lassus, your gf made me laugh out loud...

Here's(warning, PDF) a decent (relatively recent) study on contraception failure rates.

What this discussion beautifully reveals, often unconsciously but always implicitly, is our presumed hierarchy of valued beings. First is the woman; then the child; then the man.

Not at all. It reveals a hierarchy of rights. Bodily autonomy trumps right to potential life and economic autonomy. A dependent child's right to support trumps its parents' economic autonomy. It certainly has nothing to do with valuing women more than men.

The being inside of her is nothing, until instantaneously it becomes everything

Some people may have this position, but I'm not one of them. The developing life, prior to viability, is something. It's not yet a person, and so it has none of the individual rights that only apply to people. Post-viability, it is something more, yet still not possessing the full set of rights as a born person (since we'd allow the mother to abort if her own life were at risk at pretty much any moment up until birth). Post-birth, it is a full person.

She has the entire weight of society’s concern and sympathy always.

To the extent that this is true, it's not a reasonable thing. Post-birth, the woman deserves no more consideration than the man as it regards the child. Between conception and birth, the woman has more choices because she bears the overwhelming majority of the burden of those choices.

Is this a condom failure rate or a "pregnancy occurs = failure"


It's pregnancy = failure.

Are you sure? A 4% pregnancy rate with condoms would mean that the condom is breaking/failing like 20% of the time, which simply isn't happening.

Are you sure?

Positive. At least, I'm sure that's what the studies are saying. Check the study I linked above. (Also, it's over the course of a year. The failure rate = the number of women out of 100 that can expect to become pregnant over a year of use. So in the case of condoms, that's 2 in 100 over the course of a year assuming theoretically perfect use. Over 10 years of use, it would be like 18% or so (1 - .98^10))

SteveF, that link requires institution authentication.

The "4% failure rate" doesn't mean either that there is a 4% chance an individual condom won't work, or that there's a 4% chance that a single instance of lady and a dude ####### using a condom leads to the lady getting pregnant. Rather, it's saying that among straight couples having condom-protected sex over the course of a year, in 4% of those couples the lady will get pregnant in a year.

"Failure rates" with contraception are almost entirely failures of use. Oral contraceptives are like 99.8% effective when used assiduously and correctly, but if you've ever had a regimen of taking a pill a day before, you know how easy it is to miss a day or two. The pill fails with some regularity because a large percentage of women don't take it perfectly. The same mutatis mutandis is true with condoms - used correctly, the failure rate is very small, but a lot of people aren't careful enough putting them on or taking them off, or about throwing out old ones, or about selecting lube.

These failures of use are common, but couples that see no failures over years are not exactly outliers - it's more likely that these are couples who do a better job being precise and careful in contraception use.

For myself, in high-leverage situations, I've always tried to look at myself like a statistic, rather than like an ideal human being who doesn't make the mistakes statistical humans do. So I am very much a believer in the double-barrier, pill plus condom theory of contraception.

Rather, it's saying that among straight couples having condom-protected sex over the course of a year, in 4% of those couples the lady will get pregnant in a year.

That number simply seems high. I suppose I am just Jeter-great-fieldering it.

Although, as you mention, it notes a failure in humans, not much of anything else. In such case the number when accepting THAT seems crazy low I suppose.

I'd guess there's some selection bias there. Most women with good health care and good health literacy, who don't want to get pregnant, use better birth control methods than just condoms. So I would guess that among just-condoms couples, you're going to see a higher percentage of dumbassed 16-year-olds who don't know what they're doing, and generally a higher percentage of people with low health literacy, low levels of health care and familial support, and so on.

(Though, thinking about it more, the scientists who study the issue are capable of recognizing that tendency, too. So perhaps the statistics are already accounting for that bias.)

But even non-dumbasses are very much capable of screwing up contraception. Happens all the time. Use two methods, people!

The woman by law is the last decider as to whether a child should be allowed to come into being. The man, legally, has no veto or trump rights as to this ability to make the last decision affecting the fetus. It's, to coin a phrase, entirely her baby. The law does not even recognize that she could be held to a contract in derogation of that right. Should she contract, she could later breach that contract with impunity, and the law would not hold her to the obligations she undertook in the contract.

