Wednesday, 29 September 2010

To be, or not to be, (on the birth certificate)

In matters of relationships, I'm a strict libertarian. I don't care with whom you shack up, and what you do behind closed doors with consenting adults. Marriage should not concern the state one jot, as it is a public declaration to family and friends, and as far as the tax advantages of "marriage" go, that's what the civil partnership's for, gay or straight. The state is not interested in the wedding vows, but the signing of the register.

Now the issue of children is a different matter. Deliberate single motherhood, without asking the father's permission is evil, as is abandoning a woman during pregnancy when you'd promised to help support her. The problem comes when the issue of child support creates an incentive to trap a man into fatherhood, and the issue of benefits forces a potentially loving nuclear family apart. The state has regulated too deep, and intrusively and created perverse incentives in doing so.

However, there is no legal requirement for Milliband minor to be on his spawn's brat's child's birth certificate, though it could in theory (but probably not in practice) affect his legal rights as a parent, but neither of the above cases apply to him she neither entrapped him, nor he abandon her. I've no doubt that he's an admirable father, if slightly awkward and bug-eyed, with an anoying nasal whine, which he will no doubt pass on to the unfortunate offspring. Though I suspect anyone trying to make political hay out of the Millisprog's bastardy or anything else related the new Leader of the opposition's unwedded state to be a Daily Mail-reading git, Milliband minor did vote for laws which intrude into the bedroom, in which case, the nastiness is just deserts. Reap what ye sow, interfering socialists.



9 comments:

jaljen said...

Trapped into fatherhood? Take responsibility for your seed and wear a condom. Don't want to be a Dad? Wear a.....(Surely you get the message?)

Jackart said...

You ask your man to wear a blob in a regular relationship?

Thought not.

When women take responsibiltiy for their fertility, then men and women will be equal in law.

At present, pregnancy is a ticket into a man's pocket-book, yet he has NO say over the matter. Women, it appears cannot see how this is unfair, both on women who are denied agency, being done unto, and men who are denied rights, only demanded of payment.

The present system sucks, and creates perverse incentives. Yet you just continue the bleat "wear a condom" as if that absolves all women from all responsibilty.

JimmyGiro said...

History books are chock-a-block with wars, famines, and various violent outrages during 'interesting times'; but I can think of only one group in all history that has singularly regarded the families of its own people, as the enemy, fit for destruction; and they are Marxist-Feminists.

And I put it to you, that if the violent outrages against people of which we care, is evil, then systematically dismantling the families which the people care for, must also be as evil as any war, famine, or violent outrage.

jaljen said...

Why on earth would a man NOT to be in control of his own reproductive powers? Of course he should be wearing a condom if he doesn't want offspring. Being in a relationship has nothing to do with it. If you don't want kids then wear the condom. If you don't trust a woman to cooperate with your desire not to have a child then use a condom. How very casual.

Jackart said...

And thus women shirk the responsibilty for fertility.

Do you chicks want to be equal, or do you want to be dependent? One or the other.

Sharon Ferguson said...

At the risk of jumping into the waters without a clue as to the depth, Id like to interject a thought about why I, a female with a biological history of NOT having the bio father on her birth certificate (I was adopted when adoptions were treated as secret things to be treated as a thing of shame): youve no idea how valuable that information is to an adoptee. Currently, this American adoptee is envious of the fact that Brit and Australian birth certificates are not kept from adoptees. There is a whole contingent of adoptees in America who are fighting free access to that kind of information, and recently there was a court case where a father was able to demand legal access to his offspring. People have been led to think its all about privacy, but we American adoptees strongly suspect its actually the State's attempt to control and manipulate a population. If anything Id say making sure the father's name on the birth certificate gives the individual child more ability to control the information they have. The more the state does to hide or obscure that information, the more control they have over the individual.

Jackart said...

I agree Sharon, a father should be on the birth certificate, for all sorts of reasons, but mainly because a kid needs to know who he or she IS.

What I am against are laws that assume sex is implied consent for fatherhood, and if a child didn't come with an immediate key to a man's wallet, then women would take control of their own fertility and wait until they found a man who WANTED to be a father.

Many single parents do a great job. No-one would say it was ideal, yet the law actively encourages it in a way which demeans women and is grossly unfair to men and their unfortunate children.

JimmyGiro said...

As a stockbroker Jackart, you might appreciate this analogy:

Women investing in men.

Southerner said...

Well, Jackart, call me old-fashioned, but men ought to get married, father some kids, and then get a vasectomy if/when they know for sure that they don't want any more little darlings. You and the rest of your age cohort do NOT have some sort of God-given right to risk-free sex. You don't even have a right to low-risk sex.

To me, one of the saddest aspects of the 9/11 twin tower attack in New Yorks was the obituaries which followed. Countless men in the 35 to early forties age bracket who were described as being "engaged" or having a "steady relationship." My father was terminally ill with cancer by the age of 49. How long do these people think that they have on earth? What passes for normal life these days would NOT have been considered normal at all thirty or 40 years ago.

Male/female relationships have been very troubled since the 1970s, and every time the judiciary or legislature steps in to change laws, tax credits, and entitlement benefits to reflect modern conditions, they just seem to make things even worse. It is pointless for men to blame women, or for women to blame men for the nastiness of the current battle of the sexes. There is plenty of blame to go around. Women who "trap men into fatherhood" generally see motherhood as a permanent relationship, while seeing male/female relationships, including marriage, as being temporary, or at least revocable at will by either party to the relationship, often because they grew up in a broken home. I agree that deliberately trapping a man into fatherhood is evil, but many men today expect to be able to have unlimited out-of-wedlock sex without EVER facing a pregnancy. Is that actually realistic? I'm in my early 50s -- many of my friends' families, Protestant and Catholic, include at least one "surprise" child. When most "surprises" occurred within marriage, it wasn't considered an insurmountable problem.

Our entire society is sick.

There was an error in this gadget