"Roe v. Wade for Men"

[TragicMonkey]

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.

And seatbelts don't save every life or prevent all injuries. Their failure rate is greater than zero. Therefore, it is ridiculous to expect anyone to wear a seatbelt, ever. Ditto vaccinations, locking one's front door at night, and installing smoke detectors. All of them are fallible, therefore no blame should be attached to anyone for failing to employ them.

Safety measures are meant to reduce the risks, not perform magic.

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.

So, you think there's a legal solution to the fact that only females can get pregnant? I'd love to see the proposed legislation.

 

[daredelvis]

We don't know all the facts of the case but yes, it sure looks like that.

Person A deceived person B and created a situation where B must pay A due to the deceit.

Fertility is not always an absolute, unless someone has been overectomized. She may not have deceived him.

That being said, any fool that uses "I can't get pregnant" as a form of birth control is .... Well is not at the top of my list for my sympathy.

Daredelvis

 

[jj]

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.

I acknowlege your emotional feelings. Could you now please give me some factual or logical explaination for them?

For instance, the last sentence in your quote assumes facts not in evidence. Ditto the one before that. For the sentence before that you not only assume facts not in evidence, you create an emotionally manipulative straw man to burn down.

To answer the question you created, no, the woman gets to decide about an abortion. Period. However, in an equitable world, the man would be able to acknowlege parental rights, or indicate that he does not wish to have any parental rights. (I'm assuming that the two people are not in a legal or long-established informal relationship here. Obviously if they are, then they are, and there shouldn't be any doubt.)

So, no, despite your inflamatory question, the guy has no rights to tell the woman what to do or not do with her body. Period. He should, however, have some say in responsibility for an act that was not intended to procreate.

For that matter, the woman ought to be able to legally state that the man need not have any responsibility. There have been a couple of surrogate father cases where someone has tried to get a surrogate father (i.e. artificial insemination, anonymous donor, etc) to be held responsible. The law has NO, and I mean NO right to intrude into such a relationship, but it has.

 

[jj]

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

Actually, I can't stand for that statement. I think society treats both victims quite shabbily.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

And seatbelts don't save every life or prevent all injuries. Their failure rate is greater than zero. Therefore, it is ridiculous to expect anyone to wear a seatbelt, ever. Ditto vaccinations, locking one's front door at night, and installing smoke detectors. All of them are fallible, therefore no blame should be attached to anyone for failing to employ them.

Safety measures are meant to reduce the risks, not perform magic.

I agree. However, you seem to be saying that the father has no rights whatsoever in this case. He knew the risks, he got into the car (to continue your analogy), and now he had an accident. Aww, poor baby. Well, he wasn't wearing a seatbelt, so let's leave him to die because he "knew what he was getting into."

So, you think there's a legal solution to the fact that only females can get pregnant? I'd love to see the proposed legislation.

I don't need to have a piece of legislation sitting on my desk in order to find legitimate holes in your position anymore than I need a better theory of gravity than "invisible rubber bands make me fall down" in order to find fault with that theory.

 

[Meadmaker]

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

You really can't see the inequity in that?

So a woman has a womb, and a man doesn't. Can't you see the inequity in that?


The inequity starts with nature, not with the law.


My own opinion is that the woman should have all the control. She wants an abortion? He can't say no. She wants to give it up for adoption? He gets first crack at adopting, but she has no obligations. She wants to keep the baby? He gets to pay child support.

You could probably convince me that marital status makes a difference in some cases.

If you want to avoid any possibility that you will be forced to pay for a child you don't want, or see a child aborted that you do want, there's an easy way to avoid that, isn't there?

 

[Godmode]

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?

Personally, I think we should. Women also shouldn't have sex if they aren't properly protected/fixed/willing to take the risk. (I'm obviously not including rape here, which is a crime)
I still don't see any justification of forcing an abortion on a woman. Should we perhaps, using YOUR example, force a man to be castrated if he lies to a woman about his sterility?

 

[jj]

So a woman has a womb, and a man doesn't. Can't you see the inequity in that?

So, one inequity should follow another?

We can't do anything about the natural problem, at least in short term (and it's not clear it would be wise, either, in the short run), but we can do something about the legal problem.

But one wrong does not mean that we have to further it.

My own opinion is that the woman should have all the control. She wants an abortion? He can't say no. She wants to give it up for adoption? He gets first crack at adopting, but she has no obligations. She wants to keep the baby? He gets to pay child support.

In other words, the man has no rights in this regard. I think that's positively sexist.

If you want to avoid any possibility that you will be forced to pay for a child you don't want, or see a child aborted that you do want, there's an easy way to avoid that, isn't there?

