|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 15, @03:50PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Dan,
320,000 a month, times 12 months times 20 years equals 76 million, eight-hundred thousand dollars. Thats about 6.3 billion short of his full fortune. Unless I'm missing something?
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 15, @03:52PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
It's about 6.4 billion short. I was off by a cool hundred million.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's see, when they met he was 68 and she was 20. Oh yeah, this guy is smart. Real smart. I'm sorry it is hard for me to drum up sympathy. The daughter is entitled to live at or reasonably near the lifestyle level of the highest earning parent.
The only thing I would do, if I were the judge, is to require joint custody.
Another idea. Why not average the two incomes/net worth of both parties, and require each parent to meet the average in support. For example, let's say by averaging the two incomes/worth of both parties that $300,000/month is level of spending the child would have gotten had the parents not divorced. Then (at their combined level) each is required to contribute the percentage of that amount based on the ratio of of each others income/worth. So if he is 5:1 times wealthier than she he would pay 80% and she 20% of that sum. So he contributes $240,000/month and she contributes $60,000/month towards the cost of living (at that level of living averaged by her parents cost of living).
All this assumes mandatory joint custody (and I mean joint physical care at the same level). If he declines joint custody, his payment should go up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's see, when they met he was 68 and she was 20. Oh yeah, this guy is smart. Real smart. I'm sorry it is hard for me to drum up sympathy. The daughter is entitled to live at or reasonably near the lifestyle level of the highest earning parent.
You'd think that any old man could spot a golddigger, but sometimes people let their hearts and loins get in the way of their heads.
Nevertheless, it occurs to me that this woman (who contractually cannot get spousal support from the old man) probably wants that child support to support her own lifestyle rather than the child's.
I say that judge should allow the old man to put money in an UTMA (Uniform Transfer to Minors Act) of which his child is the owner and he is the custodian. The mother couldn't touch a dime of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry about the gross mathmatical error. I'll refrain from posting at 1 am from now on.
"Let's see, when they met he was 68 and she was 20. Oh yeah, this guy is smart. Real smart. I'm sorry it is hard for me to drum up sympathy. The daughter is entitled to live at or reasonably near the lifestyle level of the highest earning parent. "
Sympathy is not the point and child birth should not give one parent a percentage of the another parents income purely based on that birth.
"The only thing I would do, if I were the judge, is to require joint custody."
Joint custody should be the basis of all judgements regardless of physical arrangements. A father should not be penalized if he chooses to work more and the women chooses to sit on her butt.
"Another idea. Why not average the two incomes/net worth of both parties, and require each parent to meet the average in support. For example, let's say by averaging the two incomes/worth of both parties that $300,000/month is level of spending the child would have gotten had the parents not divorced. Then (at their combined level) each is required to contribute the percentage of that amount based on the ratio of of each others income/worth. So if he is 5:1 times wealthier than she he would pay 80% and she 20% of that sum. So he contributes $240,000/month and she contributes $60,000/month towards the cost of living (at that level of living averaged by her parents cost of living). "
No, she in no way should be entitled to a percentage. He was paying a more than reasonable amount freely. Child support is for the sole purpose of supporting the child. Both parent maintain a home for the child durring their time with the child. So any additional cost sould not include basic living expenses unless one party is having a hardship and can't provide the basics.
Expenses such as Medical issurance should be split between the two parties. Including travel expenses, donations to charity, toys and such are simply not responable nor required costs and he should in no way be responsible for them. Travel cost for visitation would be the only reasonable cost.
"All this assumes mandatory joint custody (and I mean joint physical care at the same level). If he declines joint custody, his payment should go up."
Parenting costs should be 50/50 unless a hardship exists, none does in this case. Both parties have the ability to support this child. So her paying only 20% and him 80% is again, unreasonable.
In a short term marriage, she is not entittled to live at the standard established during the marriage for the rest of her life.
The main point here should be obvious. Greed, not the best interest of the child is the motivation that drives most child support complains.
When the two parties are both of equal income, 25% is typically redistibuted to the custodial parent under this rediculous presumption that it benefits the child, creating a hardship for the non-custodial parent that is purely barbaric.
Declining custody should not affect the amount he pays. This is irrelevant anyway, he has willing financial supported this child beyond reason.
Family courts should have no say in cases where the child in financially sound. Only when the child is not, should they be allowed. The way these awards work now, they are nothing short of extortion and a means of redistributing wealth from men to women.
Quite frankly, if the women can't support the child on her own, she should give the child up to the father if he can provide a better home. Otherwise, give the child up to someone that can.
If this woman married a man worth $20 billion tomorrow, she'd still try to leech of the father of her child and that is simply WRONG.
If she were truely a carring parent, which she is not. She would be asking him to contribute to a trust for the child and not feeding her own selfish greed.
Dan Curry
DanCurry.Com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dan, this is obvioulsy a different situation from most cases given the amount of money involved. Even so, I think the child IS entitled to a standard of living the average of both parents. By laws of mathematics, that meand the higher income parent will be paying more towads the costs.
In regular custody cases, I do feel the custodial parent should be given more money over and above simple daily living expenses. That parent is forfeiting time he/she could be making money and/or increasing his/her ability to get a higher salary. Its a simple time=money equation.
That is why I favor joint custody. Then the time=money aspect becomes clear to all parties and the true value of hands-on child care vs. paid work is laid out in the open, not swept under the rug.
In any case I don't think you can compare this case with regular custody cases, though the basic concept is the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That parent is forfeiting time he/she could be making money and/or increasing his/her ability to get a higher salary. Its a simple time=money equation.
