"Roe v. Wade for Men"

[jj]

Oh, my! Lied to, by a lover? That's a first for the annals of human history!

My sympathy is zero. He got lazy and complacent and put trust where it shouldn't have been, and now he's trying to get out of the consequences.

So, the woman can put a baby up for adoption, but the man can't.

You really can't see the inequity in that?

 

[Random]

Wasn't there a case recently where a man tried to prevent his ex-girlfirend from having an abortion?

 

[jj]

Again, it takes two to make a kid. Don't want to pay child support- don't have sex with her.

So, deception, accidents, etc, don't matter? Why is sex more special than other behavior? Is it because of reproduction? If so, why should not all parties be responsible?

 

[toddjh]

Wasn't there a case recently where a man tried to prevent his ex-girlfirend from having an abortion?

Possibly, but I'd agree that that's a totally different situation. That would be the man trying to make the decision for the woman, and I'd oppose it. This case is about giving the man an equivalent decision of his own.

 

[Number Six]

I think it is the case (or it should be the case) that the woman can't wash her hands of the kid if the father wants to raise it himself. I mean, if the woman has a kid and doesn't want it but the father does, then the father gets it and the woman is responsible for helping to financially support it. If it's not that way now then I bet just about everyone would agree that it should be. But severing your own responsibility even though the person you made the baby with is raising it...that's kinda a different issue.

Part of the crux of this seems to be that the woman (allegedly) deceived the man and now he faces financial consequences. So just for the fun of it I tried to think of a way it could occur that the man deceived the woman and she faced financial consequences. Here's what I came up with. Suppose she became pregnant and she didn't want to raise it or pay for it. Suppose she thought "If he wants it then I'm going to have an abortion. If he doesn't want it then I'm going to have it and give it up for adoption." Then she asks him if he wants it, he says "No," so she has it and then the guy says "She may not want it but I do, she has to give me the baby and financially support it too." He lied to her and as a result she has to pay for it. Okay, that probably doesn't happen very often but hey, I'm trying to think of a counterexample here and it's not easy, cut me some slack.

 

[jj]

Wasn't there a case recently where a man tried to prevent his ex-girlfirend from having an abortion?

This is just about the worst case. It could work either way, too, of course. Here we have an obvious conflict, the right of the woman to control her own body vs. the right of the man not to have unintended offspring (or to have unintended offspring, of course).

This is why some kind of resolution beyond "dad pays in all cases" may be called for.

But this is less egregious than requiring "dad" to pay for the results of an affair on the part of his wife, indeed.

 

[toddjh]

Part of the crux of this seems to be that the woman (allegedly) deceived the man and now he faces financial consequences.

I disagree with this statement, and if it were me, that wouldn't be part of my case. The woman has the right to sever legal responsibility regardless of the circumstances that led to the pregnancy. The man should have a similar no-questions-asked decision.

 

[Grammatron]

I'm not sure I understand the question. Can you rephrase, or give an example?

Well if the case is about equal protection under the law and court rules against the men, effectively saying men and women are not equal. Could there be some negative consequences for women stemming from this case?

 

[toddjh]

Well if the case is about equal protection under the law and court rules against the men, effectively saying men and women are not equal. Could there be some negative consequences for women stemming from this case?

Well, in this particular example it sounds more like there would be negative consequences for men -- they'd be the ones who are denied equal protection. I don't think there'd be any real negative consequences for women, because for all practical purposes things would stay pretty much the same as they are now.

ETA: If you're worried that a case like this might be used to justify other instances of treating men and women differently under the law, I don't think so. The courts are pretty opposed to sexism these days on principle. I just think our society's traditional sensibilities make it difficult for some people (judges included) to recognize the sexism inherent in this case.

 

[TragicMonkey]

So, the woman can put a baby up for adoption, but the man can't.

You really can't see the inequity in that?

The inequity would seem to be a biological one. The poor man can't breastfeed, either.

The man can certainly take the child if he wants it and she doesn't, and she puts it up for adoption. The issue isn't "who gets the child" here, it's "who can get rid of the child". Since it's her body, she gets the choice of abortion or not. Are you suggesting it would be only fair if he could decide that she must have an abortion, whether she wants one or not? Oh, but he's not interested in whether the child lives or dies, or who it's raised by. It's whether it's going to cost him anything that has him upset.

 

[Grammatron]

Well, in this particular example it sounds more like there would be negative consequences for men -- they'd be the ones who are denied equal protection. I don't think there'd be any practical negative consequences for women, because things would stay pretty much the same as they are now.

I'm thinking beyond pregnancy cases here.

PS: I don't see things for men getting worse than they are already are.

 

[mumblethrax]

As it stands now, the woman is given the opportunity to sever her legal responsibility for the resulting pregnancy through abortion or adoption. She is given this opportunity regardless of whether she was careless, unlucky, or a victim of dishonesty. This decision is unilateral, and does not depend on biology: adoption, at least, is a strictly legal entity.

I think he has a lousy case, because it does depend on biology.

As I understand it, both men and women have liability for creating a child. Both men and women also have a long-standing right to control their own bodies. A man, due to his biology and consistent with this principle, can limit his liability up until the point where he has sex. A woman, for the same reason, can limit her liability up until the point of birth.

So the equal protection claim falls on its ass, since men have exactly the same privacy rights as women and reproductive rights follow from privacy rights.

Adoption is a separate issue, and it's not a unilateral decision.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

The inequity would seem to be a biological one. The poor man can't breastfeed, either.

