Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 September 8

= September 8 =

Societies/Countries with Voluntary Child Support
Have there been any countries and/or societies throughout history that gave men (or at least most men) the choice to opt-out of forced child support payments? Futurist110 (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It would not be "forced" child support if the non-custodial parent had a choice. A choice to "opt out" wouldn't be much help to the children involved, would it? It may be that I don't understand the question. A non-custodial parent in Canada can give up some/all rights to his/her children in return for making less/no further payments in respect of their care, but that is a matter of contract between the parents. If the custodial parent agrees, the non-custodial parent can cease making payments and still have full parental rights, but the choice is controlled by the custodial parent.  Am I anywhere in the neighbourhood of your question? Bielle (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't debating the merits of allowing men to opt-out of child support (though if you want to do that, I can have an e-mail debate with you on this). I don't think you quite understood my question--I was asking whether there were any cultures, countries, or societies that allowed men to unilaterally say, "I don't want to pay any child support or to have any parental rights", and let them opt-out of child support and parental rights without the consent of anyone else. Futurist110 (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Forced child support is a rather modern phenomenon. Until this last century men almost invariably got custody, were their wives even able to divorce them. μηδείς (talk) 02:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't appear to have anything of quality on this. The article child custody is a joke so far as its recentism.  Then there's paterfamilias.  Nothing in between I see. μηδείς (talk) 03:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What if the man 100+ years ago didn't want custody of his children (or what if he got a woman pregnant while she and he were unmarried)? Would he still be forced to pay child support? Also, my parents have speculated that men might have been able to legally opt-out of forced child support payments in the USSR, but I'm unsure about this. Does anyone know more about child support in the USSR? Futurist110 (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have an example from 102 years ago. My grandmother was born out of wedlock, in British-ruled Ireland, in 1910. Her biological father did a bunk to Canada (as did several other members of his family, apparently for similar reasons). Based on other examples of pre-marital pregnancy in my family tree, I believe if he'd stayed, social pressure would have required him to "do the right thing" and marry my great grandmother - child support from an absentee father, legally required or voluntary, seems to have been unheard of. He only got out of it by travelling halfway across the world. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a Sudanese friend who is kind of shocked at the idea of forced child support. The idea that he (or anyone) would even have to be forced to do such a thing was a bit insulting to him. Wrad (talk) 03:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, because after you've ejaculated, your responsibility is done... -- Jayron  32  03:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This might be a bit off-argument, but consent to ejaculation/sex does not equal consent to paying child support. Thus, there actually are some people who support a man's right to choose. Futurist110 (talk) 03:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry for this interjection. However, if you are an American, Futurist110, provisions of the 14th Amendment have led the courts consistently to the opposite opinion. From the article linked:
 * In one of the first cases to discuss the issue, Stephen K. v. Roni L., 105 Cal. App. 3d 640, 164 Cal. Rptr. 2d 618 (1980), the court held that the father's argument that he should not have to pay child support because his partner lied about contraception was nothing more than a request for court supervision of the promises made between the parties in the bedroom concerning their private sexual conduct. The court further opined that since no method of birth control is 100% effective, if the man had wished that his conduct not result in pregnancy, he could have taken precautionary measures regarding birth control regardless of the representations made to him. In essence, the constitutionally protected right to privacy includes the right of an individual to be free from unwarranted governmental interference into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child, but it does not extend to the right to avoid child support obligations once a child has resulted. Bielle (talk) 03:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am aware of what American courts have ruled on this issue (including male victims of rape to pay child support). However, I don't find their argument convincing when it comes to this, especially considering that a similar argument could be used to deny raped women abortions if one draws the line that defines personhood at a different stage of human development. Also, their argument is logically inconsistent because parents could put their children in an orphanage and theoretically those children could stay there for 18 years and continuously be miserable. However, I do know of a better argument to force men to pay child support in all cases except rape (a man/boy being raped by a woman). If you want to discuss this issue with me further and debate the merits of various positions on this (or other) issues, I'd be more than happy to have a Wikipedia e-mail conversation with you. :) Futurist110 (talk) 03:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Wrad's Sudanese friend meant that he was insulted that he would have to be forced to pick up his obligations because he would, as a matter of course, do the responsible thing by his children. That's the way I read it, anyway. Bielle (talk) 03:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Jayron. He was shocked at the very thought that anyone would abandon their kids like that. And insulted by the fact that the government assumed he had to be forced to pay. Wrad (talk) 03:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry, I misinterpreted. You're quite right, of course, as is your friend.  -- Jayron  32  03:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