Morty, do you know of any cases, other than a sperm donation in a regulated setting under the indirect supervision of an M.D., where any contractual obligation agreed to by the woman that limits the rights of the zygote/fetus/child was held to be valid?

I think regulated sperm donation gives us a useful model from which to work. Here's one: is the zygote entitled to its sperm donor's medical history? It makes sense that it is, but I haven't done any thinking on the rights aspect. Does the zygote have preferred status, such that it gains the right to breach the customary shield of privacy wrt medical records? If yes, does that preferred status extend into other areas? I'm asking you specifically because the other side will simply repeat some variation of, 'when he sticks it in, he cannot win'.

Let's face it--any woman who brings a zygote to term, knowing full well the sperm donor had zero interest in fathering a child with her, zero interest in raising a child with her, and was careful in his choice of birth control consistent with that absence of interest, is irresponsible beyond measure to bring a child into the world under those circumstances, especially knowing full well she'll need to force the sperm donor under "child support" enforcement's threat of imprisonment to subsidize for 18 to 21 years her decision to have a child.

You're making it sound like "bringing a zygote to term" is some sort of positive act. She's choosing not to undergo a medical procedure, a procedure that offers the risk of societal, physical, and emotional consequences.

And in that range of risk and consequences, it differs from remaining pregnant and giving birth how, exactly? Abottion is safer than going to term, it is less physically dangerous, there are serious societal consequences to single motherhood, and as any single mom will tell you, trying to find a partner while raising a small child is much more difficult. In short, to paraphrase, she is choosing to undergo a process, a process that guarantees an increased risk of societal, physical, and emotional consequences. Follow up studies show that very, very few women have the sort of severe regret after abortion that you're implying.

@1126:

I don't believe in jail time for unpaid support for the same reason that I don't believe in debtor's prisons generally. A bankruptcy-free draw on one's income until the debt and reasonable interest is paid is sufficient; if someone manages to escape obligation even with this, society picks up the slack.

Sensible. You may know that child support, or subsidizing a woman's decision to have a child, is called 'the last debtors' prison', and that the vast majority of unpaid child support follows from depleted circumstances (illness, unemployment in a bad economy, disability) rather than abandonment. Attorney friends who practice in family court (I used to play poker with a couple, so sss and all that) tell me appeals of awards based on changed circumstances are routinely turned down in order to spur the appellant to 'get a job', or 'get healthy'. Indigent defendants are often unable to figure out the arcane rules involved in appealing, cannot afford legal assistance, and this is not the kind of thing free legal services ever help with. Further, the Supreme Court has ruled there's no right to counsel for defendants facing prison as a result of overdue support; instead, the Court has chosen to entrust individual states to look after defendents' rights. Good thing they didn't take the same approach during the civil rights era.

Lastly, to show how bizarre enforcement has gotten, the first recourses for states for falling behind in support payments are suspension of drivers' licenses and professional licenses.

@1141: brilliant.

Steve--thanks for looking into the numbers. Any idea how many pregnancies, total, annually, are the result of condom failure, or how that might be calculated?

--------------------------


@1138: Dunno, Jay: Why do you have sex with women, when you clearly hate them so much, what with having so much contempt for their ability to make critical decisions and take responsibility for those decisions?

It's a preference. The other side prefers the deadbeat to have unfettered use of his money.

snaps, when you get nasty, do you prefer being told to fuck off directly, or would you rather something more evocative, but no less offensive than the cheap, unjustified shot you took, like "regardless of how much you suck up to women here, they're still not going to have sex with you, loser"?

In short, tone it down, guys. It should be possible on a baseball stats site to have a reasoned discussion even of an issue such as this one.

One reason to change current law is because it simply rewards duplicity. One need not be remotely paranoid to understand how many women become pregant intentionally without fully consulting their partners in order to know the current system incentivizes that behavior.

I know of very few instances of likely sabotage of birth control, but I've been shocked over the years by how many woman have admitted to me that they stopped taking birth control with the specific aim of getting pregnant, and did so either without consulting with their partners, or with the full knowledge their partners would have vehemnently disagreed.

