Post a quote where I stated I am against it. Questioning the motives behind it and the potential effectiveness (or lack there of) of it, doesn’t mean I support deadbeat dads.
The idea that a deadbeat father would suddenly not be a deadbeat father because he will be ordered to pay something he was already going to be ordered to pay, only sooner, is nonsensical. What if the man turns out to not be the father? Does he get that money back with interest? There are men who believed they were the biological father and supported who they were told were their kids who, upon finding out they weren’t the biological fathers have had to continue paying support via court orders.
How would you quantify it? Also, does this mean a pregnant woman can get welfare benefits for a child before it is born? How about an increase in foodstamps? I would think conservatives would think about the cost to tax payers.
Dude, you just wrote this a few minutes ago.
To sincerely answer some of your questions…
Sounds good to me.
This bill does not limit their options for recourse. Of course they should have recourse.
In dire circumstances, yes. I think this bill will help limit the number of dire circumstances that materialize in the first place.
Again, I see no real negative whatsoever to the ideas being advanced by this bill. Men need to be guided towards responsible masculine behavior, and I have no problems with using the law to do so.
That’s what the law is for.
1 Like
I’m sorry I suggested you support deadbeat dads, zecarlo. I know you don’t.
Bring stronger arguments next time, instead of knee-jerk contrarianism.
1 Like
I prefer legislation that effectively addresses issues rather than gestures for political theater. The goal should be the reduction of unwanted pregnancies and this proposal does nothing in that regard. It doesn’t discourage women from getting pregnant and it won’t stop men from engaging in risky sexual behavior. Telling a man that a consequence of his behavior will be paying child support has worked how well so far? This proposal does nothing but potentially add nine months while creating a bunch of other issues. How many men get accused of being fathers when they aren’t? This is another case of family court taking a man’s rights away as he can pay for something before there is evidence that he is “guilty.”
I don’t believe the courts should have the power to demand child support payments if a man has not signed an acknowledgment of paternity or had a dna test to determine paternity. It is almost impossible for a man to get falsely obtained child support back. If they want to add nine months of support after paternity has been established, then fine, I doubt it will make a difference to a deadbeat father but whatever, but to demand support prior to paternity being established seems like government overreach.
1 Like
I’m fine with carve-outs and recourse for men who’ve been wronged. Even if there is reactionary political theater involved in the policy, that doesn’t render the policy invalid.
This bill is about much more than political theater, in my opinion. This bill is about the idea that making a new human is a two-person commitment that begins rather suddenly, and so do the consequences. That is ALWAYS true whether this law passes or not. That’s just the nature of human reproduction.
This is a really great idea for a law. I see no real drawbacks when applying this rule to a society as a whole. I realize some dude somewhere will get the shaft by his ex-lover somehow, but that’s always going to be the case. Always has been, always will be. That’s no reason to not pass common-sense parenting control laws.
If they haven’t addressed this already, why now? When you pay child support that you shouldn’t have, you can only get future relief, not past relief.
And it has always been true legally. This just changes the date of when financial responsibility kicks in. Banning guns won’t stop murder and making a guy’s responsibility begin nine months earlier won’t stop him from having sex.
This has nothing to do with parenting. Making a father pay an extra nine months of child support won’t make him a better father. It certainly won’t make him a dad.
He doesn’t even need to have been an ex lover. What’s to stop a woman from claiming a wealthy individual is the father just because she knows he has money and he will have to pay?
Why don’t we force marriage, instead of child support?
What happens if an already married man gets another woman pregnant?
Then, I would think, child support to one or the other is appropriate.
That’s how it is already.
I guess we have it taken care of, in the case of a married man knocking up a woman who is not his spouse. Thanks for pointing that out, zecarlo.
I don’t think it’s the worst thing ever. It probably wouldn’t go well for many people, but it’s also not bad to avoid committing an act that can lead to the creation of human life with a person you might not find admirable in any way except for their physical appearance. Maybe people would be more choosy with who they sleep with if they knew they might get stuck with them for longer than one night.
This will never happen though.
3 Likes
As long as the child support awarded during pregnancy (or in general but that’s another matter) is not income based I see no issues with this.
May I ask what your thoughts are on father’s not paying child support when they have a much higher income than the mother but instead having custody of the child?
To me it makes little sense to have the primary caretaker of a child be someone who cannot afford to raise a child and have the other parent pay support when you could just have the parent who can support the child actually raising the child. Would put an end to women claiming child support from high income men just to live better.
2 Likes
How can the father take custody of the child before it is born? Even if that’s what ultimately happens, the father should still be in the hook for supporting the child in the womb.
Apologies I meant once born.
I agree in principle but what support does a child in the womb really require? The money would be going to the mother. I think it would be a good idea as long as it’s a fixed amount which does not depend on the father’s income