He said in his society, if a man did such a thing, everyone would know it and it would be a great shame to him. Wrad (talk) 03:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And yet his society has no problem executing gays. Futurist110 (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it does have a problem with that. He is from South Sudan, where there is no death penalty for homosexual acts. (There sure is a lot of prejudice in this thread! Can we hold off on jumping to conclusions, here?) Wrad (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case, you should have said South Sudanese rather than Sudanese. Anyway, homosexuality is still illegal in South Sudan and is punishable with a large penalty. For the record, you're the one who started talking about South Sudanese morals. Futurist110 (talk) 04:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Wrad didn't start to talk about Sudanese morals, except as a direct response to your initial question. He gave you an example of a society where social pressure, not law, would "force" a father to support his children. It is thus voluntary, but only in so far as the father does not care about what his society thought of him.  It is not a method that would work in most western countries where one can just move a few blocks away, and be anonymous. (How you jumped from here to the treatment of homosexuals, I don't know.) Bielle (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * As to Futurist110's question about 100 years ago, I don't think that the concept of child support existed as a legal matter, or not in Canada, at any rate. In some social circles, failing to support your children might make the father persona non grata among his friends, but that was not a legal issue. Under the law, or at least under the law as it was then enforced, men did pretty well what they wanted with their women and their children in or out of wedlock. It was only in 1929, less than a hundred years ago, that women were granted status as  "persons" under the law of Canada. Prior to that, they could be punished under the law but were granted none of its rights or benefits. It is only relatively recently, in historical terms, that the pendulum has begun to move back the other way. Bielle (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your explanation. Futurist110 (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Back in the day, Futurist, the father could send his children to a work house or give them up to an orphanage or even comprachicos if he didn't wish to support them, or give them to whomever would take them. I am surprised you are not familiar with Dickens. μηδείς (talk) 03:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Parents can still send their children to orphanages today. Futurist110 (talk) 04:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No one denied that. See safe-haven laws μηδείς (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not so easy, Futurist. With both parents' consent, they can of course give the child up for adoption to anyone who wants the child, provided the recipient can legally take custody under state law. But except under the specific conditions of a safe-haven law, and other laws that handle situations in which the parents are not financially/physically/emotionally capable of caring for a child, you can't simply drop your kid off somewhere for the state to take care of him. Or, well, you can, but it's a crime. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait--so parents can't just drop their children off at orphanages? Futurist110 (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Under the safe haven law, which varies in the US from state to state, you can drop your child off at a police station or hospital only if they are under a certain age. This is to discourage frightened teenage mothers from simply tossing their babies in a dumpster. Beyond the cutoff age, doing such a thing is punishable as child abandonment. Whether and how child abandonment is punishable varies significantly between states. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't the unwilling mother simply get an abortion if she doesn't want the offspring, though? Also, has this law actually saved any lives? You would think that women would be afraid of prosecution if they simply kill or abandon their babies right after they are born, since isn't it easy to use DNA testing to determine the infant's mother and then prosecute her? Also, wouldn't allowing women to simply drop off their offspring at police stations and hospitals be a violation of the father's parental rights if he wants to raise the child himself? Futurist110 (talk) 04:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The laws weren't written for mothers who don't want their child, but for mothers who are afraid of anyone knowing they're pregnant. Mostly teenage mothers. People who may be either afraid or embarrassed to visit an abortion provider, especially in states where doing such a thing is not trivial. Basically, women who are more afraid of their parents than the police. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And of course there are safe-haven laws. I am surprised no one has mentioned that. What about the children?! Won't somebody please think of the children!? μηδείς (talk) 05:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * DNA comparisons, TV shows notwithstanding, are only useful if you have a small group of mothers against which to compare the the baby's sample. For example, when multiple mothers claim a child, the mistaken ones can be weeded out by this process. However, one baby and a city full of potential mothers is not a practical situation in which to make comparisons, and is expensive as well. As for getting an abortion, this is a possible solution for those of legal age, who know their own mind about the matter (and this is not a simple issue to start and is made more complex by the pregnancy hormone rush), who have no religious or other scruples against taking such a step, who are sufficiently competent to understand that there is such a service and to find and use it and who have the money for the procedure. In any other set of circumstances, the mother needs the co-operation of others and that may not be available. In other circumstances, women give birth and do not discover until afterwards (or the authorities decide for them), sometimes as late as years afterwards, that they are not capable of parenting. Having a baby sounded like a good idea; the reality was not.
