|
 |
 |
 Monday, October 24, 2005
HARDCORE: "Ask Amy"
Dear Amy: I just found out that my live-in boyfriend has a 2-year-old child. He wants nothing to do with her or her mother, who was pregnant when we began to date. He had already broken up with her and has not seen her since the breakup. We have no desire to see this child. He may have to pay child support anyway. We had to change our telephone number when we moved to avoid the calls. The problem is his friends and family. I found out about this child when I read an e-mail -- we share everything -- from a close friend just ripping him to shreds. I want to send an e-mail to everyone on his list telling them to butt out. What do you think? Not Interested Ewww. I think I need to take a shower. Of course your live-in boyfriend will have to pay child support; furthermore, running from it (changing your phone number, etc.) is against the law. This guy's friends and family aren't the problem. He is. And you are. Don't you get it? Guys who dump pregnant girlfriends and deny their children are sleazebags. And, just to be clear, when I say "sleazebag," I mean a giant bag of sleaze. Women who do the dirty work for their sleazebag boyfriends are aiding and abetting in the commission of a crime against society -- and though it's not technically a crime, I certainly wish that I could make a citizen's arrest. link posted by Eve at 12:43 AM | link 
|
||||||||||
 |
|
home | marriagedebate.com | resources | about imapp | contact |
|
Don't you get it? Guys who dump pregnant girlfriends and deny their children are sleazebags. And, just to be clear, when I say "sleazebag," I mean a giant bag of sleaze.
True. Children matter: child support matters.
Now I'd be very, very interested to see you explain why you feel that the children of same-sex couples don't deserve the same legal protections as the children of mixed-sex couples.
To offer a real-life example:
A lesbian couple went together to a fertility clinic because they wanted a child. The child was born: the non-biological mother turned out to be a sleazebag. She dumped her girlfriend and their baby and left. (I hate to admit it, but lesbians can be sleazebags too.)
Because their relationship is invisible to the law, the mother has no claim on her ex-partner for child support. She and her child are left a charge on the state.
(One rather futile argument is that the child shouldn't exist at all. She does: and there is no reason to suppose that same-sex couples are more likely to split up over issues like this than mixed-sex couples are. You can argue that AID shouldn't ever happen: but once it does, the children exist and shouldn't be dismissed or forgotten about because you disapprove of the means.)
Your argument, and Maggie's, is apparently that the child doesn't deserve the same legal protection that she would deserve if her parents were a mixed-sex couple: the law should permit the same-sex partner to run out on her obligations.
What neither of you have explained is how you justify discriminating against children to their direct harm. (Well, Maggie has said in her view children don't benefit at all from marriage: but you clearly feel differently.)
What about the same scenario except the two people are adult siblings of both sexes.
Because their relationship is invisible to the law, the mother has no claim on her ex-partner for child support. She and her child are left a charge on the state.
Well, we agree on one thing; child support as it exists now is an anachronism in the Brave New legal World.
To become logical again, either it would need to change to become only contract enforcement (no "deadbeat dads" if they never signed a contract), or we'll simply have to accept a regime where the state rather arbitrarily grabs people and makes them personally responsible for indigent children (my money's on the latter).
But it makes little sense, if sexual relations are devoid of moral import, to make child support obligations dependent upon whether the genetic material was "donated" as part of a sex act or not.
Holmegen: To become logical again, either it would need to change to become only contract enforcement (no "deadbeat dads" if they never signed a contract), or we'll simply have to accept a regime where the state rather arbitrarily grabs people and makes them personally responsible for indigent children (my money's on the latter).
Neither one.
When a mixed-sex couple go together to a fertility clinic, and ask for treatment, the non-biological parent has child support obligations, both legal and moral.
When a same-sex couple go together to a fertility clinic, and ask for treatment, the non-biological parent has moral child support obligations - and at present, no legal obligations.
Eve feels strongly that in a mixed-sex relationship, the "deadbeat dad" shouldn't run out on his child support obligations - not only because they are legally required, but also because they are morally required.
