This is topic Fianancial abortion/pro-choice for men. in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=059246

Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
 
Here's an explanation.

What do you think of the argument?
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
Stupid beyond belief.
 
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
I'm not indifferent to men's right arguments, and some of them I agree with (probably more so than most who are going to post in this thread), but that's pretty bad reasoning. Some clues you're looking at some low-res thinking are phrases like "pregnancy is inherently biased against men", stock photos of chickens and references to how the mainstream media wont cover their ideas.

Hobbes [Smile]
 
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
There is certainly the potential for significant injustice when child support is required "no matter the circumstances" (as the presenter says). However, there is also the potential for great injustice if we don't require child support, no matter the circumstances, which seems to be what's being proposed.

In some cases the father might not be morally responsible for the baby's livelihood, but I doubt that such cases comprise more than a tiny minority of actual unplanned pregnancies. So it seems like there is probably much less injustice under current law than there would be under the proposed law. That's not ideal, but I don't see a better proposal on offer.
 
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
There is certainly the potential for significant injustice when child support is required "no matter the circumstances" (as the presenter says). However, there is also the potential for great injustice if we don't require child support, no matter the circumstances, which seems to be what's being proposed.

If we don't require child support in cases where the man does not consent to fatherhood then less women will be willing to have children under those circumstances.
 
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
What are the conditions under which a man should be able to "not consent to fatherhood"?

I can imagine some horrifying worst-case scenarios for the kind of law being proposed. For example, suppose a man rapes a woman and does a good job of hiding the evidence. If she wants to have the baby, it will then be his choice, under the proposed law, whether to pay child support or not. But in this case the man, not the woman, is entirely responsible for the conception of the child.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
Women do not have the right to abandon a child or even to kill it. They have a right to remove it from their body. Yes, at this time, the child cannot survive, but what the actual right is does matter. A man has the exact same right to remove a fetus from their body as a woman. They also have the same right to abandon a child. So, all fair there.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
The man consented to having a child the moment he agreed to stick his porker inside her.
 
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
Women do not have the right to abandon a child or even to kill it. They have a right to remove it from their body. Yes, at this time, the child cannot survive, but what the actual right is does matter. A man has the exact same right to remove a fetus from their body as a woman. They also have the same right to abandon a child. So, all fair there.

Interesting. Suppose we had the technology to incubate fetuses in artificial wombs, like in Brave New World or something. How would you feel about a law that requires every aborted fetus to be incubated artificially?
 
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
The man consented to having a child the moment he agreed to stick his porker inside her.

You don't want to go down that road. Your pro-life opponent will then apply the same logic to the woman, as grounds for banning abortion.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Except its her body and not the dudes.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
If we don't require child support in cases where the man does not consent to fatherhood then less women will be willing to have children under those circumstances.
Because, of course, there are only two people involved in this matter, yes? The (scheming) woman and the (victimized) man, as your rhetoric goes.

How quick we are to tell women, whether in law or in morality, 'you did this thing that entailed these risks, so when they occur you're responsible'. And are comfortable with thousands upon thousands of such examples, repeating down through successive generations, not merely in the women themselves but their offspring who also apparently should have known better.

Let a man somewhere, though, be infringed upon against their will depending on what decision a woman makes with respect to pregnancy...shocking injustice.

Like Hobbes, I'm not indifferent to 'men's rights' arguments, but I quickly and with irritation lose patience and respect (though in this case, that wasn't a problem) with people who attempt to assert some sort of victimization parity.

Financial abortion indeed. I suppose it sounds better than what happens so very often today-deadbeat dads. A checkbook doesn't come with an attached time machine.
 
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
The man consented to having a child the moment he agreed to stick his porker inside her.

The woman consented to carry the baby to term the moment she decided to spread her legs.

No, wait a minute, that's an ancient conservative argument rejected by the pro(female)-choice crowd. Nothing to see here, move along.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
false equivalence.
 
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
The man consented to having a child the moment he agreed to stick his porker inside her.

The woman consented to carry the baby to term the moment she decided to spread her legs.