 * As for the father's rights in an abandoned child, the authorities would first have to be able to identify him. This may not be a trivial search, especially if the mother does not know for certain or is afraid to tell. The assumption (possibly in error) would be that, for a mother to get to the stage of abandoning her baby/child, there can have been no father available. Bielle (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If a woman discovers years afterwards that she doesn't want the child, isn't it too late for her to leave her child at a police station or a hospital? I mean, safe haven laws only work for a very short amount of time. Also, if a county has a national DNA database where everyone has their DNA in it, then it would be very easy and quick to determine an abandoned baby's paternity. Also, doesn't it take very long right now and cost a huge amount of money to determine the parents of an abandoned child over the age that safe-haven laws can be applied? Futurist110 (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * DNA databases for people who have not been arrested do not exist and ones that include people who have been arrested but not convicted are not common. As others have said repeatedly, these new born abandonments are done because of fear regarding their community's reaction, not simply because the mother doesn't want the child.  Determining the parents of an abandoned newborn and an abandoned child who is several years old are a completely different matter and it has little to do with DNA.  Abandoning a young child involves the complicity of all the mother's relatives and friends who know this child exists.  It isn't easy to do and if it is done, the mother's identity is likely to be revealed when people who know of the child's existence report it missing.
 * One thing I will add about the original question is that the advent of DNA paternity testing and increase in the prevalence of contraception in the last quarter of the 20th have changed the nature of the child support debate and the laws that surround it dramatically. Comparisons to societies of the past are not that applicable.  -- Daniel  19:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Another reason for the change in laws, specifically the criminalization of child abandonment, has to do with changes in who takes care of abandoned children. It used to be primarily the responsibility of charitable organizations and charitable arms of religious institutions. Following WWII especially, the care of abandoned children became primarily a government responsibility, and so US state governments created laws to discourage the activity, a purpose which was held to be constitutional in Jones v. Helms (1981). And all of this was following a general movement circa 1850 that held that children are mentally at their healthiest when raised in a nuclear family, an opinion that was notably promoted by Theodore Roosevelt, and led rise to the Orphan Train. Prior to the Orphan Train's appearance in the US, unwanted children either found themselves in private orphanages or simply lived homeless on the streets. If you want to go even further back, say to medieval times, you had the Visigothic Code, under which children were basically treated like trash. You don't want your kid? Just leave him outside. You found a kid outside? Congratulations! He's yours. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Liberal nation
What makes a nation liberal? The Netherlands has been claimed by political analysts as the most liberal nation in terms of legalizing same-sex marriage, euthanasia, use of cannibals, and sex tourism. If not, which other nations has claimed as the most liberal nation in the world? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.66.58 (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing you mean "legalizing the use of cannabis", not "cannibals". - Lindert (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that a national being liberal in the modern sense would be having the greatest amount of socially liberal laws. I think that some other Western European countries are very liberal, though I'm not sure if any are as liberal as the Netherlands. If I have any errors in my post, please let me know. Futurist110 (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, a long history of being liberal does, but, of course, this leads to the Q of how it started in the first place. It might come down to individual leaders, or it might relate to periods of deprivation (starvation, military attack, etc.) where everyone had to cooperate to survive.  Religion (or lack thereof) also plays a role, as many religions say there is only one way to live, and anyone different should be punished (such as homosexuals).  