https://x.com/johndavisjdllm/status/1941286898967904678?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
This is an interesting topic. The Pro-Abortion crowd insist that the "woman" (a term they can't define) has total and complete control of the decision to end the life of her child. The father of the child, clearly has no say in the decision, even if the father wants to raise the child. So, if the mother decides to keep the child without consulting or ignoring the father, should the father be obligated to pay child support for the next 18 years?
https://x.com/divinelydesined/status/1941473178116870446?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
" The argument for Intelligent Design & Creation is NOT "I don't understand, therefore God." It's the opposite. We know exactly how chemistry works and we know exactly what makes biological systems function. We know that chemistry does not naturally move in a life friendly direction without explicit, highly controlled conditions and extreme intelligent guidance. And we know biological systems function based on highly sophisticated interconnected systems, requiring a specific number of engineered parts to function properly. We know nature cannot engineer these systems through sheer chance and step-by-step natural processes. Natural Selection only works if each part of the system has function at each step - but none of the parts function outside the complete system. The systems in life require intentional planning & intelligent guidance. The argument for Creation is based on what we know about how the world works - not what we don't."
16 comments:
1. I recommend men keeping it in their pants. That would clear up a lot of discussion over children which then would not exist in the first place. A tough ask, for sure. Nonetheless...
2. The "God of the gaps" argument is pretty tiresome and was always a weak rejoinder to those of faith without all the facts at hand. But the "sciencey" types have their own version by suggesting science just hasn't found "it" yet.
While I completely agree that not engaging in the activity that produces children is the best possible choice, I am sympathetic to the argument that the mother should not be able to force the father to financially support the child born because of her unilateral choice.
Yes, it's a bad argument. Made worse because the evolution supporters have their own version of it (Essentially time/chance of the gaps)
I would argue that the biological father should not whine about being forced, regardless of the selfishness of the biological mother. He willfully engaged in the behavior designed to bring about new life and is thus responsible for the support and care of that child, even if not allowed to share the child's experiences. I would prefer the law would rather force the mother to leave some access to the child open to the father, should he wish to be in his child's life, but I'm not sympathetic to men who father a child and then think they shouldn't have to financially contribute to the child's support just because he's barred from access to the child.
It sucks for the child to be put in the middle of the selfishness of its parents. I don't care which of the parents is more put out than the other.
In a perfect world, I would agree. In this world, where the father gets zero say in what happens to the child before it is born, for a mother to retroactively demand that he pay for her unilateral decision seems egregious at best.
I think that we're talking about two different things here.
I'm suggesting that the mother cutting the father out of the abortion decision, then deciding that he should have to pay for her unilateral choice is wrong. Either women are the sole decision makers or they are not. I'm not talking about the broader subject of men who abandon their children unilaterally. This is less about child support and more about agency and responsibility.
I agree with you, in theory, that a man should be willing to support his child financially. I also agree that if the man has to pay for the kid, he should have as much access to the kid as possible (within limits, i.e. not is he's a pedo or something).
Obviously it sucks for the child. We have ample evidence that the mere presence of a father in a child's life increases the child's chances for success as an adult. In only there was some sort of societal framework that was designed to provide children with two parents and to let the father take financial responsibility.
I don't disagree with you, yet I think that the question of autonomy and retroactively demanding that others take financial responsibility for unilateral decisions is a somewhat different conversation.
I'll go further and suggest that every request for child support should require a DNA/paternity test.
The problem is that a woman bearing a child is NOT a unilateral choice. The man had to be there to make her pregnant and therefore should be at least responsible for child support payments. Art is 100% correct in that.
Glenn, I understand that you are speaking generally, based on the mores that were common years ago. As I said, I agree with that. However, we live in a world that insists that the prerogative of ending a pregnancy is 100% at the whim of the woman, with the man having no significant input. IF this is the case, as it currently is, then the man has been taken out of the decision making loop entirely. Hell, y'all are assuming that he even knows.
I'm offering a simple if/then proposition, which makes some sense given the current situation. If the woman cuts the man out ENTIRELY from the decision, then she forfeits or limits her ability to get him to pay for the kid for 18/21 years.
I personally don't agree with it, but I see the logic. As noted, a father present is very important for children, and a DNA test should be mandatory. As WK writes about all too often, we live in a society that is anti men in many ways when it comes to family issues.
Cal me crazy, but I believe that personal responsibility for unilateral individual choices carries consequences.