I'm spreading my legs right now, yet for some reason I'm not getting pregnant.
 
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
false equivalence.

Okay, no need to elaborate.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Some arguments are just self evident.
 
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
If we don't require child support in cases where the man does not consent to fatherhood then less women will be willing to have children under those circumstances.
Because, of course, there are only two people involved in this matter, yes? The (scheming) woman and the (victimized) man, as your rhetoric goes.

This is a situation in which men can be thoroughly deceived, yes, but that doesn't mean the whole issue rests on that possibility to be deceived but rather on the simple fair right to opt out of an unwanted burden should the man see it as such.

[ December 12, 2012, 12:58 AM: Message edited by: Sa'eed ]
 
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
quote:
Women do not have the right to abandon a child or even to kill it. They have a right to remove it from their body. Yes, at this time, the child cannot survive, but what the actual right is does matter. A man has the exact same right to remove a fetus from their body as a woman. They also have the same right to abandon a child. So, all fair there.
That sounds a lot like the argument that homosexuals do have the right to marry.

Hobbes [Smile]
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
false equivalence.

Okay, no need to elaborate.
He did. Want me to use crayon?
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
If we don't require child support in cases where the man does not consent to fatherhood then less women will be willing to have children under those circumstances.
Because, of course, there are only two people involved in this matter, yes? The (scheming) woman and the (victimized) man, as your rhetoric goes.

This is a situation in which men can be thoroughly deceived, yes, but that doesn't mean the whole issue rests on that possibility to be deceived but rather on the simple fair right to opt out of an unwanted burden should the man see it as such.
The funny thing is, in your pursuit of clever indirect misogyny, you completely neglect a thorough discussion not just of the entire issue-but even of your own argument. Granted you want to protect put-upon men from those lying harlots, alright, and so the man has rights, blah blah blah.

Why is his right to opt-out of an 'unwanted burden' (which he nevertheless wanted to risk creating) the only one you're discussing? There are not just two people involved. So can we perhaps skip past the stuff in the middle, when you pretend not to be attacking a women's rights issue and just get to the part where you are?
 
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
 
Sometimes I think Blayne is the most elaborate alt account ever created.
 
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sa'eed:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Rakeesh:
[qb] [QUOTE]

Why is his right to opt-out of an 'unwanted burden' (which he nevertheless wanted to risk creating) the only one you're discussing?

It's the singular subject of this thread, a focus on a specific right and whether or not it should be upheld. Introducing a narrow premise and sticking to it is hardly a sign of misogyny.

(Women should have the same right to "financial abortion" as to what extent men do, or don't, though)

[ December 12, 2012, 04:18 AM: Message edited by: umberhulk ]
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
 
quote:
Women do not have the right to abandon a child
Really? Are you saying that women do not have the right to give a child up for adoption?

Or are you saying that a woman doesn't have the right to divorce her husband, leaving her young children with him?

It seems that women very clearly *do* have the right to abandon their children (given certain conditions: that they abandon them in a *safe* manner to an appropriate guardian).

quote:
The man consented to having a child the moment he agreed to stick his porker inside her.
For this to be a consistent position you need to ban abortions. I suggest you look very closely at your argument, and make one which actually indicates why you aren't using the same argument in support of banning abortions.

quote:
Why is his right to opt-out of an 'unwanted burden' (which he nevertheless wanted to risk creating) the only one you're discussing? There are not just two people involved.
"Financial abortion" can be seen as a man opting out of an unwanted burden to the detriment of the child he nevertheless wanted to risk creating.

But abortion of course can also be seen as a woman opting out of an unwanted burden to the detriment of the child she nevertheless wanted to risk creating.

For that matter, putting a baby up for adoption can *also* be seen as a woman opting out of an unwanted burden to the detriment of the child she nevertheless wanted to risk creating.

The supposed "good of the baby" can be used to ban "financial abortion" but not to ban normal abortion (or putting children up for adoption). But the argument only makes sense if one's priorities are as follows:

mother's choice > good of the baby > father's choice
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
 
quote:
What are the conditions under which a man should be able to "not consent to fatherhood"?
"Not consenting to fatherhood" just means that they do not utter the words "I consent to fatherhood".