In the case of the Netherlands and nations further north, they remained pagan until relatively late, and the Protestant Reformation hit relatively early, so they weren't influenced by the intolerance of medieval Catholicism as heavily as those nations in Southern Europe.  StuRat (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Britain after the repeal of the corn laws and Catholic emancipation was the most classically liberal of all countries. μηδείς (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, that may be a good example of a nation going from extremely conservative (executing starving children for stealing food) to liberal in a very short time. I wonder if authors like Dickens changed public opinions. StuRat (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "Liberal" in this sense is not opposed to "conservative", so that's a non-sequitur. Medeis, I would have thought the US in the late 19th century (gilded age) was more liberal? --Trovatore (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * In that case, what term do you use to mean the attitude that all criminals should be executed, as opposed to the liberal view that all criminals can be reformed ? StuRat (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Penal philosophy is a separate political dimension. A wide range of approaches are consistent with liberalism, from hardcore retributionist to deterrence/incapacitation-based to rehabilitationist.  I tend to take the second approach, myself, because as an antistatist liberal I don't trust the state to get either retribution or rehabilitation right, and don't think they're its proper role anyway. --Trovatore (talk) 22:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think they go together. I can't imagine a society which both executes petty thieves and allows all the things listed in the original post. StuRat (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * er, "as an antistatist", who would you entrust with these things, if not the state? Individuals? Just curious. 92.226.89.214 (talk) 05:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Great Britain didn't have Jim Crow. The treatment of Ireland was, of course, abominable.  The economy in the US was freeest between 1865 and 1890 when the first anti-trust legislation was passed, although railroad subsidies were a huge corruption. μηδείς (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * StuRat is a bit confused as usual. The area of the modern Netherlands was Christianized at least 700 to 1000 years before the Reformation; a bit "late" I suppose, but a millennium of influence is rather a lot (there was even a Dutch pope.) In the modern Netherlands, the largest single religion is actually still Catholicism (per Religion in the Netherlands). What does medieval Catholicism have to do with the Netherlands' current liberal reputation? Adam Bishop (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The "as usual" dig is an inappropriate personal attack. But, leaving that aside, it was medieval Catholicism which was highly intolerant.  Both early Christianity and many of the modern forms are far more tolerant. StuRat (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Well that's not true, but even if it was, what does that have to do with the Netherlands? Sure, the Reformation proceeds from Catholicism...but then what? Do you think the Reformed types of Christianity that the Netherlands produced were happily tolerant of homosexuality, drugs, and sex tourism? What about other countries that are currently liberal and tolerant but are also largely (or traditionally largely) Catholic? Same-sex marriage is legal in Spain, for example. The question has little to do with how intolerant or tolerant "medieval Catholicism" may have been. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * What's not true ? In addition to the attitudes of religion towards tolerance, there's also the degree of control held by the Church.  If they are the only game in town, then they can damn well do as they please, but, after the Reformation, they had to be wary of pushing people away from Catholicism into Protestantism or other religions (or none at all), so needed to be more tolerant, for their own preservation.  Practicality sometimes overcomes doctrine. StuRat (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The Netherlands lost most of its colonial empire and non-Dutch natives of its former colonies migrated to the Netherlands. This required the goverment to integrate them into the society.


 * Does the Netherlands accept refugees (from outside its former colonies) to migrate there?