And what about the NCP, who is often *forced* to forfeit time and bonding with the child? Can't put a price on that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nightmist. Agreed. There is no price. That's why I favor rebuttal presumption of joint physical custody (RPJPC). If it were equal, then parents could adjust the time/money equation how they see fit. If they could not agree the default would be 50/50.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Dan, this is obvioulsy a different situation from most cases given the amount of money involved. Even so, I think the child IS entitled to a standard of living the average of both parents. By laws of mathematics, that meand the higher income parent will be paying more towads the costs. "
Actually, there is little difference between this case and most Child Support orders.
By law of common sense, both parents provide a home for the child and there is no justification for the NCP to subsidize the CP for their half of the cost of providing a home for the child.
"In regular custody cases, I do feel the custodial parent should be given more money over and above simple daily living expenses. That parent is forfeiting time he/she could be making money and/or increasing his/her ability to get a higher salary. Its a simple time=money equation. "
There are a few exception, such as child care(babysitter), medical expenses and such that should be split, but one is usually provided by the parents employer and neither should be given directly to the other parent. What it seems you are saying is you think that the CP should be compensated purely for being the CP (female). But if access to the child is equal, then that is not justifiable unless the CP is willing to compensate the NCP for care provided while he is parenting. They cancel each other out.
Even when they are not equal, it's still unfair to penalize a parent that has less time to spend with the child. In most cases, the mother drives the father away anyhow. Penalizing mothers for not giving the father full access would ensure she does not gain financial from keeping the father away.
"That is why I favor joint custody. Then the time=money aspect becomes clear to all parties and the true value of hands-on child care vs. paid work is laid out in the open, not swept under the rug. "
See, here again, you say joint custody but you don't take into account the "Hands-on" child care of the NCP. You apparently see caring for the child as a burden requiring monetary compensation, not an honor requiring parental pride.
"In any case I don't think you can compare this case with regular custody cases, though the basic concept is the same. "
Contradiction.
Dan Curry
DanCurry.Com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
____"That is why I favor joint custody. Then the time=money aspect becomes clear to all parties and the true value of hands-on child care vs. paid work is laid out in the open, not swept under the rug. " Lorianne
____"See, here again, you say joint custody but you don't take into account the "Hands-on" child care of the NCP. You apparently see caring for the child as a burden requiring monetary compensation, not an honor requiring parental pride." Dan
No I do not see it as a "burden". It is a simple equation. Time spent with the child is time that could be spent making money or increasing one's capacity to make money. Also, being a CP present other impediments to employment that the NCP doesn't have, such as having to take of work unexpectantly when the child is sick and not being able to do extra work or outside work tasks with little notice (because you can't arrange childcare) or being able to fly off for an impromtu business meeting that was decided on at 3 pm on Friday. All this makes the CP a less valuable or reliable employess, which directly affects his/her earning potential, may even jeopardize his/her job as the most valuable/flexible people will not be let go in a downturn. In addition a CP has much less time to do business networking after hours or to get more education both of which affect future earning/employement prospects. Being a CP has a monetary cost that being a NCP does not.
There is no emotionalism to it, not sex roles. The time=money equation works the same no matter who is CP or NCP.
The emotionalism comes into play only with the concept of being kept from being with the child. Joint physical custody would solve both these issues, however. Both would have to sacrifice some money/career prospects to be 50% involved with hands-on childcare. Both would have to sacrifice some time with the child to make money.
Joint physical custody is fair all around as far as I can see. It has some practicle bugs to be worked out, sure, but in terms of fairness, it's better than the system we have now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure Moo will spend every last dime of that money on precious little Ugleigh. She wouldn't dream of spending any of it on herself, now would she? A motherrrrrrrr would never do something like that.
I'd better just stop right there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's see, when they met he was 68 and she was 20. Oh yeah, this guy is smart. Real smart. I'm sorry it is hard for me to drum up sympathy.
Do you think that it's stupid for a 68 year old man to want to have sex with a beautiful young woman?
You'd think that any old man could spot a golddigger, but sometimes people let their hearts and loins get in the way of their heads.
What's wrong with digging for gold? Gold digging literally played a key role in American history, and the quest for money is an important engine in a market economy.
The daughter is entitled to live at or reasonably near the lifestyle level of the highest earning parent. [revised to average lifestyle level of parents]
What is the basis for this "principle" and the use of coercive government action to enforce it? Isn't its hollowness highlighted in this case of a clearly unplanned pregnancy and an ensuing, coercive one-month marriage? A lot of poor children in LA could benefit from sharing part of a $320k per month "tax" on that rich guy. Why should the government be using coercion to perpetuate gross child welfare inequities?
I think sex-for-money arrangements are demeaning to all parties involved. The question, here, though, is why the "child support" system bears so little relation to any reasonable government scheme for promoting the welfare of all children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What's wrong with digging for gold? Gold digging literally played a key role in American history, and the quest for money is an important engine in a market economy.
So you're not at all opposed to this woman taking advantage of the elderly man's wallet?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think sex-for-money arrangements are demeaning to all parties involved. The question, here, though, is why the "child support" system bears so little relation to any reasonable government scheme for promoting the welfare of all children.
I didn't get the impression that this woman was a prostitute. I got the impression that she is suing the elderly man for child support.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_____"Do you think that it's stupid for a 68 year old man to want to have sex with a beautiful young woman?"
No. But I think it's wrong to co-create a child when you're that old. You're cheating the child already because you're likely going to be dead for the majority of his/her life. IMO it is also wrong to have a child and not expect to share your standard of living with that child.
______"What is the basis for this "principle" [kids living at the standard of their parents] and the use of coercive government action to enforce it?
The basis is that children are not chattel. In our country it is generally assumed the child is entitled to the standard of living of the parents. In a family making $50,000 a year and living in a comfortable house, it is not considered kosher for the parents to live in the house and eat normal food while making the kid live in an unheated shed in the yard and eat dogfood. Even though the "food and shelter" requirement has been met, the standard is relative to that of the parents' living conditions and lifestyle.