The more precise question is probably "Under which conditions should such lack-of-consent-to-fatherhood be respected by the law?".

It seems to me that the liberty-minded question should be the opposite: Under which conditions should we NOT respect lack of consent?

The answer should be: We should not respect lack of consent if the people in question have already signed such consent away.

In short, if they've signed a marital or similar contract which obliges the participants to mutual support. If the couple in question is married, then the father no longer has the right to deprive financial support from the couple's biological offspring, no matter whether he consents to fatherhood or not.
 
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
 
quote:
In short, if they've signed a marital or similar contract which obliges the participants to mutual support. If the couple in question is married, then the father no longer has the right to deprive financial support from the couple's biological offspring, no matter whether he consents to fatherhood or not.
Would this hold true in all circumstances? What if the couple has agreed not to have children, takes all reasonable precautions not to get pregnant, but the wife gets pregnant anyway and then, contrary to her husband's wishes, decides to keep the baby? What if the husband files for a divorce over this issue? Should he, according to your view, still be liable for child support?
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
 
> Should he, according to your view, still be liable for child support?

Yes, I think so. In the absence of relevant deceit or infidelity (which would be marital contract violations by the other party), such support simply falls under the agreed-upon marital support you'd have to give for any medical condition that your partner didn't deliberately seek to have. That your partner doesn't consent to a *further* procedure (abortion) doesn't mean you are relieved out of your existing financial obligations.

Unless such clause had been inserted in the marital contract -- if the couple had agreed in *advance* that "in case of unintentional pregnancy, we'll do an abortion", then sure: the requirement for support no longer applies. But if they had just agreed to be *careful*, without any mention of what they'd do if such carefulness failed, then the spousal obligation still holds.
 
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
 
Interesting.

I agree with you, by the way, that the argument "good of the baby" for not allowing "financial abortions" while allowing non-medically indicated abortions, only makes sense if your values go: mother's choice > good of the baby/foetus > father's choice. I wonder if there are any rational arguments for these preferences. Especially since, arguably, a mother's choice to have a real abortion has much worse consequences for the baby/foetus than a father's choice of "financial" abortion (although I suppose the latter risks contributing to the former).

I haven't thought much about this, but I suspect that the fact that carrying a baby to term entails significant risks to the life and health of the mother -- in a way that mere financial obligations seldom do -- has something to do with it.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I love the line "pregnancy is inherently biased against men."

Yes. Yes, it is. Whining about it just makes you look like a stupid jerk.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I love the line "pregnancy is inherently biased against men."

Yes. Yes, it is.

Meh. In that case, next time I'm jobbing out the morning sickness, exhaustion, weight gain, stretch marks . . .
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
I would not consider adoption the same as abandonment. Also, in many states, giving up a child for adoption requires both the mother and fathers consent. If the father does not want an adoption to happen, it doesn't. A mother could easily be forced to pay child support.

The argument that a man has an equal right to control of his body is valid in a way that homosexuals have right to marry opposite gender is not due to reason behind the right. Right to an abortion extends from right to control your body. You see this right also includes things like informed consent, hipaa, anti slavery, etc. The right to marriage though is in the US from Loving which is about marrying who you choose regardless of things like race. Also, there is no counter balance on gay marriage. You are balancing equal right against "gay marriage makes me feel icky". I don't think anyone has ever suggested that the right to an abortion legally comes from any other source than control over your own body.

If you could take the baby and put in artificial womb, then we would get into much trickier areas. We must assume that the risk and costs of both procedures on a woman's health are equivalent. If abortions were less complications and risks then procedure that would save the child, we still end up with woman's control over her body. So we assume equivalent procedures for the sake or argument. We then probably will get into the is it life question. Insurance will argue over whether being a fetus is a preexisting condition they have to cover. All the arguments over right to health care come into play. If we finally get to a baby, then I think there is a legit question over what rights the mother has though with surrogacy I guess that has already legally been determined. So, then I would say we are back to where we would be after baby I born under normal circumstances. Mom wants to give up, dad wants to keep, dad gets baby, mom pays child support. Mom wat keep, dad doesnt then mom keeps, dad pays. Neither want to keep, a loving family is found and gets baby. Both wan to keep, joint custody.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
If you could take the baby and put in artificial womb, then we would get into much trickier areas.
But, thankfully, areas where the consequences of disagreement are far lower. Even though questions of ethics and fairness become harder in that scenario, the net good is dramatically increased.
 
