From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Impact of the absent father
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 01:03:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.173448.8904@ttinews.tti.com> reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.230720.19685@u.washington.edu> hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>
>>   We need able parents not "remote wallets".
>
>We need both.  If the mother isn't financially independent, and the
>father isn't going to be held responsible for the money to raise the
>children, who is?  The government (translation:  you, me, and every
>other taxpayer)?  No thanks.  If a dad isn't going to be a "real" dad,
>for whatever reason, he still has responsibilities.  

Why? Please give me one good reason why this should be a DIRECT responsibility
instead of a collective one. Certainly, from the child's perspective, it's more
beneficial to get a steady flow of income that doesn't embitter and/or 
financially destroy the father, isn't it?

>>>You see, to Mr. Mott, children don't need fathers - they need rich,
>>>well-educated mothers.  How do we get such things?  Lots and lots of
>>>child-support to pay for lots of Fisher-Price stuff and alimony to pay
>>>for moms' getting educations, perhaps?
>>
>>    Don't force people (men) to be "remote wallets".
>
>If he's fathered children, he has taken on that responsibility.  

What a gargantuan assumption you make here. Let's see, *ALL* circumstances-
of-conception are essentially the same, right? The guy who gets defrauded,
or who gets his semen stolen, has "taken on that responsibility" just as
much as the divorced man withholding child-support as a way of pissing off
his ex-wife, right?

It's fascinating how you can collapse all the nuances and unique facets of 
all circumstances-of-conception in order to fit your sweeping generalization.

>It is a reasonable function of government to force him to make good on it.

Which branch of government, though? Is it something that can be handled by
ordinary contract or tort principles, or something that requires special
legislative meddling?

>It is NOT a reasonable function of government to take money away from
>other people to cover HIS familial debt.

You're begging the question. It's not "HIS" [sic] debt until the courts or
the legislature rule that is. If a baby shows up on a doorstep, do we
withhold support from it until such time as one or both parents can be found?
No, of course not. The state cares for the child until one or both parents
can be found, or the child matures into an adult who can care for himself or
herself. The default condition for children without supportive parents is
to be cared for by the state, in other words. And until such time as the
state can justify paternity child support on something other than legislative
fiat, I think it should bear the cost of otherwise-unsupported children. (I 
also believe that reforming paternity child support would have the net effect 
of REDUCING the social cost of illegitimate children, by reducing the 
incentive to produce them in the first place. But I digress...)

>>    Don't financially rape the "non-maid parents".
>
>Money doesn't come from nowhere.  Someone's got to pay the bills.  It's
>either the father, or someone who had nothing to do with the child, but
>is forced to pay for it anyway (via taxes).  Which seems fairer to
>you?

What seems fair to me is that the people who voluntarily participate in the
birth of the child should be the "front line" for that child's support, in
the ratio of their voluntary participation. If they are unable, then the state
should bear at least part of the cost, just as it does with all poor children
REGARDLESS of their circumstances-of-conception.

>>    But rather empower the single parent (women).
>
>That is the family's job; it is not an appropriate use of tax money.

Huh? How can "the family" combat the effect of gender-discriminatory hiring
practices, for instance? Did you understand what the previous poster meant?

								- Kevin