The man can certainly take the child if he wants it and she doesn't, and she puts it up for adoption. The issue isn't "who gets the child" here, it's "who can get rid of the child". Since it's her body, she gets the choice of abortion or not. Are you suggesting it would be only fair if he could decide that she must have an abortion, whether she wants one or not? Oh, but he's not interested in whether the child lives or dies, or who it's raised by. It's whether it's going to cost him anything that has him upset.

False dichotomy.

 

[Godmode]

duped? We have no idea if he used a condom, if not, he has no right to bitch that she got pregnant.
I just don't see this working, an abortion is a serious operation that can do serious damage to a woman's body. She shouldn't be forced into it for any reason. I can't imagine this will ever be allowed. It's not like he has to raise it, and hey, if you don't want to get a girl pregnant, there's always at least 2 sure-fire methods. Get fixed. Don't have sex with her.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

duped? We have no idea if he used a condom, if not, he has no right to bitch that she got pregnant.
I just don't see this working, an abortion is a serious operation that can do serious damage to a woman's body. She shouldn't be forced into it for any reason. I can't imagine this will ever be allowed. It's not like he has to raise it, and hey, if you don't want to get a girl pregnant, there's always at least 2 sure-fire methods. Get fixed. Don't have sex with her.

Let's turn this one around Godmode. Do we tell pregnant mothers "You're pregnant, that's your fault! You could have kept your legs crossed, or used birth control!" "My boyfreind said he was sterile." "Tough ****!"

No, we don't. Why does our society treat fathers of unexpected pregnancies worse than mothers of unexpected pregnancies?

 

[toddjh]

I think he has a lousy case, because it does depend on biology.

As I understand it, both men and women have liability for creating a child. Both men and women also have a long-standing right to control their own bodies. A man, due to his biology and consistent with this principle, can limit his liability up until the point where he has sex. A woman, for the same reason, can limit her liability up until the point of birth.

Possibly, but I disagree with your conclusion. Just because the legal lopsidedness is partially determined by biology doesn't mean that the government should be powerless to address the resulting inequality. As one example, consider people with disabilities. Their difficulties are the result of biology, and yet pretty much everybody is comfortable with the government mandating that reasonable concessions be made (wheelchair ramps, elevators, accessible bathrooms, handicapped parking spaces, accomodations in the workplace, etc.). Accidents of biology do not prevent the government from trying to level the playing field in other areas, so I don't think that's a fatal objection here.

So the equal protection claim falls on its ass, since men have exactly the same privacy rights as women and reproductive rights follow from privacy rights.

The law is perfectly comfortable making special cases when it comes to children -- there are entire courts devoted to this very complicated and labyrinthine area. I don't think it's so simple that you can reduce it to something as basic as "privacy rights."

 

[TragicMonkey]

Let's turn this one around Godmode. Do we tell pregnant mothers "You're pregnant, that's your fault! You could have kept your legs crossed, or used birth control!" "My boyfreind said he was sterile." "Tough ****!"

No, we don't. Why does our society treat fathers of unexpected pregnancies worse than mothers of unexpected pregnancies?

Does it? What society are you from? I seem to recall reading quite a few round condemnations of women who are perpetually getting themselves pregnant unintentionally. I see no reason not to apply the same blame to women for failing to use any of the many methods for preventing pregnancies.

The thing is, the woman doesn't deserve more blame than the man. They both deserve it equally. It's unlucky for women that the biological consequences of sex are more serious for them than for men, but that's hardly something that can be changed by law.

 

[mumblethrax]

Possibly, but I disagree with your conclusion. Just because the legal lopsidedness is partially determined by biology doesn't mean that the government should be powerless try to address the resulting inequality. As one example, consider people with disabilities. Their difficulties are the result of biology, and yet pretty much everybody is comfortable with the government mandating that reasonable concessions be made (wheelchair ramps, elevators, accessible bathrooms, handicapped parking spaces, accomodations in the workplace, etc.). Accidents of biology do not prevent the government from trying to level the playing field in other areas, so I don't think that's a fatal objection here.

It's a fatal objection within the context of a civil case. There's nothing to stop our government from passing laws to introduce the idea of consent into paternity cases, but I think it would be ill-advised.

The law is perfectly comfortable making special cases when it comes to children -- there are entire courts devoted to this very complicated and labyrinthine area. I don't think it's so simple that you can reduce it to something as basic as "privacy rights."

A fetus is not a child in the eyes of the law (for the most part), so you pretty much can up until the point of birth.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Does it? What society are you from? I seem to recall reading quite a few round condemnations of women who are perpetually getting themselves pregnant unintentionally. I see no reason not to apply the same blame to women for failing to use any of the many methods for preventing pregnancies.

The thing is, the woman doesn't deserve more blame than the man. They both deserve it equally. It's unlucky for women that the biological consequences of sex are more serious for them than for men, but that's hardly something that can be changed by law.

Emphasis mine. That emphasized section is a baseless assumption. All methods of contraception, aside from abstainance, have a failure rate higher than zero. In this case, he probably should have worn condom, but even if he had, it might have failed. Even the belt and suspenders system fails sometimes.

As for your second paragraph, that's absurd. The Elderly are more infirm and prone to sickness than the young by the facts of biology. Oh well, there's *nothing* the government can do to help them. You know, aside from social security, and medicare.

 

[Meadmaker]

Would any parents on the forum care to give an estimate of child-care costs?

How much do you have? That's the cost of raising a child.