___"Isn't its hollowness highlighted in this case of a clearly unplanned pregnancy and an ensuing, coercive one-month marriage?"
The marriage makes no difference. Nor does whether or not the child was planned. The child exists and both parents have an obligation to provide care and support to that child. IMO
___A lot of poor children in LA could benefit from sharing part of a $320k per month "tax" on that rich guy. Why should the government be using coercion to perpetuate gross child welfare inequities?
Consistency. The rich should be subject to the same rules as the unrich.
____"The question, here, though, is why the "child support" system bears so little relation to any reasonable government scheme for promoting the welfare of all children."
I think "the government" DOES have a scheme for promoting the welfare of all children. It's called responsibility. Every parent, rich or poor is charged with the obligation to care and support their child(ren). If we were consistent about this, the welfare of all children would be better ensured.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Nor does whether or not the child was planned. The child exists and both parents have an obligation to provide care and support to that child.IMO"
You ever hear of something called choice for men? I doubt you'd be saying the same about the forcing the nearest woman into motherhood regardless of her wanting the kid or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adam___ Moot point for me as I am pro-Life. Would you have the man just walk out on the child with zero consequences for his actions? This is what I understand choice for men is about, zero consequences.
The two in this case are not squabbling over that issue. The issue is how much. If they can't mutually agree, which they obviously can't, it went to court. Anytime you have to let someone else settle you're differences for you, you've conceeded a loss. There is obviouly more to this story than meets the eye, since the child is not in danger of starving to death or being ill-treated. The judge must have some other justification for the ruling. It might be instructive to find out what that is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Would you have the man just walk out on the child with zero consequences for his actions? This is what I understand choice for men is about, zero consequences."
You understand wrong. C4M is about CHOICE: Something the nearest man has practically none of.
"Justice therefore dictates that if a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support. Or, put another way, autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice."
Karen DeCrow, former NOW President
Why are you so inconsiderate towards the nearest man?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adam___ Being pro-choice I just see it differntly. The underlying assumption is that because someone made something legal someone has to make a choice. With this assumption, it is possible to fault and penalize someone for either "choice". In fact in many cases there is no choice to be made. Many women do not make a "choice" to bring a pregnancy to term because they did not ask for a legal choice to be foisted onto them in the first place. The example I give is ... if the the SC suddenly decided it is legal for a mother to kill a post-natal child, and a mother declines to kill it on moral/ethical grounds, then can the father say he doesn't want to be a parent because the mother had a "choice" to kill the child but didn't?
What Roe v. Wade did was basically to foist a "choice" on someone which implies things that may not be the case. Such as whether or not a mother is able morally/ethically to abort a child. This makes her a concientious objector (rather than a "chooser") to killing, a concept which our military laws even recognize but Choice for Men does not.
This gets into a whole different area and one not relevant to this case from the evidence presented. We do not know for example whether the father wanted this child or not. I'm not averse to debating it but it seems to veer away from the topic to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 15, @10:58PM EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm glad you brought up the idea that choice to abort is hardly a "choice".
I think there are many policies in effect that penalise men in defference to women.
I have been forced out of my children's lives. I live in poverty - $430.00 a month in Canadian funds. The other half is removed from my dissability payments and given to my former wife as part of a property settlement. This property settlement was turned over to the family responsibilities office to collect.
The children are provided for as part of my dissibility package.
She lives in a four bedroom house and drives a mini-van.
The court ruled that she suffered extrodinary expesnses - I went bankrupt.
I lost my job and now share a single room with one other person. I have done this for over two years.
I will live like this for many years to come.
I have not seen my daughter for over five years and my son for over 4 years.
My crime?
The family responsibilites office took nearly two years to get the paper work done before the deductions started to come off of my pay. I got behind about 8,000.00 CDN dollars.
When the deductions finally started I was six months away from being fully caught up. Her lawyer submitted out of date documents to the court and although I had nearly caught up the court demanded the full 8,000 or was I kicked out of the proceedings and all my documentation was stricken from the record.
I couldn't get the money, so all I know was that she was awarded almost 20,000 in extrodinary expenses and I was not allowed to see my son except for two hours on a fiday in a centre for such purposes. the center was an hours drive an I had no car.
So my debt just builds and builds. you see I am still being assesed on my former salary of 50,000 a year, I called the family responsibilities office and they said sorry go get a lawyer.
So when they publish the debts owed to Canadian mothers by delinquent Canadian fathers - you know it is a complete lie.
This is rambling a little I know that. But in light of the complete insanity of the Canadian fammily law system, I am rather coherent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 15, @11:02PM EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
"When the deductions finally started I was six months away from being fully caught up."
this should have read
Six months after the deductions finally started I was six months away from being fully caught up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dan, dan, dan___ We were having a nice civil discussion. Why get personal?
I'll be honest I don't understand the proceedings in anonymous' case. It makes no sense to me. I'm sure there is some injustice there, at the very least tying payment to visitation, but I can't make what is going on from his post. He's disabled and can't work? He mentioned "office" and making payments, so he must be working. ???? It's unclear to me. In any case, his children need and deserve support. Even if he cannot do it, he still (not in a legal sense but a moral one) owes it to the kids he created. Legally, of course, there have to be exceptions to some circmstances, like disablity. I don't think that is at issue. If he can't provide support because he's disabled, then that is an entirely different matter from what we've been discussing previous.
Also, it's not a good debating tactic to tell someone else what they think.