Hypothetical: Five years from now a condom is invented that a man can use that is indistinguishable from a conventional condom. It allows him to painlessly extract an egg during intercourse from the woman. The man fertilizes the egg and with his Grow-A-Kid Kit brings the fetus to term. He then goes to court and wins weekly child support for this child, good for the next twenty-one years and including partial college tuition, and any and all unusual medical care.

Okay, or not?

One need not be remotely paranoid to understand how many women become pregant intentionally without fully consulting their partners in order to know the current system incentivizes that behavior.

In your honest opinion, how many?

I mean, it's just an odd statement. I'm not paramoid, but I think that statement of yours goes past remotely and into certainly.

Do you really want to hear more of Jack Carter's opinions about women? Hasn't this thread been more than enough? I already feel like I need a shower.

@1138: Dunno, Jay: Why do you have sex with women, when you clearly hate them so much, what with having so much contempt for their ability to make critical decisions and take responsibility for those decisions?

I took 100% responsibility for any sex acts I participated in. For me, that meant I really held back until I was sure I could deal with the worst case scenarios. Sex acts are 100% the responsibility of both partners. In your world the consequences of sex acts are 100% on the female and 0% on the male. In your world, the male has no incentive to wear a condom. Or if he wears one, he can tamper with it if he wants to spread his seed since he faces no financial repercussions.

In your world, the male has no incentive to wear a condom. Or if he wears one, he can tamper with it if he wants to spread his seed since he faces no financial repercussions.

Wouldn't such a system be a boon for low-status males?

I took 100% responsibility for any sex acts I participated in. For me, that meant I really held back until I was sure I could deal with the worst case scenarios. Sex acts are 100% the responsibility of both partners. In your world the consequences of sex acts are 100% on the female and 0% on the male. In your world, the male has no incentive to wear a condom. Or if he wears one, he can tamper with it if he wants to spread his seed since he faces no financial repercussions.

hundreds and hundreds of posts and the other side still doesn't understand what they are arguing against.


Anyway, as the data shows the majority of unpaid child support comes from "deadbeat dads" who simply don't have the money to give to the child or who don't care about the consequences of not paying child support. So it is beyond silly to think that child support truly is an incentive to wear a condom. If you want to talk about the real world then let's talk about reality.

Anyway, as the data shows the majority of unpaid child support comes from "deadbeat dads" who simply don't have the money to give to the child or who don't care about the consequences of not paying child support. So it is beyond silly to think that child support truly is an incentive to wear a condom. If you want to talk about the real world then let's talk about reality.

Fine. Then view it as a punishment for anti-social behavior.

Fine. Then view it as a punishment for anti-social behavior.

Punishment for whom? Taxpayers?

Let us say that two people hook up and a pregnancy results from that union. The two people go on their seperate ways and a child is born. The mother asks for and gets child support. Now then is the mother under any obligation to contribute money towards the raising of the child? Does she have to pay child support or does she simply have to "raise" the child? What is her incentive to work and earn money so that the child can be raised properly? Why isn't she a deadbeat mom if she fails to get a job and can't afford to support her child?

What is her incentive to work and earn money so that the child can be raised properly?

What's her incentive to work if day care costs more than what she's making on her job?

If a custodial parent neglects to provide nutrition, shelter, supervision, or emotional support to the child, that's a very serious crime with significant jail time that can result.

Punishment for whom? Taxpayers?

Punishment for conceiving a child you plan to abandon.

Let us say that two people hook up and a pregnancy results from that union. The two people go on their seperate ways and a child is born. The mother asks for and gets child support. Now then is the mother under any obligation to contribute money towards the raising of the child? Does she have to pay child support or does she simply have to "raise" the child? What is her incentive to work and earn money so that the child can be raised properly? Why isn't she a deadbeat mom if she fails to get a job and can't afford to support her child?

Child support is rarely sufficient to run a household. Typically the custodial parent is paying rent/utilities etc. for the home the child is raised in. That's very significant support.