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
If you could take the baby and put in artificial womb, then we would get into much trickier areas. We must assume that the risk and costs of both procedures on a woman's health are equivalent. If abortions were less complications and risks then procedure that would save the child, we still end up with woman's control over her body. So we assume equivalent procedures for the sake or argument. We then probably will get into the is it life question. Insurance will argue over whether being a fetus is a preexisting condition they have to cover. All the arguments over right to health care come into play. If we finally get to a baby, then I think there is a legit question over what rights the mother has though with surrogacy I guess that has already legally been determined. So, then I would say we are back to where we would be after baby I born under normal circumstances. Mom wants to give up, dad wants to keep, dad gets baby, mom pays child support. Mom wat keep, dad doesnt then mom keeps, dad pays. Neither want to keep, a loving family is found and gets baby. Both wan to keep, joint custody.

Good, that sounds right to me.

Although ideally, I think justice would dictate that we not require child support from the woman in case of rape, and not require it from the man in cases where (for example) the woman lied about being on birth control. Whether either of these exceptions could be implemented well in practice is a further issue, though. Presumably it would be much easier to implement the first one.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
The man consented to having a child the moment he agreed to stick his porker inside her.

The woman consented to carry the baby to term the moment she decided to spread her legs.

No, wait a minute, that's an ancient conservative argument rejected by the pro(female)-choice crowd. Nothing to see here, move along.



quote:
The woman consented to carry the baby to term the moment she decided to spread her legs.
spoiler alert: sa'eed believes this exactly as written
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by umberhulk:
Sometimes I think Blayne is the most elaborate alt account ever created.

I am the Locke to his Demothenes.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
what
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
 
quote:
The woman consented to carry the baby to term the moment she decided to spread her legs.
quote:
spoiler alert: sa'eed believes this exactly as written
Even if that's the case, it's not a worse belief than Blayne's "The man consented to having a child the moment he agreed to stick his porker inside her."

Both statements imply that consent to sex means consenting to being a parent, with all the obligations and burdens that this entails.

quote:
Suggesting both sides should have equal rights when nature dictates they have different burdens is a little silly.
I don't know anyone here who argued that males should have equal rights over e.g. the termination of the pregnancy -- e.g. to force a termination of the pregnancy when the woman doesn't want one, nor to force the woman *not* to have one.

The MRA side argues that same as the woman is allowed to discontinue the supposed physical/bodily "obligation" (because a woman having sex does NOT imply signing away her choice to not to be a parent), the man should likewise be allowed to discontinue the supposed financial "obligation" (because a man having sex similarly does not imply signing away his choice to not be a parent).

It's more a case of equality in the sense of analogous rights, rather than equality in the sense of identical rights.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Aris I contend that the statements are not at all equal, and I agree with Lyrhawn here.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
... physical/bodily "obligation" (because a woman having sex does NOT imply signing away her choice to not to be a parent), the man should likewise be allowed to discontinue the supposed financial "obligation" (because a man having sex similarly does not imply signing away his choice to not be a parent).

It's more a case of equality in the sense of analogous rights, rather than equality in the sense of identical rights.

It would seem to me that both parties have the supposed financial obligation. The mother can terminate that obligation by giving up the child for adoption while the male can, well, that's under this discussion.

