Imagine I had a frail constitution, including a well-known predisposition for asthma attacks (for the record, I don’t), yet a friend invited me on a hiking trip. I couldn’t resist the temptation, and I accepted, without taking proper precautions or taking any preventive medication. Imagine that the hike made me sick with an asthma attack. Would it be fair to blame my friend, or would I be the one responsible for my body's response? If I asked him to pay for my expensive evacuation and asthma treatment, some members of society would find my request laughable, some would find my chutzpah offensive, but most would agree that I am being completely and utterly ridiculous. If I were to take my actions to court, no honest judge would award me any compensation.
Allow me to change the underlined words in the above paragraph.
Imagine I had a uterus, including a well-known predisposition for pregnancy (for the record, I don’t), yet a friend invited me to have sex. I couldn’t resist the temptation, and I accepted, without taking proper precautions or taking any preventive medication. Imagine that the sex made me pregnant with a child. Would it be fair to blame my friend, or would I be the one responsible for my body's response? If I asked him to pay for my expensive childbirth and child rearing costs, some members of society would find my request laughable, some would find my chutzpah highly offensive, but most would agree that I am being ridiculous.
Unfortunately (for the fans of logic), the last statement in the second paragraph is not accurate in our society, despite being completely on the mark in the first one. However, this basic argument makes it clear why I am opposed to child support laws as commonly applied in the Western world (where the man is forced to pay for a woman's pregnancy and child rearing costs).
Is the concept of personal responsibility dead in the West? Do we, as a society, allow the shift of responsibility or blame so easily due to sentimental or political reasons? If we are to survive, as a society, it’s time we re-calibrate our moral compass.
My argument against CS laws is this
ReplyDelete1) Abortion: A woman alone may choose to have an abortion, without the consent of the "father". This also means the father has no say whatsoever in whether or not the child comes to term. Well, in that case, if only women are allowed to decide whether or not the child comes to term, then only women should be held ultimately responsible for supporting that child.
Its simply unfair to make men ultimately responsible for a decision they have no say in. Now, I am not advocating for women to be left at the whim of men's decisions: you cant make women have an abortion if they dont want to, and you cant make them keep a child if they dont want to.
However, you can get the opinion of the father as a means of assessing his legal responsibilty. If he votes for abortion, then he has no legal responsibility to that child if the woman overrides his choice and keeps the baby, nor any custody rights in case of any future seperation.
If he chooses to keep the baby, and the woman overrides his decision and has an abortion: tough luck I suppose, but if the woman changes her mind, then father should be on the hook for child support, because of his opinion that the child should come to term.
2) Most court systems give biological mother custody rights in all but the most extreme cases. Again, if ultimately courts favor their custody rights, then again, courts must also put the onus of responsibility on women.
As the system is right now, a man could well end up paying support for a child he did not want, and even if he does want, has little chance of being given custody of in the case of seperation.
In many eastern societies, men are the ultimate guardians of the child -- I know many of you balk reflexively at the idea...but, there is reason to the madness... While they are ultimately responsible financially for the child, they are also given preference in custody cases. That, at least, makes more sense to me from a fairness perspective than the current system in the U.S.
To review, Im not advocating that any gender be given a total monopoly on rights or responsibility. I just think that whichever gender is given most of the rights in regards to children (from abortion to custody), should also be the SAME gender given the responsibility to provide for them.
Also, many of these laws were written in a day/age in which women had few economic oppurtunities. Therefore, expecting women to be economically responsible for a child's well being was simply not feasible and very unfair. This is no longer the case, women have largely closed the gender gap and thus keeping the onus of financial responsibilty on men at all times is no longer a valid reflection of the realities of society.
Finally, I do not advocate removing child support laws completely, I just advocate that we reform them in order to be more fair. Ultimately, if we simply remove them, then there will just be a bunch single mothers on welfare, and the government (i.e the taxpayers) will have to foot the bill. Somebody has to take responsibility. Preferably, two persons, and no more than that.
Good day,
Rawi
Great points, Rawi!
ReplyDeleteA dear friend of mine, who wishes not to be named, had the following to say (and I am posting for him):
ReplyDeleteI think the reason your analogy breaks down is because your hiking with asthma scenario involves only two parties; there is no innocent third party created and harmed as a result of the hike. Child support laws are designed to provide support for the child, not the mother. That's why child support stops when the child reaches the age of independence. It should also be noted that women can be legally required to pay child support if the father has custody and raises the child.