Paternity

[Yellow]

I live in the U.S. and I work with a very specific demographic of clients at the moment. The issues of paternity, child support, and general struggles of lower socioeconomic families come up a lot. I worry that my exposure to one side of the argument (the baby-mamas who make up the majority of my current client-base) may have left me biased. So, I would like to run this thought by you.

My proposal is that men, by default, should no longer carry any paternal rights or responsibilities.

Now, let me expand on the idea. I think a man should have every opportunity to claim a child as his own; to raise it with the mother, if she is fit, or without the mother if she is not (or if she consents to give up rights). If the mother agrees, then it should be as simple as signing a piece of paper. If she does not agree, it goes to court and a judge decides. But I think that by default, a woman should retain sole responsibility of her children.

Here's my reasoning.

The family unit isn't what it was a few generations ago. Most mothers in the U.S. are single for at least a few of their brood's formative years. When a woman has/keeps a child, she's stuck with it. It's either raise it or neglect it. There is no middle ground to fulfill this gender/family role. For men, it is perfectly acceptable to only be in the child's life as a part-time fixture. As long as he is “helping out” in some way, he's still a “good dad”. So I think a woman should understand, going into motherhood, that she will be alone. That she cannot put all of her eggs [pun intended] into the basket that is her current lover.

Also, at the moment, in order for a low-income mother to receive the full amount of government assistance, she must cooperate with child support enforcement. Meaning, she must identify and pursue a legal father for child support in order to receive aid. Understandably, many women are afraid to do so, because it may upset/hurt the father(s), and put themselves and their children into potentially alienating or dangerous situations.

Men, of course, have something to gain from this proposal too. As things are right now, men have no legal say over whether a woman “keeps” a baby. If he wants to be a father, great! But what if he doesn't? He is suddenly financially/legally vulnerable. Child support can range from $40 to $4000 a month, depending on your income (and the mother's legal representation). With a system that default to him having no responsibilities and no rights to a child, he suddenly has a choice. He can choose to sign the paperwork to claim the child, or he can “abort” his paternity.

So I guess the counter argument I'd expect to hear is this: It takes two people to make a baby, so men should have to hold up their end of things. That baby is just as much his as hers.

I argue that no, it isn't. He used his penis to contribute some DNA. Women contribute a growth chamber, blood, the use of her organs, oxygen,etc. Pregnancy can kill you, and it can leave you with permanent health issues. So at birth, that baby is far more hers than his. It is only when the father makes his own contributions, that things become equal. If he helps to provide a nurturing environment and/or financially contributes to the household, (whatever works for that family), then the child is just as much his as hers. I think that's what separates a father from a sperm donor.

I could expand on this much further, but that's the gist of it.

 

[Grayman]

I would never have sex with a women who wouldn't give me 100% responsibility with the child along with her 100%. I'd go to great lengths to keep something like this from happening. *Grayman with a picket sign

Men statistically are less often involved with their children than women but single men with children are more often above the poverty line. I only say that because it might be a factor in why you would see them less often.

 

[nanook]

A child is mainly a descendant of either the mother of the father. I am the child of my mother, my sister is the child of my father. If you had removed my father from my life, it would have saved my life, because he has destroyed me. But if you had removed him from the life of my sister and exposed her to my mother solely, she might have been destroyed, although she is sort of a sturdy stubborn cattle breed, like my father, or is that illusion, because her damage is so complete?

It's beyond me how the suffering of childbirth or the suffering of providing money could be an argument for owning a child, that isn't even carrying your own nature, but even if it is, it's an unrelated fact. The whole concept of owning children is insane and should be reduced as much as possible.

No law should have the power to forbid a parent to interact with his child, unless the parent is pedo or similar.

If you place a child into the world, you should be aware, that you give up your right for privacy, to a degree, since you add a person to your household, who will have their own relationships. If the kid wants to welcome the father, you are not allowed to forbid that. You can put locks on your bedroom. But your life is no longer just about you. Just don't fuck irresponsible studs.