That's very significant support.

But not unique to raising a child. The mother would have to pay that regardless of whether or not she had a child.

What's her incentive to work if day care costs more than what she's making on her job?


So she gets to be a deadbeat mom because the system is gamed in her favor?

If a custodial parent neglects to provide nutrition, shelter, supervision, or emotional support to the child, that's a very serious crime with significant jail time that can result.


So if a mother does not work and cannot afford to take care of her child she'll go to jail just like a man does if he does not contribute child support?

So if a mother does not work and cannot afford to take care of her child

She becomes eligible for government assistance, though with some conditions, in order that the child can be cared for.

It has nothing to do with whether custodial parents work or not. If they fail to provide for the child's needs, they are committing a crime of child neglect.

The idea that it's a larger imposition on one's life to have to pay X% of your salary for child support than to have an actual child to care for day to day simply boggles the mind.

Punishment for whom? Taxpayers?

Punishment for conceiving a child you plan to abandon.

Eternal damnation isn't punishment enough?

The idea that it's a larger imposition on one's life to have to pay X% of your salary for child support than to have an actual child to care for day to day simply boggles the mind.

Everything these idiots say boggle the mind. They live in a philosophical construct, not the real world. They think that having an abortion is equivalent to having a hangnail treated. They are either full time trolls or morally deficient to the point of sociopathology or too stupid to be worth talking to.

If the mother can't work, or doesn't earn enough she gets assistance from the state in the form of benefits, food stamps, and Medicaid.

If the father can't meet his child support payments . . . .

So if a mother does not work and cannot afford to take care of her child she'll go to jail just like a man does if he does not contribute child support?

Women with child get assistance--from the father (and some that supposed child support is camouflage alimony, that is support for the mother) and from the state if necessary, and she'll have a child that she usually wants and can raise freely without the interference of a father present.

Usually, it's deemed by courtt to be in the best interest that the mother gets domiciliary custody. (And even when the father has domiciliary custody, often the mother doesn't pay child support--the real threat of the mother of asking for custody has a chilling effect here, when one knows how prejudiced the courts in awarding it to mothers.) That means that the father has to contribute to maintaining two household and often two families (of course, he should suppress his urges). And of course he has to hassle with visitation, which mothers often see as largesse that they confer at will and whim.

Child support is rarely sufficient to run a household. Typically the custodial parent is paying rent/utilities etc. for the home the child is raised in. That's very significant support.

Luckily, those expenses don't exist for the father, right?

If the mother can't work, or doesn't earn enough she gets assistance from the state in the form of benefits, food stamps, and Medicaid.

If the father can't meet his child support payments . . . .

Nope.

A custodial parent, male or female, can be eligible for government assistance under certain circumstances. A non-custodial parent in turn will usually be bound to provide child support.

Let's face it--any woman who brings a zygote to term, knowing full well the sperm donor had zero interest in fathering a child with her, zero interest in raising a child with her, and was careful in his choice of birth control consistent with that absence of interest, is irresponsible beyond measure to bring a child into the world under those circumstances, especially knowing full well she'll need to force the sperm donor under "child support" enforcement's threat of imprisonment to subsidize for 18 to 21 years her decision to have a child. If a sperm donor who cannot meet his imposed financial obligation is a "deadbeat dad", surely the woman who lets her child down in each of these essential regards is significantly worse. Let's call her, a "scumbag mom".

This is absurd, and offensive.

Of course. Parody often is.

But while we'e here, what do you find absurd? What do you find offensive?
When comparable claims are directed against men, do you object? Men who fall behind in child support payments are inevitably called 'deadbeat dads', despite the fact that most men who fall behind do so as a result of hardship. We extend a lot of sympathy to men who are bankrupted by health care crises, but when these same men, bankrupted, can't meet the obligations of support awards, he hang prison over them.

What do you consider offensive--the description of women who bring zygotes to term knowing full well they can't support children as "irresponsible"? How is that offensive?

Now then is the mother under any obligation to contribute money towards the raising of the child? Does she have to pay child support or does she simply have to "raise" the child? What is her incentive to work and earn money so that the child can be raised properly? Why isn't she a deadbeat mom if she fails to get a job and can't afford to support her child?