The mathematical calculations were in responsse to the billionaire topic and in relation to RPJPC in general. Niether case apply to anonymous' situation as far as I can tell. We were having those two discussion and then they were abrubtly dropped it in favor of a new post.... anonymous'case which is totally different and I can't even make heads or tails out of frankly. Immediately, my comments regarding the billionaire's case and discussions about the merits of RPJPC, were applied to anonymous'situation.
Out of bounds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 16, @02:11AM EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
I was working, then got disabled.
Now I don't work.
Got accused of sexually abusing my daughter, by my daughter.
No charges, no legal proceedings, police said it was a false allegation.
She kept changing her story.
The counselors (all women) insisted that my daughter had been abused, several of them in fact.
To quote my daughter as per the court record (before I got kicked out of the proceedings),
"I told them that my dad had not sexually abused me, but she [the counselor] said that he had abused me".
Finally at the last court appearance I made the judge (a woman) got quite angry with my x-wife for making a sarcastic remark. The judge said that the case had been in court too long, and that she fully invisioned on of the parties just walking away.
I was finished, done, over and out.
'cept in Canada you can't walk away and start over. Your in, you stay in, and you can simply rot in hell for all they care.
So I do; I rot in hell.
There is more, much more, but it is illegal to disclose, unless you're the woman and then you can show parts of the documents to people at work and to people on the internet, and they can hound you, but you can't do anything about it.
They get to here in Canada one by one, father after father, case after case. It is secret, it is quiet, it is all behind closed doors. And it is all very legal.
They are very good at it here.
Nothing is said out right, nothing is done directly. They take away your peace of mind. They take away your money. They take away your property they take away your children. They take away your well being and sense of safety. They take away your property and your mobility. They indenbture you and take away your dignity, they make it pointless to fight back and in they end they take away your resistance, your desire to stand up for yourself, your sense of worth.
It is a prison without bars, you can vote, you can voice your opinion within limits, but you can't disclose what is going on. That is a garantee of imprisonment. You can't mention the children you can't discuss the proceedings.
Each case must be fought, out of the public eye, case by case, none relating to another each one in isolation, dollar by dollar, long waiting periods in between, until you have no dollars left. Even if you win, you lose, we have no rights, just a silly charter to please the UN.
It is not about justice, it is about politics and nothing more.
I can prove everything I say, and I can show a great deal more than that.
But I would not survive prison, and my death there would not change anything.
So I rot in hell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 16, @08:31AM EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne:
Correct me if I'm wrong but here's how your income-averaging method would seem to apply to this case:
Father's Assets: 6.5 Billion dollars. Income, unknown, possibly none, not needed as selling or converting to cash an insignificant portion would easily set him for life.
Mother's Assets: Both her prior income and assets are unknown. However, it is mentioned she was a pro tennis player. Thus, one could reasonably assume that at one point she made anywhere from 100k to 1 million on her own, yearly. Lets assume that even without the father she would have been making 100k a year on her own, though I hardly think its realistic given the number of years from her retirement.
So we have the average of 100k + an average income of the number of years the father worked. (Once again, he might not even be earning interest income now, and in any case we don't know what it is. A judge would probably work the case this way if the father claimed no income at this point.) I'll say the man worked 50 years of his life. 6.5 billion divided by 50 equals one hundred thirty million dollars. 130 million, one hundred thousand divided by two equals 65 million, fifty thousand dollars.
It works out to daddy paying 65 million dollars.
Mommy has an unenforceable court order to pay fifty thousand, which no one will be monitorning to make sure she does. Daddy is paying 1300 times the amount of money to support their cute lil daughter. (must be weally pwecious for that type of money)
There you go. Am I wrong? Do my assumptions make sense?
And given the facts of this case (he married her though he didn't have to, and all for the child) could you explain just how forcing this man to pay THIS type of money would be fair? And please forget the argument that he wouldn't be paying this much. I'm trying to use your system -- and to prevent the old fart from claiming poverty or "shielding" his riches, I'm looking only at his known assets and worth- rather than trying to figure out his manipulable current yearly income.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 16, @08:46AM EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, and by the way:
The major league baseball average salary is around 600k. Or at least it was a year or two ago, last I looked. I'd do everything short of killing or cheating someone to get that kind of money. And this is the amount he was paying voluntarily!! To compare this to a child living in a shack in the backyard is just so ludicrous.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne,
Do you believe in the equal application of the laws? If so, and you are pro-life, I would think that you have two options:
1 - Oppose abortion by women
2 - Support Choice for Men
When I see you argue against C4M and say, "well I'm pro-choice, so I'm being consistent" it looks like you're deliberately ignoring the fact that women can and often do have abortions. If you really care about the equal protection of the laws, I would imagine that you would focus your energies on one of the two options above. In fact, I know of two people who are pro-life and support the idea of C4M, because they believe it would show society how irresponsible and wrong abortion is, whether it was done by a man or a woman. Their idea is that if the issue got some serious thought by the public, that people would decide to outlaw abortion before giving men reproductive rights. Kind of an interesting take on the matter...
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott, you make a good case for the "what if?" scenario of C4M helping to nudge abortion out of the picture. I'll have to give that one some thought. My gut reaction is that it will have the opposite effect and cause everyone to be more irresponsible. I believe it will compel more abortion.
My biggest problem with C4M is that they take a zero consequences stand on the issue of their reproductive choices. They advocate sex with zero risk for the man. This is an absolutist position that I would have a hard time supporting even if the issue were strictly one of men's rights vs. women's rights. But it is not that simple. There IS a third party (in my view) unborn or born. The forces working on the parents; social, economic, political, and interpersonal (between father and mother) will affect the fate of that 3rd entity. For this reason, a Zero Consequences position in my view is even worse than abortion (something that would be as bad as it gets otherwise). At least with abortion, many women (and men) find out that it's not an easy out, it costs them dearly, and some of the consequences are lifelong. They at least have to THINK about their actions and what it has cost them. With zero consequence comes zero accountability for one's actions, zero motivation to prevent future situations. This is my main objection to C4M's position.