Eve has also made clear, in other threads, that she feels as strongly that in a same-sex relationship, the non-biological parent (or the non-adoptive parent) should be able to legally run out on her or his moral obligations: that, in fact, the non-biological parent has no moral obligations.
I feel that Eve needs to figure out which side of the fence she wants to stand on: the pro-child-support, pro-marriage side (which is where I'm standing) or the anti-child support, anti-marriage side (where Maggie has made clear she stands).
Right now, Eve seems to be sitting astride the fence: it's okay for the children of same-sex couples to be deserted, but not okay for the children of mixed-sex couples.
Why should we have pity on a woman who lets the father of her children off the hook deliberately, and then hopes to ensnare her girlfriend (with no biological relation, nor any legal relationship to the child) foot the bill?
Was she not aware of what she was doing, when she stepped into the fertility clinic, and allowing the father of her child to sign away all rights and responsibility? I guess her 'girlfriend' duped her, huh?
She should sue the boy's father for support.
Oh yeah, my previous comment was in response to the example in comment #1.
Jesu: "When a same-sex couple go together to a fertility clinic, and ask for treatment, the non-biological parent has moral child support obligations - and at present, no legal obligations."
How do you figure that? Where exactly did this moral obligation originate? Not from biology. Not from the law. Would the roomate of a single woman who underwent such "fetility treatment" (forget for a moment that she was never infertile at all, just short a male partner) be similarly "morally obliged" to support the children of her roomate?
Where did this moral obligation come from, Jesu.
Is that an SSMer legislating morality?
I guess my question to Jesurgislac is, Why is it okay when sperm donors refuse to care for their children, but if they'd had sex with the mothers, they'd be "sleazebags"?
...I am not 100% sure what legal regime would be best to manage responsibilities of the non-biological parent who nonetheless lived with the parent. This isn't an issue confined to same-sex couples; it also comes up with cohabiting heterosexual couples and with remarriages that end in divorce. I don't think I know enough about the different possibilities for degrees of support/responsibility to have an informed opinion. That's why I've been emphasizing what I _do_ know: You shouldn't cede responsibility to your own children; and children shouldn't be separated from their own parents unless remaining with their parents would harm them. You shouldn't set out to create a broken family.
Eve
Eve said: "This isn't an issue confined to same-sex couples; it also comes up with cohabiting heterosexual couples and with remarriages that end in divorce."
Even in those cases, both parents are held legally responsible for, and retain certain parental rights to, the children they create. As far as i can tell, it is ONLY in the case of "donation" that a parent is allowed to shirk his responsibility to his own offspring.
Why is that allowed to happen, you ask? Easy, the idea is that married couples with fertility problems can have children -- where the true biological father relenquishes his parental rights, and they are assumed by the other man.
They were never meant to be dropped entirely. Or given over to a second mother. Who has the right to do such a thing to a child?
Society needs to speak up for these children, when their parents are all to ready to ignore their needs.
Eve: You shouldn't set out to create a broken family.
Do you define as a "broken family" any family that includes children - adopted or by donor - that aren't biologically related to both parents?
Do you feel that a family once "broken" - when parents divorce - can never be mended: that divorced parents should not be permitted to remarry, and that having step-parents is never beneficial to children
Eve said... I guess my question to Jesurgislac is, Why is it okay when sperm donors refuse to care for their children, but if they'd had sex with the mothers, they'd be "sleazebags"?
Do you feel that sperm donation to licensed clinics ought to be illegal, then? Serious question, because your question sounds like you think it ought to be.
My answer is, then, that when a sperm donor donates at a clinic, he does so on the clear understanding that he has agreed to have his genetic material used to fertilise women whom he will never meet, to create children whom he will have no legal claim on. When a woman goes to a licensed clinic, she does so on the clear understanding that she (and her partner, if her partner goes with her) get to make use of the donor's genetic material: that she (and her partner) have no claim on the donor, whom they will never knowingly meet.