We certainly don't jail women in these situations, even when they become lifelong welfare recipients. To some degree we do though, broadly, condemn these women. These are the Welfare Queens of the Reagan era, but they face none of the punitive sanctions men face. There are good and bad reasons for women to fail to contribute to their chidren financially, just as their are good and bad reasons why men fail to contribute. Your implication, though, that we disincentive work for women is spot on--it's a widespread problem.

The purpose of my parody of the attitude we take towards men is meant to expose the absurdity both of the presumption of guilt, a system that criminalizes far too many people, but also to note that women's culpability, in bringing children into the world they cannot support, especially when knowing full well the sperm donor had no interest in a child, is substantial, and probably significantly exceeds the culpability of men in these situations, what with women being the original fomentors of the problem.

It's part of the problem that is hopelessly underdiscussed. As long as it is, we'll be falling down in our responsibility to educate young women wrt their role in all of this.

Do you really want to hear more of Jack Carter's opinions about women? Hasn't this thread been more than enough? I already feel like I need a shower.

Typical Matt sliming and smearing. You don't have an argument to make, so you resort to personal attack, just like those threads where I have the gall to note an accusation doesn't equal a conviction. I'll add only I find your contempt for women revolting, your inability to argue coherently laughable, and your resort to the personal all to typical of your approach to ideas. I understand you don't have the intellectual stones to win the argument, but at least go for a walk until you're able to grasp that my case treats women as moral, responsible agents, and yours treats them with utter contempt. You wussy little prude. It's hard to imagine you even know what it is you're so angry about.

Incidentally, when you become abusive like you just did, can we reply that we find your irresponsible and cavalier attitude towards children ultimately abusive? You're obviously indifferent to the well-being of children, and have no qualms at all about irresponsible women who can't support their children bringing them into the world at will.

If a custodial parent neglects to provide nutrition, shelter, supervision, or emotional support to the child, that's a very serious crime with significant jail time that can result.

More intellectually dishonest twaddle. Moms who can't meet their obligations are never jailed unless the abuse is physical, ongoing, and obvious, while our default position wrt men who can't meet their support aware obligations are that a willful failure to pay has occurred. Once four months in back support are due we call parents in, assume their guilt, hang prison sentences over them, but deny the indigent a right to an attorney.

As for your hilarious claim (seriously--it's the funniest thing I've read, 'unintentional' category, in a month) that women go to prison for 'failure to provide emotional support to a child', please listen to yourself some time.

Nope.

A custodial parent, male or female, can be eligible for government assistance under certain circumstances. A non-custodial parent in turn will usually be bound to provide child support.

I think the point is that if the father can't come up with the money he goes to jail. If the mother can't come up with the money and she has the kid she gets pity and support. The system is setup in such a way that the male is forced to come up with the money or else while the female gets help.

It has nothing to do with whether custodial parents work or not. If they fail to provide for the child's needs, they are committing a crime of child neglect.



That's great. Now what does that mean in the real world? What happens if a mother is unemployed, has no money, and has no real potential to get money any time soon? Does she get treated like a man who cannot afford child support because he is unemployed, has no money, and has no real potential to get money any time soon?

The idea that it's a larger imposition on one's life to have to pay X% of your salary for child support than to have an actual child to care for day to day simply boggles the mind.

Are people arguing that it is larger or are we simply creating strawmans?

The system is setup in such a way that the male is forced to come up with the money or else while the female gets help.

No, the system is set up in such a way that the custodial parent gets help, in order that the child can be provided for. Likewise, the system is set up in such a way that the non-custodial parent is required to contribute monetary support, in order that the child can be provided for.

Whatever the gender of the custodial and non-custodial parents, this still applies. The focus of the system is the good of the child.

No, the system is set up in such a way that the custodial parent gets help, in order that the child can be provided for.

Okay, and how does the system decide who gets the kid? You can't really act like the law doesn't look at gender when deciding custody of the kid.

