Hatrack River
Home   |   About Orson Scott Card   |   News & Reviews   |   OSC Library   |   Forums   |   Contact   |   Links
Research Area   |   Writing Lessons   |   Writers Workshops   |   OSC at SVU   |   Calendar   |   Store
E-mail this page
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Fianancial abortion/pro-choice for men. (Page 2)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Fianancial abortion/pro-choice for men.
umberhulk
Member
Member # 11788

 - posted      Profile for umberhulk   Email umberhulk         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I don't want to wade too far into this discussion because it treads too closely to the abortion discussion I had with all of you a few weeks ago and I don't want to get into that again.

But I'll say that I can conceive of a situation where it would be fair for a man to be absolved of financial responsibility. But my general thought is that once you have sex, you lose all control, and if you can't deal with the consequences, don't have sex. Women, in our society, have different options because they have different levels of risk and burden other than the financial. Suggesting both sides should have equal rights when nature dictates they have different burdens is a little silly.

Right, but in a state where women have the ability to avoid financial burden (adoption) after the fact, men should have an analogous option.

If you want to make the accept-responsiblity-for-the-risk-you-took the premise, then on an a post-birth basis, the options available should be close to identical. If there aren't any, fine, but it should work both ways.

Posts: 1312 | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
imogen
Member
Member # 5485

 - posted      Profile for imogen   Email imogen         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Except pregnancy isn't identical. And that's the stumbling block.
Posts: 4389 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by umberhulk:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I don't want to wade too far into this discussion because it treads too closely to the abortion discussion I had with all of you a few weeks ago and I don't want to get into that again.

But I'll say that I can conceive of a situation where it would be fair for a man to be absolved of financial responsibility. But my general thought is that once you have sex, you lose all control, and if you can't deal with the consequences, don't have sex. Women, in our society, have different options because they have different levels of risk and burden other than the financial. Suggesting both sides should have equal rights when nature dictates they have different burdens is a little silly.

Right, but in a state where women have the ability to avoid financial burden (adoption) after the fact, men should have an analogous option.

If you want to make the accept-responsiblity-for-the-risk-you-took the premise, then on an a post-birth basis, the options available should be close to identical. If there aren't any, fine, but it should work both ways.

It's simply impossible. And look, I've argued various sides of this one for years, but there simply is no fair solution.

If women want to keep the baby and the men don't, they have to pay against their will.

If women don't want to keep the baby and the men do, it's tough cookies.

What are the alternatives? Forcing women to carry babies to term, or allowing men off the hook.

Perhaps a middle ground would be to allow men to force a woman to either get an abortion or sign away her rights to child support payments? I can see the arguments for it. Women are always arguing, correctly, that they shouldn't be forced to carry a baby to term because of the inherent health risks, so forcing her to get an abortion shouldn't carry nearly the same risks when she claims it's the safer option anyway. But if she wants to carry it to term over the objection of the man, then she has to waive her rights.

But she'll just not tell her boyfriend, in the same way that women hide their kids and then give them up for adoption in other states. No matter what happens the man will always be at an informational disadvantage, and unless you put criminal penalties on these actions to punish women, it'll never stop, and even THEN it will still happen. Laws in the past haven't been the best at stopping women from exercising various reproductive actions.

You simply can't make options "equal" on this one.

Posts: 21420 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
she has to waive her rights.
That's a significant error. Child support isn't for the mother. She cannot waive the child's rights.
Posts: 3995 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thank you. Three people involved, not two.
Posts: 16398 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Didn't umberhulk say "on a post-birth basis"?

quote:
Perhaps a middle ground would be to allow men to force a woman to either get an abortion or sign away her rights to child support payments? I can see the arguments for it. Women are always arguing, correctly, that they shouldn't be forced to carry a baby to term because of the inherent health risks, so forcing her to get an abortion shouldn't carry nearly the same risks when she claims it's the safer option anyway. But if she wants to carry it to term over the objection of the man, then she has to waive her rights.

I thought this was the "financial abortion" proposal in a nutshell. [Confused]
Posts: 4506 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
umberhulk
Member
Member # 11788

 - posted      Profile for umberhulk   Email umberhulk         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by imogen:
Except pregnancy isn't identical. And that's the stumbling block.

Right, and that's why they're capable of terminating the burden even earlier.
Posts: 1312 | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
umberhulk
Member
Member # 11788

 - posted      Profile for umberhulk   Email umberhulk         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:
Originally posted by umberhulk:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I don't want to wade too far into this discussion because it treads too closely to the abortion discussion I had with all of you a few weeks ago and I don't want to get into that again.

But I'll say that I can conceive of a situation where it would be fair for a man to be absolved of financial responsibility. But my general thought is that once you have sex, you lose all control, and if you can't deal with the consequences, don't have sex. Women, in our society, have different options because they have different levels of risk and burden other than the financial. Suggesting both sides should have equal rights when nature dictates they have different burdens is a little silly.

Right, but in a state where women have the ability to avoid financial burden (adoption) after the fact, men should have an analogous option.

If you want to make the accept-responsiblity-for-the-risk-you-took the premise, then on an a post-birth basis, the options available should be close to identical. If there aren't any, fine, but it should work both ways.

It's simply impossible. And look, I've argued various sides of this one for years, but there simply is no fair solution.

If women want to keep the baby and the men don't, they have to pay against their will.

If women don't want to keep the baby and the men do, it's tough cookies.

What are the alternatives? Forcing women to carry babies to term, or allowing men off the hook.

Perhaps a middle ground would be to allow men to force a woman to either get an abortion or sign away her rights to child support payments? I can see the arguments for it. Women are always arguing, correctly, that they shouldn't be forced to carry a baby to term because of the inherent health risks, so forcing her to get an abortion shouldn't carry nearly the same risks when she claims it's the safer option anyway. But if she wants to carry it to term over the objection of the man, then she has to waive her rights.