I recognize the legal imbalance. I would like to see father's have a legal say in vetoing abortion (but not in compelling one). However, as I view the legal imbalance as an accessory to a top down burden (rather than a right) placed on women to be the social scapegoats of society, even at the expense of new life... the damned if they do, damned if they don't theory ..... I can't in good conscious lobby for greater ability to increase that original injustice. (Actually, I could support it, except again for that 3rd party, who must pay the greater sacrifice for any avenue of "choice", both abortion and abdication of obligation because abortion exists).
In a nutshell, I don't frame the issue in terms of male "rights" equalling female "rights". (I don't see abortion as a "right" to begin with). To take that position I'd have to ignore the issue of the unborn (as both C4M and pro-Choice does). I cannot do that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lori seems to think that any man involved in a C4M encounter is a heartless being who'll just walk without doubts or any feeling at all. Do you really think the nearest man is like that?
If she's not pulling the knee jerk liberal "it's for the children!" she's pulling a "cathy young"
by reaping the benefits of what the women's movement has "accomplished" over the years but busts a gut keeping the nearest man stuck in his traditional gender role, with no choice whatsoever.
You're something else Lori.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"With zero consequence comes zero accountability for one's actions, zero motivation to prevent future situations. This is my main objection to C4M's position.
Lorianne, there are two other zero consquence/zero accountablility options for CP's. One is to give the child up for adoption. In unmarried situations, the CP can surrender a child for adoption at any time with no say on the part of the NCP.
The other is legal abandonment, which was created precisely to create zero consequences for a parent wishing to become a non-parent.
Do you have a position on these matters consistent with your no-excuses-accepted view of NCP's? How would you create consequences for CP's who would abandon their responsibilities?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Larry___ First off, I don't consider pregnancy/birth and then legal relinquishment to adoption or abandonment in a safe zone as "zero consequence". I fail to see how anyone could. These are all dramatic life altering consequences.
When I speak of zero consequences, I mean for sex and the natural reproductive consequences of sex. What C4M effectively argues for is zero risk and zero consequences for men as a result of any sexual decision/behaviour they make. If their agenda were to became law, men could in theory co-conceive as often as they like with no consequence whatsoever. This is demanding the right to sex with none of the attendent obligations to the child, to the co-parent, to society as a whole.
To answer your other question. I do not believe the child "belongs" to the mother and so do not believe it should be legal for the mother to adopt out the child without the consent of the father. In many states it is not legal.
Re: the safe zone concept, this was set up to save the lives of post-natal babies as an emergency measure, not for the convenience of either parent. It has a lot of problems, but the intent is clear and should not be misconstrued. It's a lesser of two evils type of approach. In fact, very few women (or men) use this when the system is set up. (I can find some data on this if you wish).
I do not think any child should be documented as born to only one parent. This entire minset is part of our larger social problem with illigitimacy. There should always be a father on the legal documentation and it should be verified in cases of contested paternity. No baby should reach his/her 1st birthday without a legally documented father. That should be the goal. It is supremely unfair to the child to strip him/her of half of his/her familial and cultural identity, ancestry, and potential alliances with extended family at birth. it is not just about the father and mother. This issue is larger and goes into whether the child has rights to know his/her grandparents, other siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc.
Likewise, and consistent with this view. I do not believe in secret forever-sealed anonymous adoption or in sealed documentation of one parent. This is too big an issue to go into here, but you can visit many Adoptees Rights websites to get a better understanding the enormity of this issue, the pain it causes in so many lives, and the tireless efforts to get adoption law changed. However, it is all related to this issue at hand tangentially, and you were astute to bring it up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adam___ I am calmly posting my objections to the political agenda of C4M. You should disagree with me if you like but charging me with thoughts I don't have is not a valid discusson technique.
I don't have any negative feelings towards men in general or even the vast majority of men in particular. The vast majority of men, even when I disagree with their political views, are decent upstanding member of society. The kind of polarity you wish to engage in is pointless.
I quite realize I am out of step with most feminists on the issue of abortion. But these are my views. They're not immutable, I'm constantly exploring all sorts of concepts and viewpoints. Despite being conservative onthis issue, I'm not status-quo conservative, I'm always on the lookout for innovative, workable solutions to social problems. I just don't think C4M as I understand their position is a workable solution to the real social problems we have with illigitamcy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C4M starts from the false presumption that everyone agrees that abortion is a valid "choice" and declining to abort is a de facto "choice" to be a parent.
According to recent polls, the C4M concept is built upon a faulty premis:
According to a Gallup poll conducted October 6-9, 2000, Americans are evenly split between those who call themselves pro-choice (47%) and those who are pro-life (45%).
Little Difference Between Men and Women With Respect to Abortion : While many perceive abortion as a women’s issue, men and women are generally similar in terms of their opinions on the issue. In the October 2000 poll, 47% of both men and women said they were pro-choice, and 46% of men and 45% of women said they were pro-life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First off, I don't consider pregnancy/birth and then legal relinquishment to adoption or abandonment in a safe zone as "zero consequence". I fail to see how anyone could. These are all dramatic life altering consequences
I take it here you are speaking of the pain and anguish involved in making such a decision and the life-long consequence of having to live with the knowledge of one's choice. Yes, that is dramatic and significant and I can see saying that living with one's choices is consequence enough.
Unless of course, a woman viewed children as an unwanted burden or an inconvenience, then giving up a child is just a simple solution to an annoying problem. But there are hardly any women like that, are there?
"What C4M effectively argues for is zero risk and zero consequences for men as a result of any sexual decision/behaviour they make."