No, the system is set up in such a way that the custodial parent gets help, in order that the child can be provided for. Likewise, the system is set up in such a way that the non-custodial parent is required to contribute monetary support, in order that the child can be provided for.

Whatever the gender of the custodial and non-custodial parents, this still applies. The focus of the system is the good of the child.

Well as I mentioned earlier, if it's the child uber alles, why isn't the default to award custody to the highest wage earner. Unless there is a compelling argument against it, it should be assumed that the highest wage earner is most capable of providing the neccessary support for the child.

Well as I mentioned earlier, if it's the child uber alles, why isn't the default to award custody to the highest wage earner. Unless there is a compelling argument against it, it should be assumed that the highest wage earner is most capable of providing the neccessary support for the child.

That would have the added benefit of getting lazy women out of the house to do some real productive work. Seriously, listening to these hens whine about sitting on their ass at home nursing and changing diapers like it was any sort of value to society has gone beyond nauseating.

Fight on beta males! Don't let those harpies push you around any more!

Don't let those harpies push you around any more!

Are we talking about the Yankees or men here?

I think the point is that if the father can't come up with the money he goes to jail.

How many men are actually imprisoned for back child support? I think the number is so small as to be an irrelevancy.

Well as I mentioned earlier, if it's the child uber alles, why isn't the default to award custody to the highest wage earner. Unless there is a compelling argument against it, it should be assumed that the highest wage earner is most capable of providing the neccessary support for the child.

Really? This is a mystery to you?

The child's welfare is paramount. The parent who is best able to care (that means more than money by the way) for the child gets the child (well of course it is my complex than this, with shared custody and all permutations). In theory, sadly it is not a perfect system. The other parent provides what they can.

Sensible. You may know that child support, or subsidizing a woman's decision to have a child, is called 'the last debtors' prison', and that the vast majority of unpaid child support follows from depleted circumstances (illness, unemployment in a bad economy, disability) rather than abandonment. Attorney friends who practice in family court (I used to play poker with a couple, so sss and all that) tell me appeals of awards based on changed circumstances are routinely turned down in order to spur the appellant to 'get a job', or 'get healthy'. Indigent defendants are often unable to figure out the arcane rules involved in appealing, cannot afford legal assistance, and this is not the kind of thing free legal services ever help with. Further, the Supreme Court has ruled there's no right to counsel for defendants facing prison as a result of overdue support; instead, the Court has chosen to entrust individual states to look after defendents' rights. Good thing they didn't take the same approach during the civil rights era.

The correct moral stand (both parent supporting the child) does not mean the system is perfect. However it is morally correct to mandate both parents support the child. I suspect a set of laws on the "dead beat dad" platform could also be poorly implemented, also be abused, also have flaws, and even worse I suspect.

SteveF, that link requires institution authentication.

Sorry about that. The site does something tricky. There should be a link that says "PDF Full Text." Click on that to take you to the full article. After you've visited the article once subsequent visits to the URL I linked go directly to the article in the same browser session, which is why I was tricked into thinking I had the right URL.

Steve--thanks for looking into the numbers. Any idea how many pregnancies, total, annually, are the result of condom failure, or how that might be calculated?

Well, one site suggests there are 3.1 million unintended pregnancies a year, and 10% of women (10% of all women, not just those using birth control) report relying on condoms as the primary birth control method (in cases of multiple birth control methods, they consider the method used to be the most effective method, which tends not to be condoms).

So that would suggest, with typical use, you get 310,000 unintended pregnancies. Now, if we go by the stats and figure typical condom use results in a failure rate that's 8-10 times higher (depending on what study you believe, I've seen typical use failure rates for condoms from 15-20%) than the theoretical failure rate, that number drops significantly down to about 35,000 a year.

I'd link the sites I'm using for data, but I fear that would only give you the impression that I have faith in these numbers. These are largely guesses upon estimates upon guesses.

I'll link.pdf (warning, PDF) to the primary source of data anyway. I'd just caution against taking these numbers too seriously.

Nope.

A custodial parent, male or female, can be eligible for government assistance under certain circumstances. A non-custodial parent in turn will usually be bound to provide child support.

