Senseless Lawsuit
The National Center for Men, a men's-rights advocacy group (because men are generally so disadvantaged in our society [for the humor-challenged, please note that this is sarcasm]), is filing suit in Michigan to stop mandatory child support payments for children which father's "did not want." They contend that because women have "reproductive freedom of choice," men should also have the choice of whether or not they want to support the children.
This is probably the most mindless lawsuit that I've heard about in recent time.
First, there is the practical element. Someone has to support children, and it makes the most sense to have the parents do this, rather than putting the onus on taxpayers to pony up.
Second, there is a severe issue of enforceability. No man is going to say that he "wanted" children if it means he will have to pay hundreds of dollars a month in child support. It would be absolutely impossible to determine who actually did not want children and who is simply trying to avoid paying child support.
Third, and this goes to the core of lawsuit, men DO have a choice when it comes to reproduction. They can wear a condom. They can have themselves clipped. They can abstain from intercourse. They have a whole range of options to choose from if they want to avoid having children. If they are so worried about the potential cost of supporting children, they should pursue one of these options.
Finally, this would set up a terrible system of manipulation in relationships, where men could attempt to force women to have abortions or give up their babies for adoption by threatening to say that they did not want the child and will not pay child support.
I'm sure there are cases where women "trick" men into having children the men do not want. But this strikes me as a much smaller problem than deadbeat parents who do not pay to support the children they brought into the world.
This is probably the most mindless lawsuit that I've heard about in recent time.
First, there is the practical element. Someone has to support children, and it makes the most sense to have the parents do this, rather than putting the onus on taxpayers to pony up.
Second, there is a severe issue of enforceability. No man is going to say that he "wanted" children if it means he will have to pay hundreds of dollars a month in child support. It would be absolutely impossible to determine who actually did not want children and who is simply trying to avoid paying child support.
Third, and this goes to the core of lawsuit, men DO have a choice when it comes to reproduction. They can wear a condom. They can have themselves clipped. They can abstain from intercourse. They have a whole range of options to choose from if they want to avoid having children. If they are so worried about the potential cost of supporting children, they should pursue one of these options.
Finally, this would set up a terrible system of manipulation in relationships, where men could attempt to force women to have abortions or give up their babies for adoption by threatening to say that they did not want the child and will not pay child support.
I'm sure there are cases where women "trick" men into having children the men do not want. But this strikes me as a much smaller problem than deadbeat parents who do not pay to support the children they brought into the world.
posted by N at 2:54 PM
1 Comments:
This pains me to my child-loving core.
Post a Comment
<< Home