The mother has a additional supposed "obligation" during pregnancy that doesn't really have a parallel on the male's side ... unless we propose an obligation for the male to provide for and care for the female while she is pregnant (which is still not really nearly as burdensome).
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I'll say this, as a tangentially related point:

There needs to be a law passed that will rectify and possibly punish cases where a woman gives a child up for adoption without telling the father. I'm actually not sure what the rules are for child support if the mother gives up the baby and the father takes it, I would assume she has to pay up as well. But there have been a number of high profile cases lately, and the lengths some fathers are being forced to go to get their children back are ridiculous.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
Interesting. Suppose we had the technology to incubate fetuses in artificial wombs, like in Brave New World or something. How would you feel about a law that requires every aborted fetus to be incubated artificially?

I could understand a law that would require that if one of the two parties wanted to proceed. I don't really see the point if neither party wanted to proceed.

Unless you're going down the whole "abortion is murder" road of course, but then that seems like a different discussion between the balance between the beliefs of a majority (a society that believes that) versus a minority (the couple) rather than the current discussion which is a balance between the rights of a potential mother and a potential father.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
Lyrhawn, I agree full heatedly with you but my one concern is there are women who genuinely don't know who the father is and those woman still need to be able to give their kids up for adoption. Those commercials for talk shows where the mom has done like ten paternity tests and still not found the dad indicate that does occur. Also, in cases of abuse, we need a system where the mom can safely provide that info.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
Oh, I also think a rapist should not get custody of a child so I would not ever have a rapist getting child support from his victim.
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
 
quote:
Aris I contend that the statements are not at all equal, and I agree with Lyrhawn here.
The problem is that you've not given any reason for why you so contend it, you just keep repeating "it's different, it's different" as if mere repetition will convince us.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
Lyrhawn, I agree full heatedly with you but my one concern is there are women who genuinely don't know who the father is and those woman still need to be able to give their kids up for adoption. Those commercials for talk shows where the mom has done like ten paternity tests and still not found the dad indicate that does occur. Also, in cases of abuse, we need a system where the mom can safely provide that info.

There needs to be a process where at leas someone has oversight over the process though. What if she's lying about abuse? What if she never actually tried to find him at all? It's a situation where a father might not even know he has rights to defend. The mother has to make that good faith effort to find and inform him.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
Lyrhawn- I agree but I don't know what the best way to implement such a policy would be. I would like at minimum for the mother to be require to swear on oath that she has made a good faith effort. I seem to recall that at least one state assumes no rights for father in adoption cases, but since every state makes its own rules, it is hard to keep track of. But I am far more sympathetic on people fighting for right to be a responsible, good man than asserting a right to be a jerk and potentially emotionally and financially hurt a child.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:
Aris I contend that the statements are not at all equal, and I agree with Lyrhawn here.
The problem is that you've not given any reason for why you so contend it, you just keep repeating "it's different, it's different" as if mere repetition will convince us.
Did you miss the reasoning Lyrhawn provided?
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
Lyrhawn- I agree but I don't know what the best way to implement such a policy would be. I would like at minimum for the mother to be require to swear on oath that she has made a good faith effort. I seem to recall that at least one state assumes no rights for father in adoption cases, but since every state makes its own rules, it is hard to keep track of. But I am far more sympathetic on people fighting for right to be a responsible, good man than asserting a right to be a jerk and potentially emotionally and financially hurt a child.

It's a state out west. Utah or Arizona, that does that. Lots of women specifically go there to have their babies and then leave so they can put the baby up for adoption without notifying the father. It's been the center of some of those high profile cases.

I confess I feel the same as you. It's a problem, but I don't see a fair, easy solution that doesn't place a pretty hefty burden on the mother at an emotionally trying time. But that might just be the way it goes. You can't rob a father of his parental rights because the mother doesn't feel like putting in the effort to find him. If he has no choice in being saddled with the financial responsibility, he should at least have a choice as to whether he wants to exercise his paternal rights.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:
Originally posted by umberhulk:
Sometimes I think Blayne is the most elaborate alt account ever created.

I am the Locke to his Demothenes.
[Angst]
 
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
Except pregnancy isn't identical. And that's the stumbling block.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Thank you. Three people involved, not two.
 
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
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).
 
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
 
They should man up. But that should be encouraged, and not hastily legislated.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
No, I doubt such a solution exists.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
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?
 


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