True. For men who view children as a burden or an unwanted convenience, we'd just be giving them a simple solution to an an annoying problem. No consequence there to speak of. It makes sense then to legally impose a consequence, such as 18 years of child support. We can't let them get away with a clean conscience AND an unencumbered life.
Unless perhaps a man viewed abortion as murder and had to stand by while a child he co-concieved was terminated. That would be a dramatic, life altering event, wouldn't it? Or knowing he was in no position to become a father, lacked the resources, skills and temperament to do so, but found though he had intercourse responsibly that he had fathered a child he cannot in good conscience be a father to. That would be a dramatic, life altering event and consequence enough, I think.
But there are hardly any men like that, are there?
"I do not believe the child "belongs" to the mother and so do not believe it should be legal for the mother to adopt out the child without the consent of the father. In many states it is not legal."
So then, where are the consequences for him, her or them for abandoning their responsibilities? A child has a right to support from its parents. They have no right to sever that relationship or discontinue support, right? It's the state's responsibility to make sure the parents live up to their obligation, isn't it?
"However, it is all related to this issue at hand tangentially, and you were astute to bring it up.
Actually, I think that personal choice, personal responsibility, corporate responsibility and using the law to forcibly distribute the consequences of individual choices are central to this issue and to most of the issues raised here. They're all just different incarnations of the same problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_____"I do not believe the child "belongs" to the mother and so do not believe it should be legal for the mother to adopt out the child without the consent of the father. In many states it is not legal." Lorianne
_____"So then, where are the consequences for him, her or them for abandoning their responsibilities? A child has a right to support from its parents. They have no right to sever that relationship or discontinue support, right? It's the state's responsibility to make sure the parents live up to their obligation, isn't it? "
How did you get that from what I said? I said I don't think a mother should be able to legally make a decision to adopt the baby without the father's consent (and vis versa). Obviously, if both parents consent, it should be legal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"How did you get that from what I said?
Maybe I misinterpreted you, but I thought I was paraphrasing the operative principles you have already stated in this thread.
From earlier: "The child exists and both parents have an obligation to provide care and support to that child. IMO
You also expressed the need for consequences for choices: "Would you have the man just walk out on the child with zero consequences for his actions? This is what I understand choice for men is about, zero consequences.
I am trying to find out if you apply those principles and government enforcement of same in ANY context other than that of the obligation of a sperm donor to pay child support. Do you? You don't seem to.
If not, why are you so firm and unsympathetic to the difficulties and dilemnas of unplanned fatherhood? Is it that important that men not be allowed to "get away with something?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Larry___ I think adoption is a good alternative if both parties agree to it. Until then both are responsible for the care and support of a child they co-created. I don't think either party should be able to sign away his/her obligations unilaterally, or sign away the other person's rights to parenthood unilaterally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>Lori seems to think that any man involved in a C4M encounter is a heartless being who'll just
>walk without doubts or any feeling at all. Do you really think the nearest man is like that?
Adam, 56% of all pregnancies are "unplanned," which is a nice way of saying "unwanted," at least on the part of the father. Laws allowing breeder moos to dump off their kids at hospitals, no questions asked, are not only widely supported by most parents, BUT MOST PARENTS WANT THEM EXPANDED. Big surprise there.
Yes, I do think most fathers would walk away, because according to C4M's own statistics, most fathers don't want their kids to begin with. 56% means more than half.
Would YOU want to spend YOUR money supporting some fugly brat you didn't want in the first place, when you have a choice not to? I know I wouldn't. Why would I want to waste my money on a brat if I didn't have to?
I'd like to think you're right and most parents aren't breeders, but every time I try to think positive, a giant 56 appears, stomping around like the proverbial elephant in the living room.
The sad truth is Adam, parents do not bond with their offspring anywhere near as much as the other way around. It is insanely easy for a parent to walk away and never think about the brat again, except maybe to hope the miserable, fugly thing *died.*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>For men who view children as a burden or an unwanted convenience, we'd just be giving them
>a simple solution to an an annoying problem.
...
>We can't let them get away with a clean conscience AND an unencumbered life.
The "clean conscience" part is why I have such a low view of most parents, and consider them breeders. Statements like this prove to me that parents CAN walk away from their kids very easily, and never even think about the miserable, fugly thing again (except maybe to hope it died).
Human parents simply do not bond with their offspring unless they want to, period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne, then where does the child's right to a relationship and support from its parents fit in? It's wrong for one parent to sign away his/her obligations but OK if both parents do it? How does that right become forfeit?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Human parents simply do not bond with their offspring unless they want to, period.
That's pretty much my observation and conclusion, too. People who don't want to be parents make lousy parents. It's in nobody's interest to coerce them into it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
____"Lorianne, then where does the child's right to a relationship and support from its parents fit in? It's wrong for one parent to sign away his/her obligations but OK if both parents do it? How does that right become forfeit?"
There is a branch of the Adoptees Rights movement that takes that extreme view. However, from what I gather, most do not. They take the view that adoptees have a right to know, or have information about or contact their biological parents (usally at age 18), and that that information should be available to them. Most do not claim that the parents "owe" them in any monetary or "relationship" sense. I would say this is the majority.
From the parent's perspective (not the child's) I do not think one parent should be legally able to adopt out the child without the legal consent of the co-parent. This is in fact illegal in many states.
From the child's perspective, the identity of either or both parents should not be concealed (at least after age 18). Adoptees Rights is opposed to unilateral relinquishment by adoption because it often involves no record of the father.
I happen to know a child (now 16) who's father did not want to be involved with his son. Although not a legal contract, the mother agreed not to tell the child who his father was. In return the father agreed to pay child support voluntarily (not a legal contract, this was a handshake decision).