Yep.

I didn't that a father who was a custodial parent wouldn't get aid (although it will be harder). I said he wouldn't get it, period, and by that I meant even if paying child support would otherwise make him meet the income/resource requirements.

If you think the system pursues the woman's obligations with anything like the ferocity it pursues the man's, I'll call shenanigans on that. All you have to do is check on which parent gets the child support (and sub rosa alimony), and which parent doesn't even if she doesn't have custody, and which parent gets state aid.

If a custodial parent neglects to provide nutrition, shelter, supervision, or emotional support to the child, that's a very serious crime with significant jail time that can result.

Bull. That applies with much more force, other things being equal, to men thant to women. ####, women can even make their children drug addicts in the womb (which is akin to forcing mainling on the fetus) and get away with it. Or got to "rehab" as punishment, which means she gets food, shelter, etc. Only extreme cases are dealt with, inadequately.

You'd think all these people that believe the child comes first would want the woman to pull their own weight and be responsible but apparently the child comes first is simply code for "be a man".

Yeah, except when it's I Am Woman, Hear Me Ovulate.

The only way the illusion of equality can be maintained is by gaming the system in her favor through a morass of cognitive dissonance. She can do whatever a man can, and if she can't it's only because of her innate goodness, so we have to give her a handicap. But men--that got to live with what they are, and that is mostly creature who have uses.

:

I think the point is that if the father can't come up with the money he goes to jail.

How many men are actually imprisoned for back child support? I think the number is so small as to be an irrelevancy.

The 50,000 men sleeping on their prison cots tonight probably disagree.

There's a ton of interesting, sad, hard to find data of an underexamined situation, at

http://purplemotes.net/2011/03/22/persons-in-jail-for-child-support-debt/

The author, Douglas Galbi notes that 70% of those behind in subsidies for a woman's decision to have a child (aka 'child support') make less than $10,000 a year (a salary making any expenditures beyond food and rent impossible), which suggests we're simply jailing those men who are victims of our economic system's inevitable, structural unemployment.

Galbi, whom I had never heard of, does his homework, though he does call 'child support', 'sex payments', which I think is a misnomer, but he makes an interesting case. When a woman decides to have a child, 'subsidy for a woman's decision to have a child' is more accurate, imo.

He brings up a sadly not atypical case:

In South Carlina in late 1995, Michael D. Turner had consensual sex of reproductive type with Rebecca L. Price. He was 18 years old; she, 16 years old. They were not married, nor did they have any other legal relational status. In 2003, a South Carolina court set a weekly sum that it ordered Turner to pay to Price, who by that time had married another man whose last name was Rogers.[1] Without another court order, Turner was required to pay this sum weekly until the year 2014.

....... In 2007, 4.9 million parents received such payments. The payments totaled $24.9 billion.[4]

Since 2003, Turner has been jailed six times for failing to make his court-ordered sex payments. In 2004, he was jailed once for a day, and eight months later, for two days. About a year later, he was incarcerated for about four and half months. In 2008, he was jailed for about eight months. In 2009, he was jailed for three months. In 2010, he was again jailed. Turner is scheduled to appear on May 4, 2011, once again in civil court for sex-payment arrears. He is likely then to be jailed a seventh time for sex-payment debt.[5] At his civil contempt hearing in April, 2009, Turner explained to the court why he couldn’t make his sex payments:

"I just got out [of jail] – I done a year ’07 to ’08, got out for like four months. I’ve tried to find a job. I, honest to God, have tried this time. There’s no work out there hardly for carpenters. I couldn’t find anything, so I been putting in applications in grocery stores, you name it. I’ve got in applications. I have tried. I’ve honestly tried this time. That’s all I can say. I can’t find no work" [6]

Spells of imprisonment hurts persons’ subsequent ability to get a job and earn income legally. Moreover, under typical state law, sex payments continue to accumulate, with interest (12% in South Carolina), while the sex-payment debtor is imprisoned for non-payment. Hence, once imprisonment spells reach several months, serial imprisonment for sex-payment debt isn’t surprising.[7]

.