You may - though it's not something I've seen the anti-marriage folks do consistently - argue that sperm donation should be illegal. But the fact is: it's not illegal, and I see no reason, where the arrangement was made with clear understanding on both sides, to call either party a "sleazebag" for holding to the terms of their agreement.
No such clear legal agreement, publicly made and understood, exists except with sperm donation via a licensed clinic. Clinics don't let men donate sperm unless they understand first they have no legal rights or obligations to the offspring: clinics don't let couples or single women make use of donated sperm unless they understand first that the sperm donor has no legal rights or obligations to the child. (Plus a raftload of other matters, but we're dealing here with the issue of sperm donation.)
Is it then your understanding that, when a couple make use of a fertility clinic, the non-biological parent ought to be able to abandon the child to whom they have made a moral committment?
(With regard to mixed-sex couples, the law does not agree with you on this one: I see no reason why same-sex couples should not have the same legal obligations.)
For possible legal approaches to third-party reproduction, see my Register article; link is above.
Mostly I think we've reached the point where you're just not reading what I'm writing, though.
Eve
Oh, oops, sorry--wrong thread--Register link is this:
http://www.ncregister.com/articulo.php?artkod=ODg=
Eve
>>either it would need to change to
>>become only contract enforcement (no
>>"deadbeat dads" if they never signed a
>>contract), or we'll simply have to
>>accept a regime where the state rather
>>arbitrarily grabs people and makes them
>> personally responsible for indigent
>>children (my money's on the latter).
>Neither one.
It's already starting to disintigrate into chaos ...
Mostly I think we've reached the point where you're just not reading what I'm writing, though.
I reached that point some time ago with most of the anti-marriage crowd - that none of you are interested in reading intelligent, reasoned responses to what you are saying, and its practical implications, and therefore, when you get intelligent, reasoned responses, you ignore them, fail to read them, fail to respond to them, and complain that no one is responding except to howl "bigotry".
It's a tactic, I suppose. But an annoying one, just the same.
I have been very carefully assuming that when you and Maggie denigrate the benefits of marriage for adopted children, or marriage where the couple use AID or other fertility treatment, or consider the benefits of remarriage for the children of the divorce, you are thinking of the children of both same-sex and mixed-sex couples: that you have no prejudice and no wish to discriminate against children because of their parents. (I may be wrong about this, but I think it only fair to give you the benefit of the doubt.)
OK... maybe this will help, maybe not.
I think you're consistently conflating a lot of situations and issues that are really different. Adoption does not equal remarriage does not equal third-party reproduction. I've tried to address those issues separately and also to point out the ways in which they, in fact, differ.
Specifically, I think I addressed your question about benefits of marriage for adoptive parents, above. I do not think the benefits of marriage for adopted children now are _the same as_ the potential benefits of same-sex marriage for adoptive children of gay couples, precisely because of the ways in which adoption works and the ways ssm would change our marriage culture. See above. There may well be some benefit, especially in the short term, but really, at this point both of us are speculating wildly as to the possible benefits of ssm vs. second-parent adoption.
Eve
Oh drat. Once again I forgot which thread had which comments. The adoption stuff is in the "cultural confidence redux" thread, I think.
At this point, I note that both of us are repeating ourselves. We each apparently think that we have answered the other whereas the other has not engaged with our concerns and points.
Eve
Jesu "I see no reason, where the arrangement was made with clear understanding on both sides, to call either party a "sleazebag" for holding to the terms of their agreement."
Isn't it clearly understood that unmarried people are unmarried? Weren't they having consensual sex? What were the terms of their argreement, besides "let's have sex"? How is that any more of a sleazebag situation for either party? I don't see how one can call the guy a sleazebag but not advocate for fornication laws.
And Eve, how come you don't suggest to Jesu that civil unions can give those kids the benefits she thinks they need? She's off her rocker talking as though marriage is the only option for them. They don't need procreation rights to protect the kids. In fact, giving them procreation rights (ie, not banning SSP) would harm their kids.