This particular boy has gumption galore. Around age 12 or 13 he found out the father's identity anyway from other persons or perhaps from snooping around in his mother's papers or perhaps she told him (that is in dispute). He tried to contact the father. The father was furious and decided to stop sending CS on the grounds that the mother had violated the agreement they had. (She claims she didn't tell the boy).
Anyway, the boy would not give up. He contacted the father's parents, sister (the boy's biological aunt) and her childern (his cousins) and has instigated relationships with all of them, but stopped trying to (directly) contact the father. Obviously his indirect goal is to have a relationship with the father (who is married and with kids). The other family members have now embraced him and invited him to family get-togethers etc. which the father and his family (including the boy's half-siblings) do not now attend. The father has no legal recourse. Even with a restraining order, he cannot stop his son from meeting with and forming relationships with his extended family.
So, I believe it is possible, even with legal concealed parenthood for a child if determined, to find out information and forge some kind of contact with his/her biological family. He has a Constitutional right to free association, that cannot be abridged by any agreements made by the parents.
The child IS a separate human being with his own rights. Choice for Men would like to legally de-classify the child as a person separate from the mother. Choice for Men is built on the premis of a child and mother being one unit which he can then "abort" together. This I don't think will legally stand. It would abrogate the chhild's rights to have information, contact with, and relationship with his biological family. In other words, Choice for Men wishes to "abort" not only the child but his fundemental rights as a separate human entity as well. This is a shaky at best proposition.
Hopefully, someday children will be able to bring legal action against their biological parents for non-support and other things with regard to restricted access to family information and contact. Adoptees Rights are poised to directly contest the baseline concepts espoused by groups such as Choice for Men. The only defense Choice for Men could then mount is a countersuit saying in effect the child should never have been born; should have been terminated in utero. Which puts Choice for Men in a very bad position (both legally and PR-wise) IMO. It will be interesting to see how these things work out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yet our society does this all the time. If you're young and childless, just try getting a doctor to agree to perform a vasectomy or a tubal ligation. They'll say insulting things like, "You'll change your mind when you're older" or "when you meet the right girl/guy."
The law says that a 14-year-old girl is old enough to decide to keep a kid and raise it on her own, and that a 14-year-old boy is old enough to pay child support. Yet if that same girl or boy decides that the risk of unwanted pregnancy is too great, and they want a tubal/vasectomy to prevent it from ever happening to them, SUDDENLY they're "too young to make such a life-altering decision." That is completely wrong. If a teen girl or boy wants to be sterilized, and they have the means to pay for it, their parents and the gov't should have no power to stop them. If they're old enough to parent and pay child support, they're old enough to decide to be sterilized.
This would be of special importance if C4M were instituted. If a female has 100% of the burden when it comes to pregnancy, the female should have the right to accept this burden (by not having a tubal) or decline it (by having one--even at puberty if she so desires).
The government doesn't want this, as they have a stake in everyone breeding. They don't care that most children are unwanted by their loser parents. Wanted or unwanted, they're still cogs to feed the great government machine. Unwanted kids who grow up to be criminals fuel the burgeoning prison industry, for example.
My partner, who is not a Libertarian, thinks that everyone should be required to get breeding licenses before they're even allowed to procreate. Sometimes I get so angry at breeders and their continued irresponsible sprogging that I'm almost ready to agree with him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 17, @07:48PM EST (#48)
|
|
|
|
|
Claire,
I am going to respond to your longer post tomorrow. But your most recent post ticked me off.
Assuming I ever had a child, would you call me a "breeder"? It seems you use that term to insult any and all parents.
Obviously parents vary in their parenting skills, income, intelligence, and just about every other thing that makes one human different from another. You had parents at one time in your life. I don't know the details, do you hate them?
If, and its now a big "IF" I ever decide to have a child with some woman, are you saying that I would automatically become a stupid, irresponsible, big-government-loving, "for-the-children" liberal sellout? Would my wife automatically be a "Moo", instead of a mother? Or maybe I'd just become an abusive parent, because obviously I could never care for little "Bratlene" or "Bratley".
The vast majority of parents I have ever come into contact with (and I've mostly lived in the poorer sections of my city) have been at worst, irresponsible. Very few have struck me as uncaring, and I never knew a single abusive one personally, though I know some such exist. Most parents have at least some care for their children. Even the single mothers I criticize in many of my posts often see the baby as a BONUS and not a burden. Many parents in this society commit suicide every year due to lack of access to their children.
You insult me and them, and possibly many others on this board with your constant snide remarks about how parents don't care. I can assure you that is not the case at all.
I like you, and most ( but not all) of your posts are intelligent , and constructive. I don't know why you've been kicking parents the last few days, but I do wish you'd tone it down a little or at least don't tell me how I would be as a parent.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne, I think I finally understand your position. If so, it is consistent, though it didn't look that way to me for quite a while.
How does this sound?
Consent to intercourse is consent to the possibility of becoming a parent and consent to all of the obligations that entails. After conception, there is no real choice. The only moral choice is to fulfill one's duties as a parent. For that reason, you oppose Choice for Men. Though Choice for Women legally exists in the forms of abortion, legal abandonment and adoption they are not in fact really choices because a moral person fulfilling their responsibilities would not be able to choose them. After conception, there really is no choice.
Society should support those who accept that responsibility and stigmatize those who shirk it.
Have I got it right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You make good points, Remo, and I apologize if my remarks were hurtful to you.
::Many parents in this society commit suicide every year due to lack of access to their children.
Yes, and I think that's awful. What I think is equally awful is C4M's statistics showing that 56% of all pregnancies are unintended at least on the part of the father. Birth control pills have an efficiency of 99%. Why then are so many children unintended--unwanted? Are all these women so dumb that they can't remember to take one measly little pill every day, or so conniving as to bring a kid into the world that they know damn well their husband or boyfriend does not want?