Law has no right to make anyone pay for a child. If who ever feels obliged to take care of the child can't handle it alone, he must ask society for support. In the same way a mother gives up a part of her privacy to the man, she must be willing to allow society to be involved.

Law must recognize that any child is also a child of society, because society forces education and duties on the child, for his whole life. If taking care of more fatherless children means more taxes, so be it. In a sane economy, this wouldn't harm anyone. In a democracy, it's our job to make sure the state does not abuse children, to the degree it get's involved.

Living in a society where men grew up without male figures is no advantage for women of the futre, by and large.

 

[Grayman]

It's beyond me how the suffering of childbirth or the suffering of providing money could be an argument for owning a child, that isn't even carrying your own nature, but even if it is, it's an unrelated fact. The whole concept of owning children is insane and should be reduced as much as possible.

It is usually a concept used in why the woman should have full choice in abortion but I haven't seen it used for custody before. I hope that you didn't interpret my comment to mean that men have more money so they should have choice...! The greatest thing of real importance in my opinion and I would hope others is what is best for the child. This is complicated though when it gets down to opinion of the judicial system, the parents and society. Money can have an effect in the growth of the child but it becomes entirely irrelevant in comparison the to the quality of the parent. Even if one parent is considerably better it is still better to have both providing positive effects.

 

[Yellow]

Both of your arguments make sense.

I guess my general intent was to give freedom to both parties rather than to take any away. There are a lot of men who live in fear of that day when a woman shows up with a baby in tow and says, "It's yours". Similarly, a lot of women are denied help because they are unwilling to put a man in that position.

However, I think you misunderstand the difference between parental rights and visitation. Legal guardians have the right to grant or deny a child's access to others within reasonable limits. So a father who chooses not to claim any rights to his child could still be a big part of the child's life just like other family and friends are a part of the child's life without parental rights.

 

[nanook]

I was just responding to Yellow, Grayman.

I agree with you, if men did not have such a hard time taking care of themselves, they would be less likely to run away from their family. I am for a resource based economy and for basic income. We should just quit being insane, full of egotism and cruel resentments, damning people to suffer from the consequences of their own limitations, as if it was a matter of moral guilt, if someone can't take care of himself or his child.

I'm not any good in thinking through what is practically possible, in the given economical reality. I just feel strongly about the psychological realities.

 

[nanook]

However, I think you misunderstand the difference between parental rights and visitation. Legal guardians have the right to grant or deny a child's access to others within reasonable limits. So a father who chooses not to claim any rights to his child could still be a big part of the child's life just like other family and friends are a part of the child's life without parental rights.

I sort of know this, but kinda ignored the difference, because i intuit, that it's only a matter of time that a lawsuit will take away visitation rights from a financially "useless" father, whereas the father with money will probably be able to buy himself into the household, even prior to a lawsuit.

It's no fun, when a law forces you to send all of your money to a woman, who hates you and indoctrinates her child, which may be her descendant, into hating you. It's nice that you have thought of that.

But what about women who bear the descendant of their man? Do they have to pay for it? Do they have to kill it, if they don't want to?

That's why i was thinking that, if law gets involved into the mess that is our lives, the state should also see itself as a third parent, as having responsibility for the child.

 

[Yellow]

That's why i was thinking that, if law gets involved into the mess that is our lives, the state should also see itself as a third parent, as having responsibility for the child.

That's an interesting idea. It happens, to a point. The state intervenes on a child's behalf when they have evidence to suggest that a parent is somehow unfit. The state also sets standards for education, nutrition, developmental milestones, etc.

Some people argue that the state already has too much power to "interfere" with families, and some argue that it should have more.

I am torn. I think that if we are going to have a ton of laws on the matter, the laws should be as fair as possible. But, really, I'd prefer to see far fewer laws and state agencies. I think a grandfather or an aunt or a next-door neighbor could be just as effective in protecting/helping a child as any state agency.

 

[nanook]

I agree, society should take care of children and this doesn't have to mean special agencies that are run by satanist pedos, it can also mean your local neighborhood.