But she'll just not tell her boyfriend, in the same way that women hide their kids and then give them up for adoption in other states. No matter what happens the man will always be at an informational disadvantage, and unless you put criminal penalties on these actions to punish women, it'll never stop, and even THEN it will still happen. Laws in the past haven't been the best at stopping women from exercising various reproductive actions.

You simply can't make options "equal" on this one.

You can't make the flow of information equal, sure, but I was never arguing under that goalpost.

So the baby is born. IF the mother can put it up for adoption, the father can decide not to consent for fatherhood.

If the mother doesn't have adoption at her disposal, the father shouldn't be able to waive his burden financially.

[ December 15, 2012, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: umberhulk ]

Posts: 1312 | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:
she has to waive her rights.
That's a significant error. Child support isn't for the mother. She cannot waive the child's rights.
Well, yes and no. I mean, yes it's for the child, but the mother is compelled to work to make up the shortfall, so it's inherently a burden on both of them.
Posts: 21420 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
These arguments that it's "not fair" and bunk. Sure, it isn't the most equal situation that a man doesn't have a say if a potential child will be aborted, and if it isn't and kept, he owes, but that's perfectly fair when considering the party with the most to loose in each situation.

Situation one: Who should have the say when it comes to keeping a pregnancy? Who has the most to lose? Clearly the woman.

Situation two: If a child is kept by one of its biological parents (doesn't matter which one) then the other one who shares responsibility for the child being here should contribute to its welfare. This is the most fair to the child, as scifibum pointed out.

So, as a whole, the man get's the shorter end of the stick, not because it is unfair, but because he has less at stake. When seen from the position of who has the most to loose, it is utterly and completely fair.

Sorry men, you just need to "man up" and accept that biology has sidelined you from some of the important decision making, (of course you could just be a good partner and plan your children ahead of time and then none of this effects you one little bit).

Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
umberhulk
Member
Member # 11788

 - posted      Profile for umberhulk   Email umberhulk         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They should man up. But that should be encouraged, and not hastily legislated.
Posts: 1312 | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For the growth of the man himself...yes encouragement is good. But for the welfare of the child, no encouragement is not enough and legislation is required.

What do you mean about "hastily" though?

Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
umberhulk
Member
Member # 11788

 - posted      Profile for umberhulk   Email umberhulk         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It shouldn't be legistated for the good the child. Other things should be legislated for the good of the child. (Among them being strong benefits related to the consent) You're gonna be a shitty dad if your accepting fatherhood begrudgingly anyway.
Posts: 1312 | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:

Sorry men, you just need to "man up" and accept that biology has sidelined you from some of the important decision making, (of course you could just be a good partner and plan your children ahead of time and then none of this effects you one little bit).

The dynamic in itself certainly affects all men, whether they end up fathering children or not. The way women choose mates is affected by it. Biology and evolution have put us in these roles, and modern society only alters that equation so much. But I will say, without saying I'm in favor of any serious change to the legal system regarding parenthood: the modern legal system *has* increased the burden upon men by attending to women's rights as a priority consistently for the past half century. This is not to say that women now have more rights than men, but simply that the legal and political system has *concerned* itself with the various rights of women, sometimes to the exclusion of men, who are presumed (sometimes in error) to be essentially paragons of political enfranchisement and freedom. This has left the legal system with just a lot more experience with and interest in how women's rights are dealt with, and in some cases a scorn for the notion that men's rights is an issue; not because men's rights are not seen as important, but because of the latently chauvinist attitude that men's rights do not need serious attention.

This leaves us with a legal system that now, at times, parodies the evolutionary heritage of the sexes by entrenching certain social pressures on men into the legal system. For instance: men are legally responsible for their children whether they want them or not. Women may more easily abdicate this responsibility through adoption. The idea of adoption is a social construct, duly created to ease the burden of unwanted children on young people, whereas the "natural," state, of a man being expected to stick around and support families, is honored by legal ramifications for men who don't support their children. So we have a bit of a quandary here: women are simply more enabled to make these decisions in modern society than men are, and we don't see that as an issue of the man's rights, because it concerns a child with its own rights as well. But the woman's rights, on the contrary, trump that of even the child, giving her the most cards to play. And while I must say I don't find any of this to be *wrong* per se, because I agree with all these rights existing, *and* I agree that men should be made to support their children, but one cannot help but acknowledge the severe imbalance of agency between an expecting mother and father who are not married. What are we to do about that? I practice protected sex, and understand the consequences of mistakes in that regard, but I have no recourse available to me directly should I make a mistake. A woman does have several. I don't know about fair- life isn't fair. But we can acknowledge this as a reality.

So you have a legal system with an interest in making sure a woman doesn't have to have a child she doesn't want, but little interest in a man being alleviated of that responsibility. And that really is just an effect of us not *thinking* about men as needing any sort of legal protections, when sometimes having them might help.

Posts: 9555 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If someone has has a suggestion that maintains body sovereignty AND is fair to children's welfare, AND is "fairer" to men, I'd love to hear it.
Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, I doubt such a solution exists.
Posts: 9555 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by umberhulk:
It shouldn't be legistated for the good the child. Other things should be legislated for the good of the child. (Among them being strong benefits related to the consent) You're gonna be a shitty dad if your accepting fatherhood begrudgingly anyway.

There is a difference between a sh*tty dad and not having enough money for rent or food or cloths. We are not talking about the quality of parenting here, we are talking about a child having the necessary resources they require contributed from the parent who isn't raising them.

Also, I'm not understanding what you mean be "strong benefits related to the consent", could you explain?

Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2