 * See Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and her shameful mistreatment. μηδείς (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Does the Netherlands have guest-workers like Germany with its Turkish guest-workers? Sleigh (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The Netherlands accepts refugees if it can be plausibly demonstrated it would be unsafe for them to return to their country of origin. In addition, non-refugees can stay in the Netherlands while they have a job there. After having worked in the Netherlands for a certain length of time, they become eligible for citizenship. - Lindert (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Use of cannibals? Doesn't sound very liberal to me.  :)  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  21:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Why not? nobody is forcing you to use cannibals. Everyone can choose for themselves whether they prefer to use cannibals or not. Isn't that the essence of 'liberalism'? - Lindert (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair point. You've convinced me, Lindert. I've decided to use cannibals to ghost write the next instalment (Volume 9: The Years of Anguish) of my gripping 27-volume autobiography.  That's certainly a load off my mind.  It'll be available in all decent bookshops, just as soon as I can figure out what to legally give my ghost writers for their supper.  Thanks again.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  21:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "Liberal" is an awful adjective. It has far too many meanings different around the world. It's used as a pejorative in some places, particularly the USA. In Australia, the two biggest political parties are the Labor Party, and unquestionably more conservative Liberal Party. Many readers will think they know what the OP meant in using the word, but have completely different ideas. I wish I knew what we were discussing here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * They gave examples making it clear that they are talking about social liberals, not economic liberals. StuRat (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think StuRat may have a point in that the starting point was the Reformation (he's wrong about the Netherlands not being "influenced by the intolerance of medieval Catholicism" as they were a Spanish colony at the time - nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition). Our WP article History of religion in the Netherlands says "Because the Netherlands had ceded from Spain over both political and religious issues, it practiced certain forms of tolerance towards people of certain other religions and opened its borders for religious dissenters (Protestants and Jews) from elsewhere, while maintaining its persecution and later discrimination against native Catholics. Descartes for instance lived in the Netherlands for most of his adult life." Alansplodge (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't say they weren't influenced at all, just to a lesser extent than, say, Italy. StuRat (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Euthanasia is a really good thing as far as fascists are concerned, and legal "protection" of gay marriage (rather than the right to nominate a next of kin) is an expansion of the state control of the lives of those who want to discriminate against renting to homosexuals or providing their partners with health insurance coverage. And what sort of sex-tourism are we talking about? The SE Asian kind?  Focus on these topics is more a question of anti-Christianism than about libertarianism, except perhaps for the cannibals. μηδείς (talk) 04:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Focus on these topics is more a question of anti-Christianism than about libertarianism" - I can't tell if you are serious, but that is absurd. Particularly since there isn't really a strong consensus among Christians on these topics, and only Christians strongly associate the morality of sex, marriage and euthanasia with Christianity. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably the only way of objectively answering this would be to carry out surveys in different countries asking people if they see themselves as 'liberal'. Of course, you then have the problem that the word has different connotations in different places, and won't have a direct translation into some languages. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am 'queer' and an atheist myself, but there are plenty of good classical liberal reasons to oppose legalizing euthanasia or instituting so-called "gay marriage". Issues in the US like tearing down crosses in public monuments and such is not liberalism, so much as fanatic iconoclasm. I am not interested in debating, but my basic point is that most of the current left's non-economic policies are focused on opposing traditional/religious stands on issues as such.  The booing against restoring the word "God" to the US Democratic platform in their recent convention speaks to that.  In any case, the OP is entitled to define his terms however he wants. μηδείς (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Booing against restoring "God" to the platform is evidence that people don't think their party should be discussing particular religious ideas in its platform. It is not evidence that opposition to Christianity plays a significant role in their views on issues completely unrelated to religion.  There are many Christian groups who support marriage equality, while you, an atheist, are opposed to it, which should surely make you question whether that debate is really about religion.  130.88.73.65 (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, no. There was no theological discussion in the platform, just the mention of the word. And marriage equality is rather a strange notion to bring up.  No state has a law preventing homosexuals from getting married if someone will have them. Look up Jim McGreevey and Michael Huffington, for example. μηδείς (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)