I think Civil Unions should be exactly like marriage, with two exceptions: no procreation rights, and they should an easier time divorcing, to allow either partner to easily exit the civil union when it is no longer a consensual arrangement. When we reinstate fault-based divorce, that reform should not apply to civil unions. The heavy commitment should only apply to couples that have given and taken each other's procreation rights as their own procreation rights exclusively, and obviously if a couple is prohibited from procreating together, as a civil union would be, they can give their proreation rights to each other.
I mean, if they cannot give their procreation rights to each other, they haven't committed to each other the way couples that do give their procreation rights to each other do. They sign up for a whole lifetime as soon as they agree to possibly create a life together.
Eve: We each apparently think that we have answered the other whereas the other has not engaged with our concerns and points.
Eve, as far as I can see, you don't want to answer my questions, whereas I have gone to some trouble to answer yours.
Specifically, I asked you whether you think sperm donation should be illegal: rather than giving me a "yes" answer - fair and plain - or a "no" answer - in which case you would have had to go to some trouble to explain why you think children of same-sex couples ought to be discriminated against - you give me a link to a Register article which doesn't actually answer my question.
(You claim in it that Britain has banned anonymous donation, but this is a rather odd way of putting it, and doesn't resolve my question to you. What has actually happened in the UK is that the children born via sperm or egg donation now have the same right as adopted children have had for some time to look at their donor's records, when they turn 18, if they want to. The donor himself (or herself) still has no legal claim on and no legal obligations towards offspring of the donation.)
Jesurgislac, I am still trying to figure out what are the best means of dealing with third-party reproduction. My column laid out several possibilities, including but not limited to barring anonymous donation. I didn't look at banning sperm donation entirely, because that option has a lot of obvious problems (how would you DO it? create a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Turkey Basters?). So I suggested possibilities and said we need to do more work to figure out how to handle this issue.
Eve
As is evident right here, reformers want the law to endorse the use of turkey basters as the moral equivalent of procreation by couples inside their marriages. They want this said by ommission rather than a positive affirmation.
The meaning is supposed to compromise marriage as the union of a man and a woman. But out of the other side of the SSM mouth, marriage is not about procreation anyway.......
(how would you DO it? create a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Turkey Basters?)
With a law, that's how. That would shut down the clinics, and if some women broke the law with their turkey basters (and it takes more than a turkey baster - you have to find a man somewhere), so be it. They would not be doing anything different than if the man was in the room with them.
Why do people think that if something is hard to police, then we can't make it illegal? Where did that idea come from, Prohibition? When women start smuggling sperm around town with tommy guns blazing, then maybe we'll have a problem, but I don't see that happening.
Eve: Jesurgislac, I am still trying to figure out what are the best means of dealing with third-party reproduction.
I think you'll find that the "best means" means putting the interests of the child first. That may be difficult for you, as the consequences of that entail:
1. Not arguing that, since the children shouldn't exist, the law shouldn't take account of their needs.
2. Either arguing for a complete ban on AID (which would be impossible to enforce, as you note) or else conceding that, when a man donates sperm, he should not have legal rights or obligations to the offspring created (anything in between creates enormous difficulties and stress - you would be better off with a complete ban, if that were possible) but;
3. that the child's legal parents do have legal and moral rights and obligations to their legal child, which it is as shameful for them to run out on as it would be if the child were biologically theirs.
The consequences of putting the child first mean arguing, at the least, that a child can have a parent legally who may not be biologically related, but who has an obligation to support the chid. (This also, of course, applies to adoption.)
And both parents may be the same gender.
And if you support marriage as a nurturing environment within which to rear children, not just as a contract for procreation, then, if you put the needs of the child first, you have to support same-sex marriage.
I wish I could make you see this: it seems to be completely outside yours (or Maggie's) comprehension. You do not help these children by arguing they should not exist. You really, really don't.
Good argument. Siblings with kids should have no problems changing the complete ban on their unions.
Post a Comment
<< Home