In Illinois when paternity is established or admitted, the Father is on the hook to be assessed a portion of the costs of pregnancy to be determined by the Court. Pro-aborts keep coming up with these ridiculous statements as if they had never heard of a paternity case in their lives.
Well, Duh
- Donald R. McClarey
Donald R. McClarey
Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three, one in Heaven, and happily married for 43 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.
Some of them are just engaging in gamesmanship, but I suspect in the case of a great many they come from segments of society where paternity cases are quite rare, and simply do not know anyone outside their particular bubble.
Indeed. When your first and immediate reaction to pregnancy is to seek to kill the child, the idea of a paternity suit is inconceivable. No pun intended.
Or is it that they’ve so bought into the lie that pro-lifers are anti- woman, they think we’ll object to anything that puts restrictions on men’s behavior?
“In States where abortion is illegal the father should be financially on the hook at the moment of conception.”
I would go so far to say that the father also should be financially responsible in states where abortion is legal.
Um, well, no.
It’s well intended.
In practice, legal mandates about financial responsibility…mostly make women greedy and men cheap. Or, woman manipulative and men evasive. …and the child VERY prone to absorbing these same vices. …And that’s IF the state enforces child support laws.
We most need law and social expectations to require that if a man and a woman conceive, ..they marry.
Otherwise, …neither man nor woman truthfully has cause to refrain from a liaison.
In practice, legal mandates about financial responsibility…mostly make women greedy and men cheap.
It provides support for the child in cases where men and women have absolutely no intention of getting married. Kids are the cannon fodder of the Sexual Revolution. There is nothing new about this. In more honest times they were known as Bastardy Proceedings.
The most deranged comment I’ve seen in the “men can’t understand what women are going through now” comments post Roe v. Wade came from a women who said that now that she can’t get an abortion, she has to worry about her husband finding out that she’s been sleeping around. In addition to the monstrous nature that this revealed, she actually expected to get sympathy for this.
she actually expected to get sympathy for this.
Again, Helen Smith’s definition of feminism: “Women have options. Men have obligations”.
“It provides support for the child…”
Certainly that was the intent. Such laws assume we know the father’s identity, where he is, that he can be contacted, …and that he’s gainfully employed. I’ve heard of too many cases where such assumptions fell flat. Even jailing a man for support failure…doesn’t actually support the youngster. No child support law ever enacted ever had as much impact as did a woman hearing about the plight of someone else she knew.
Certainly that was the intent. Such laws assume we know the father’s identity, where he is, that he can be contacted, …and that he’s gainfully employed.
DNA tests make proving fathership a snap. Most fathers do pay, and many of those who don’t, do start paying after incarceration. Wage garnishments are quite effective usually in regard to child support. Even the hardest cases are often collectible. I recently collected 83K in back child support for a client, for instance.
I recently collected 83K in back child support for a client, for instance.
That had to feel good!
It did! The angels don’t always win, but when they do it gladdens my heart.
“Most fathers do pay, and many of those who don’t, do start paying after incarceration.”
Uh huh. I’ll be very interested to see how the numbers look in this state. I don’t think I know anyone who has $83K lying about; large-amount judgements won’t help if they can’t collect.
Then too, especially if you CAN collect, …that mostly teaches a youngster to search for deep pockets. I’ve met a few too many people with that mindset to think it a good idea.
I don’t think I know anyone who has $83K lying about; large-amount judgements won’t help if they can’t collect.
Check their pension funds. I did.
that mostly teaches a youngster to search for deep pockets
I assume it teaches the father that he needs to stand up and support the child he helped bring into the world. I have zero sympathy for parents who make their kids their last priority.
“I have zero sympathy for parents who make their kids their last priority.”
If they aren’t marrying, neither made the child their first priority.
Marriage would be best, but lack of marriage does not make the resulting child need support any the less.
Women’s families and civic organizations have long done far better. So have orphanages. Enacting child support laws cobbled together vague family-like financial straits. They had VERY optimistic expectations. Such efforts have never borne worthwhile fruit.
So long as a woman can demand money from a man, …she has no cause at all to marry or act chastely.
Neither do men have much cause to keep their pants zipped. So long as their finances hold out, ….they may philander.
John L, the phrase “Don’t make ‘good’ the enemy of ‘perfect'” comes to mind … If there’s “philandering” while requiring financial support, how much more will there be when it’s without cost? Responsibility-free intercourse is what the sexual revolution is all about.
so long as a woman can demand money from a man
Your argument is disproven by history John. As I told you Bastardy Proceedings are very old. Blackstone discusses them in his treatise on English law in the Eighteenth Century. Why are you so desperate to let men off their financial responsibility for their kids?
It’s one of the blackpill/excuse to not act/victim complex things that’s been going around since at least the 80s.
Think something along the lines of wailing about how there’s no DECENT women around, only hoes, any guy trying to actually form a healthy family is a fool and a victim waiting to happen, engaging in the reproductive act at every opportunity is Just Fine and when that results in reproduction then the guy who did absolutely nothing to avoid that result is again a poor victim of that predatory female who, gasp, may actually demand child support for their offspring.