Liza Porteus reviews the data and notes that as a percentage women are more often 'deadbeats' than men. Custodial fathers also work harder than custodial mothers, while getting far less government help.

Single dads are sick and tired of being labeled “deadbeats” when it comes to paying child support. And data suggest they have good reason to be upset.The percentage of “deadbeat” moms is actually higher than that of dads who won’t pay, even though mothers are more consistently awarded custody of children by the courts.

Census figures show only 57 percent of moms required to pay child support — 385,000 women out of a total of 674,000 — give up some or all of the money they owe. That leaves some 289,000 “deadbeat” mothers out there, a fact that has barely been reported in the media.That compares with 68 percent of dads who pay up, according to the figures.

This despite the fact that:

... men also still pay much more in child support. The Census Bureau last month also released numbers showing fathers paid an average of $3,000 to custodial moms in 1997. Women paid little over half that. Moms also get about 60 percent of what they are owed, whereas dads only get 48 percent.Not only are the dads paying up more when they don’t have custody, but when the court does hand the kids over to dads, they work more than moms who have custody.

While 7 percent of custodial moms work more than 44 hours a week, 24.5 percent of single custodial dads work more than 44 hours. And only about half as many custodial dads get government help than moms.Some dads say it’s not for a lack of laws that moms are getting away with not paying up.Bill Henry is head of Dads Against Discrimination of West Virginia and a single dad. In 1983, his first ex was ordered by the court to pay $25 a month in child support –which he did not start actually receiving until 1987 – even though the state minimum then should have been $75 a month.Henry said dads are often discouraged from pursuing custody battles by attorneys and often don’t like to make waves in the system, as long as they get to regularly see their child or get complete custody.“A lot of men are afraid to ask for child support simply because they think if they’re asking for child support, they won’t get a chance to get custody,” Henry said.California dad Scott Downing has also experienced child-support snafus and said courts continue to give dads the short end of the custody stick. “The laws are there, but it’s the way the courts interpret those laws,” he said.

It also seems to be the case that childhood poverty is overwhelmingly the result of women making poor choices. The NYTimes had an interesting article awhile back, titled "Two Classes, Divided by ‘I Do’ ".

About 41 percent of births in the United States occur outside marriage, up sharply from 17 percent three decades ago. But equally sharp are the educational divides, according to an analysis by Child Trends, a Washington research group. Less than 10 percent of the births to college-educated women occur outside marriage, while for women with high school degrees or less the figure is nearly 60 percent.

The sad truth is that these women are doing their children a profound disservice, having them when they are underprepared to support them. At the same time, these disadvantaged, single parent families come at an additonal cost, draining the resources of men who did not want them, and hindering or crippling those men in their attempts to have families of their choosing.

Anyone arguing that the millions of women having children knowing their fathers did not want them--and without themselves possessing the education or skills necessary to supporting those children much above subsistence level--aren't hugely irresponsible is being disingenuous, willfully blind, or merely political. The problem is almost entirely self-inflicted, and the problem does not arise from men making poor choices, or walking away in droves from obligations that can be met.

Really? This is a mystery to you?

The child's welfare is paramount. The parent who is best able to care (that means more than money by the way) for the child gets the child (well of course it is my complex than this, with shared custody and all permutations).

I never said money was should be the only factor. I said it should be the default, unless there is a compelling argument otherwise. Are you really arguing that's the case?

The system is based primarily on the theory, as Andy painted out pages ago, that the mother has inherently more right to custody than the father, due to the physical hardship. of going through pregnancy and childbirth. But if the child's rights supersede those of any other party involved, then the correct response to that is 'tough tittie'.

The fact of the matter is that the current system only considers the child's rights, if his/her circumstance drop beneath an unacceptable threshold. Other than that, it is entirely focused on balancing claims of rights by parents.

This one's for snapper, or any of the other conservative Catholics here.

How do you feel about pope Benedict retiring? Think he's telling the truth, that it's ill health, or do you think it's a way for him to dodge prosecution for his role in the child rape coverup conspiracy?

I doubt it's a dodge, what kind of dodge could that possibly be?