Worse yet are married couples who are honest with each other, but who stupidly don't use any birth control, or don't use it all the time. I just don't know what these people are thinking. I think they have a lot of gall to act shocked when the wife actually ends up knocked up.
Those are the women who I consider moomies. The ones who conveniently "forget" to take their pills, then yell OOPSIE to their horrified partners. Then they spend the next few months chirping about how "he'll just looooooooooveeeee this baybee when it's born!" NO HE WON'T. If anything, he's going to be even more resentful after it pops out, because that's when the bills are really going to pile up.
Although I wish these guys would come around for the sake of the kid, who didn't ask for this, I don't blame them nearly as much as I blame the moomie. If I didn't want to have a kid, and somebody lied to me about birth control, I'm sorry, but I would never, ever, ever get over my resentment towards that kid. I would look at it as a burden that ruined my life. Every time I had to spend MY money on diapers or extra medical insurance, instead of the new car I dreamed of for years, I would *seethe.*
::Even the single mothers I criticize in many of my posts often see the baby as a BONUS and
::not a burden.
I wonder if this is so only because they can collect child support money and/or welfare. Do they really want the kid, or the money they know they can extort from the father and the gov't? If they weren't getting thousands a month just for popping out a kid, would the kid still be a bonus?
I honestly don't know what to think anymore. I just don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Larry___ Sorry I didn't see your reply until now. Yes you've got it right except I wouldn't care to "stigmatize" anyone really. Also I certainly wouldn't stimgatize adoption if both parents agree to relinquish their child in this manner, although I have a problem with some of our current adoption policies, overall I accept the process. I don't certainly don't put in on a par with abortion.
I think I explained my thoughts on legal abandonment upthread. It's only purpose is to save the life of a post-natal child in the most desparate of situations, not to provide any "choice" per se to a parent vis a vis parenthood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just because a baby is unplanned it doesn't necessarily follow that a parent would look at the child after it is born as a "burden" or as a rent check. Often during pregnancy a spiritual and emotional bond is formed between the mother (and the father) and the child. Sometimes this happens at birth or at first sight of the child. The protective maternal and paternal instincts are stronger than one might imagine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday January 20, @12:35AM EST (#53)
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder if this is so only because they can collect child support money and/or welfare. Do they really want the kid, or the money they know they can extort from the father and the gov't? If they weren't getting thousands a month just for popping out a kid, would the kid still be a bonus?
I honestly don't know what to think anymore. I just don't.
Hi Claire. Thank you for your nice reply to my post. Really didn't know what to expect, I was rather angry when I wrote it. Thank you for being so graceful and for taking my concerns into account.
As far as it goes, it is known that human babies have certain pheremones that appear to act only on men. This is apparently a protective adaptation in order to help assure that they are not killed. Another factor is the almost universal cuteness adults ascribe to babies. I wouldn't underestimate the protective instinct of most parents just because a few don't seem to have it :)
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He actually fathered the child when he was 81. (Child is now 3 he is now 84 according to the article). Maybe he could use the senility defense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, lorianne he has no choise in fathering the child if the woman chooses it. Did you just conveniently forget that?
You are biased to women all the time, just try to think different from those gender feminists for once sake, please.
I agree upon that the money should be place in a UTMA so that the mother would have to provide for her own living while the child can live with no risk of starving to death...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_____"You are biased to women all the time..."
Ssargon___ Actually in this case I'm biased towards the child. I feel really sorry for this child given the nature of both her parents.
Also I feel we should be consistent and not make exceptions because someone is rich. This sets the wrong precedent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 16, @01:22AM EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
"The Tentacle" is her nickname,
gold digging is her game.
Quit her job as a serving tray
at a Harley biker's party.
She's just a woman and certainly not to blame!
She's every material girl's dream.
Will let you feel her up for some ice cream.
He's lucky he only did her one time.
Now she wants his every dime.
She's so easy, she makes Cher look like a calculus problem.
She was in debt,
Laying on the sofa worked up a sweat.
No money will go to the kid?
She's a squid!
She overflowed the toilet!
A Yacht! A Rolls Royce!
It was her choice.
Thousands of shoes.
What's she got to lose?
Her wardrobe would make a department store rejoice!
Soak that guy.
There's nothing he couldn't buy!
She won't cook, or clean.
Envy turned her green.
Chews her cud and hold her horns up high.
The Madcap Misogynist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm new to this site, and can honestly say now that I am relieved to find a place where I can gripe to fellow men and find a way of solving some of the gender problems in this country. So, as my first official posting to this site, let me start with this: From the article:
"But Lisa Kerkorian contends that is not enough for Kira, whose first birthday party cost $70,000 and who has flown more than 35 times on private jets. "
Now, I'm not sure what's been posted here, but I consider myself to be an average ordinary joe working full time for an employer. I can honestly tell you that this woman needs to be brought down off the ladder she's on before she ruins her child for life (sounds like it's already a spoiled brat and will grow up with her hand out). Lisa needs to get a clue: $70k for a birthday party is 50% over the median earned per year per individual in this country. I have to work 3 years and 3 months to see $70k. If the news media has their facts straight, then it sounds to me like this freaking lady needs to take what she's gotten and run, because were I hearing the case, she wouldn't get a dime. Keep the millions you already have and lick your wounds, your gold digging doesn't fly with me.
I just have a question: What are all the women out there going to do with themselves when they've finally butchered this society into their submission and are earning more than we men are. What are they going to do when we file for divorce and realize that, oh, you female make more than me male, guess what, pay me for the rest of my life. I'll tell you what they'll do, whine and cry about how bad their lives suck.
My favorite movie: American Beauty. The man finally gets even.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