Don’t get me started on the abuse heaped on any woman who shows the lie of the “men are poor little victims” nonsense. I got my fill watching my sister bend over backwards to try to keep her son in a good relationship with her ex-husband, only for him to be an utter psychopath to the day of her death, and get dumped on because the Poor Victim Men theory held that only an utterly unfit mother would not have full custody and cushy child support.
The mindset is every bit as disgusting in males as it is in females; why on earth some guys choose to behave like the toxic feminists, I have no clue.
“Why are you so desperate to let men off their financial responsibility for their kids?”
Women have been demanding opportunity for abortion since before the 70’s to relieve themselves of financial responsibility for a small one. I’ve heard women expressing horror these past few days that we may next forbid contraception. When women reject motherhood that fiercely, we do not promote Justice demanding a man pretend to care to be a father.
A man cannot philander if a woman won’t play along.
https://youtu.be/bHXg1m6eAUo
When women reject motherhood that fiercely, we do not promote Justice demanding a man pretend to care to be a father.
What in the world does that have to do with the financial support of the child? The fact that a man sleeps with a slut, acting like a male slut himself, in no way relieves him of his parental responsibilities to the child.
There was always an irony in the old abortion regime that said a man had no input on whether a child could be born or not, but must pay for it nonetheless. That “forced birth” is a great and terrible evil, but “forced pay” (or work or however you want to phrase it) was just and right. Now we have hope of sanity returning to the law, though I remain skeptical since nothing can be discussed in modern times without hysterics.
“What in the world does that have to do with the financial support of the child?”
Everything. Women sought legal abortion to free themselves of obligations to support their children. …Even while living promiscuous lifestyles.
Nate, I object to child support laws precisely because of those hysterics. So long as law allows women to demand money from men, yet not marry, women have no need to think objectively, never mind morally.
Foxfier, I don’t believe men victims of anything, any more than women. Unless it’d be their own stupidity and moral bankruptcy. That’s the point. Child support laws make it all too easy for women to play victims of life.
Everything.
Nothing. You would penalize the innocent child who needs support no matter how the child gets into this world. And that doesn’t end the Father’s obligation. He needs to be a real father to the child as best as he is able.
Everything.
Every child needs both a father AND a mother. In the same home. Requiring child support will not compel a man to be a father any more than forbidding abortion will compel a woman to be a mother. If you accuse me of penalizing a child who needs support, I accuse you of penalizing a child who needs parents.
There was always an irony in the old abortion regime that said a man had no input on whether a child could be born or not, but must pay for it nonetheless. That “forced birth” is a great and terrible evil, but “forced pay” (or work or however you want to phrase it) was just and right.
Again, Helen Smith: “Women have options; men have obligations”.
“Requiring child support will not compel a man to be a father”
It certainly will compel him to meet the financial needs of the child. The child is there, you cannot wish the child away because of your idiot theory that immoral women free immoral men from the paternal consequences of their sleeping around.
Think something along the lines of wailing about how there’s no DECENT women around, only hoes, any guy trying to actually form a healthy family is a fool and a victim waiting to happen
I can introduce you to three young men in my family born between 1978 and 1989 who have been treated stupefyingly badly by the women to whom they were married. The one fortunate thing is that their marriages blew up before there were any children or any immovable property over which to fight.
Your previous arguments have essentially insisted that child support laws…at least require men admit financially they have sired children. Well, by the same token, …women have less requirement to admit to being dams. ..Given the degree of animal nature from both, the analogy with horses strikes me as all the more apt.
Outside of church communities, I have seen no evidence that women to seek moral virtue as a rule. ..Quite the opposite. I therefore argue that though child support laws intended to force men to support their progeny, they ALSO enable immoral women to sustain immoral lifestyles.
“…who have been treated stupefyingly badly by the women to whom they were married.”
Wow, if that doesn’t bring back memories of college! Women were not very shy about expressing their…ideas. I never dated much; there wasn’t much point if the relationship would center around what SHE thinks equality means.
They weren’t thinking about ‘equality’. They were thinking about what they wanted in the moment. Other men in two cases. Whatever in the third case. These young men were not raised Catholic. One, I suspect, is hors de combat for the rest of his life. One has remarried and one has a fiancée.
As stupid as the Roe argument for abortion was, it still doesn’t align with the notion that women can abandon children at will.
It allowed killing the child, before birth.
Once the child is born, his human rights are recognized.
Thus, the closest logical equivalent would be that a man can’t be forced to pay child support for the child that has not yet been born.
Insane though it sounds, FoxFier, my State…debated a measure in 1998 about child abandonment. For a brief time (in 2008?), a parent could legally abandon their child up to age 18 at a state-licensed hospital. I read now they changed that law 4 months later to impose an age limit of 30 days. ..They had received several teen-age kids at hospitals by then, a family of nine in one case.
I’m familiar with the “Safe Place” measures, came up elsewhere in a discussion on how many ways the same folks who push abortion have screwed up adoption, including letting those who abandoned children come back and claim them after they’d joined another family and been raised past toilet training.