One last thought. We are all looking at this through the lens of our Christian faith, and upbringing. The very notion of fathering a child and abandoning the child goes against our long held belief system. But we are talking about non believers in a largely post Christian society. It seems strange to expect them to behave honorably and as a Christian, in the society we have now.
This such a multfaceted issue, that taking a stance on one facet necessarily impacts others. My intention was to isolate a single facet, that of a biological father's responsibility to his own child. I don't believe it is contingent upon access to the child he fathered. Naturally, I would prefer an otherwise "good" man be involved in the raising of the child he fathered to whatever degree allowed by law. And with regard to this point, I don't even care whether or not the biological mother is a feminist asshole pretending she has full control over the situation which wouldn't have occurred without the participation of the father she wickedly blocks from ongoing participation in the life of the child.
Not to brag, but my limited experience with fornication prior to my marriage recognized exactly what I was doing, the potential repercussions and my responsibilities thereto. I ended a relationship when informed I had no say in the life of a child we conceived together, and I was prepared (emotionally, if not fiscally) to do the right thing by any child I fathered.
So, no...I do not think the "mother's" position is of any value with regard to the responsibilities of the father. No father should walk away or feel at liberty to do so if the "mother" acts like an ass.
OK...I would agree that the woman shouldn't have full authority to not only cut the man out of the picture, but nonetheless force him to pay. I prefer the man ignore all of that and reject any focus on the "force" and instead happily send checks to his own child's welfare. I would like to see the law force the woman to open an account dedicated to the child's welfare only in which money from the father would go.
I do like the mandatory DNA testing.
I don't think it's too much to expect a father to support his child. Regardless of the dude's belief system, he must be made to do so at least financially as a minimum. The DNA testing should be his cost, too, if it determines he's the father, and the mother's cost if it eliminates him as not being the father.
Art, now we're more on the same page. As I see it, it's got to be both/and. The woman has to partner with the man in the decision, and the man needs to partner with the woman to support the child. I like the idea of the man's support going into a third party managed account to prevent misuse.
What baffles me is that you would think that society could come up with some arrangement that would accommodate both sides of this issue and provide the means to formalize this relationship. Well, maybe someday...
Yeah, given the number of dudes on the hook for another dude's kid, I'd demand it before I agreed to anything.
Of course you don't. You were brought up in a culture where a father's responsibility for children was the norm, and where two parent families were the majority. Yet, not all societies share those fundamental underpinnings. We were raised to value things our current society disdains.
I have no problem with assigning the DNA testing costs being born as you suggest. Here's a crazy notion, make DNA testing before discharge mandatory for single mothers so that they have the results of the child's DNA and only need the DNA from the potential father?
FYI, one of the hallmarks of early Christianity is that it worked against the Roman practice of children being disposable. Early Christians saved children left to die in the elements because the father didn't want the child. This notion of children being highly valued isn't necessarily universal.
"What baffles me is that you would think that society could come up with some arrangement that would accommodate both sides of this issue and provide the means to formalize this relationship. Well, maybe someday..."
LOL! The way I hear it, there used to be such a thing!
I entered my relationship with my wife shortly after her divorce. Her daughters were 3 and 1 years old at the time. They're now 45 and 42, each with two daughters of their own. While the putz...now just about totally disowned by the girls, as well as by their half-sister from his second marriage...did pay his child support (not always regularly, but mostly so), I wasn't against helping out throughout their lives, knowing that "our" money (the income from the fetching Mrs. Marshal Art together with mine) was used for whatever was needed beyond his not-always-reliably-punctual child support payments. I love them like they're my own so I never felt "on the hook", but had the putz totally split, it would have been better for all, as his weekend time with the girls was not especially beneficial for them, and less so as they got older. He's a sad case.
It's too bad the kids always pay the real price.
It is a multifaceted issue, which is why this post dealt with only one facet of the issue. The facet I chose to focus on was the facet of the complete and total autonomy of the woman around the decision to abort. If the woman wants total and complete autonomy, then she should be prepared to face the consequences of her choices and accept the responsibility for those consequences.
FYI, absent rape, woman always is the one who makes the choice. The problem with pro-choice as a mantra is that it ignores every other choice involved until it's time to abort.
I'll simply repeat that we were raised in a different time and with different sensibilities about this topic.
I will note the hypocrisy of a woman (really anyone) demanding full, complete, and total autonomy over herself while simultaneously demanding that others fund the results of her choices.
Who knew that there was an arrangement like that?
Post a Comment