 

[Pyropyro]

Your proposal sounds a little bit like the practices of the ideal city in Plato's The Republic.

Honestly, I won't trust any child to the state. I would rather have males take care of their offspring than have the state lay a finger on them.

I believe you belong to more mature and caring states which actually treat their people well (which is nice). Unfortunately, mine is less child-friendly. Gov't shelters aren't that good in rearing children and some are even compared to a concentration camp (link is disturbing). They also have a habit of caging street urchins whenever a foreign dignitary visits such as the pope.

 

[Yellow]

Unfortunately, mine is less child-friendly. Gov't shelters aren't that good in rearing children and some are even compared to a concentration camp (link is disturbing). They also have a habit of caging street urchins whenever a foreign dignitary visits such as the pope.

I had a friend who was adopted (as a 7 year old) from the Philippines, and I heard similar stories from her. It is very sad. However, I have no doubt that it would get like that here too, if we were faced with the same levels of poverty for any significant period of time. People care only as much as they can afford to.

 

[Double_V]

I live in the U.S. and I work with a very specific demographic of clients at the moment. The issues of paternity, child support, and general struggles of lower socioeconomic families come up a lot. I worry that my exposure to one side of the argument (the baby-mamas who make up the majority of my current client-base) may have left me biased. So, I would like to run this thought by you.

My proposal is that men, by default, should no longer carry any paternal rights or responsibilities.

Now, let me expand on the idea. I think a man should have every opportunity to claim a child as his own; to raise it with the mother, if she is fit, or without the mother if she is not (or if she consents to give up rights). If the mother agrees, then it should be as simple as signing a piece of paper. If she does not agree, it goes to court and a judge decides. But I think that by default, a woman should retain sole responsibility of her children.

Here's my reasoning.

The family unit isn't what it was a few generations ago. Most mothers in the U.S. are single for at least a few of their brood's formative years. When a woman has/keeps a child, she's stuck with it. It's either raise it or neglect it. There is no middle ground to fulfill this gender/family role. For men, it is perfectly acceptable to only be in the child's life as a part-time fixture. As long as he is “helping out” in some way, he's still a “good dad”. So I think a woman should understand, going into motherhood, that she will be alone. That she cannot put all of her eggs [pun intended] into the basket that is her current lover.

Also, at the moment, in order for a low-income mother to receive the full amount of government assistance, she must cooperate with child support enforcement. Meaning, she must identify and pursue a legal father for child support in order to receive aid. Understandably, many women are afraid to do so, because it may upset/hurt the father(s), and put themselves and their children into potentially alienating or dangerous situations.

Men, of course, have something to gain from this proposal too. As things are right now, men have no legal say over whether a woman “keeps” a baby. If he wants to be a father, great! But what if he doesn't? He is suddenly financially/legally vulnerable. Child support can range from $40 to $4000 a month, depending on your income (and the mother's legal representation). With a system that default to him having no responsibilities and no rights to a child, he suddenly has a choice. He can choose to sign the paperwork to claim the child, or he can “abort” his paternity.

So I guess the counter argument I'd expect to hear is this: It takes two people to make a baby, so men should have to hold up their end of things. That baby is just as much his as hers.

I argue that no, it isn't. He used his penis to contribute some DNA. Women contribute a growth chamber, blood, the use of her organs, oxygen,etc. Pregnancy can kill you, and it can leave you with permanent health issues. So at birth, that baby is far more hers than his. It is only when the father makes his own contributions, that things become equal. If he helps to provide a nurturing environment and/or financially contributes to the household, (whatever works for that family), then the child is just as much his as hers. I think that's what separates a father from a sperm donor.

I could expand on this much further, but that's the gist of it.

And yet scientifically a person's DNA chain is identified through the paternal DNA line... so I would say the cosmic universe disagrees with you.

 

[Bock]

Both want it = pregnancy
One doesn't want it = no pregnancy

If the woman insists on having the kid, a SWAT-team is sent to force the abortion

Simple