You don't see the inequity here? Really? You offer an absolutist, prohibitionistic solution to the guy, and give the woman every option.

Some the woman gets (like the right to control her own body, period). Some should be shared rights and options.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I agree. However, you seem to be saying that the father has no rights whatsoever in this case. He knew the risks, he got into the car (to continue your analogy), and now he had an accident. Aww, poor baby. Well, he wasn't wearing a seatbelt, so let's leave him to die because he "knew what he was getting into."

Did he stick it in? Did he take any measures whatsoever to prevent pregnancy? Yes, and no, respectively. Preventing a pregnancy is a great deal easier than preventing an auto accident. For starters, cars are not specifically designed to produce accidents.

I don't need to have a piece of legislation sitting on my desk in order to find legitimate holes in your position anymore than I need a better theory of gravity than "invisible rubber bands make me fall down" in order to find fault with that theory.

You suggested that there is a legal remedy to the biological inequity that only women can get pregnant. I don't need to hear the details of your legal remedy to realize that's silly.

 

[toddjh]

It's a fatal objection within the context of a civil case.

In the U.S., I'm not so sure. Part of the baggage of the Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett fiasco was the Supreme Court's recognition of the fact that the law could only allow discrimination on the basis of biology if that discrimination is "rational." I don't believe it's rational to deny such a huge decision to members of one sex, even if it's only granted to the other sex because of unavoidable facts of biology.

 

[toddjh]

The inequity starts with nature, not with the law.

Doesn't mean the law has to remain silent.

My own opinion is that the woman should have all the control. She wants an abortion? He can't say no. She wants to give it up for adoption? He gets first crack at adopting, but she has no obligations. She wants to keep the baby? He gets to pay child support.

Why should the woman be able to abdicate responsibility through adoption, but not the man? You can't possibly argue that biology is a factor there...

If you want to avoid any possibility that you will be forced to pay for a child you don't want, or see a child aborted that you do want, there's an easy way to avoid that, isn't there?

For one sex more than the other, apparently...

 

[TragicMonkey]

I acknowlege your emotional feelings. Could you now please give me some factual or logical explaination for them?

For instance, the last sentence in your quote assumes facts not in evidence. Ditto the one before that. For the sentence before that you not only assume facts not in evidence, you create an emotionally manipulative straw man to burn down.

Mr Dubay says his constitutional rights are being violated

He now wants the court to free him from his obligation to pay $500 (£287) in child support every month.

Not "I want this child", not "I don't want my child raised by strangers", not "I don't want this evil woman to raise my child". It's "I don't want to have to pay $500 a month."

To answer the question you created, no, the woman gets to decide about an abortion. Period. However, in an equitable world, the man would be able to acknowlege parental rights, or indicate that he does not wish to have any parental rights. (I'm assuming that the two people are not in a legal or long-established informal relationship here. Obviously if they are, then they are, and there shouldn't be any doubt.)

What would the results of this be? Any guy who didn't want to pay child support would merely have to claim "I didn't want the kid", and the child gets to have all the fun of poverty. Child support is for the support of the child, not to make the mother rich. Although I suppose she could just get an abortion, and that would be a big financial savings for the guy.

So, no, despite your inflamatory question, the guy has no rights to tell the woman what to do or not do with her body. Period. He should, however, have some say in responsibility for an act that was not intended to procreate.

He had plenty of say in the responsibility for the act. He didn't take it. Up to the point where he shot his load, he had complete control. He didn't bother to worry about consequences when the control was his. His window of opportunity ended, and now he's stuck with the results.

For that matter, the woman ought to be able to legally state that the man need not have any responsibility. There have been a couple of surrogate father cases where someone has tried to get a surrogate father (i.e. artificial insemination, anonymous donor, etc) to be held responsible. The law has NO, and I mean NO right to intrude into such a relationship, but it has.

The issue is the child's wellbeing, not the parents'. They created a kid, they have to provide for it. The mother may not want the father's money and support, but the kid is entitled to it regardless of her wishes.

 

[toddjh]

What would the results of this be? Any guy who didn't want to pay child support would merely have to claim "I didn't want the kid", and the child gets to have all the fun of poverty.

This would only be equitable if the man were given a "window" to choose to sever his responsibility, corresponding to the window during which the woman would be able to have an abortion. That way, the woman still has the option of avoiding a child she can't support if the man chooses to abdicate, and nobody is forced into poverty.

ETA: With reasonable exceptions, of course, such as the case of the woman deliberately hiding her pregnancy until after the window had passed.

 

[pgwenthold]

Time for my "equity plan" for handling the situation

1) The woman has the legal right to decide the pregnancy at any time. If the woman wants an abortion, she can get one.

2) When the woman discovers she is pregnant, she has two weeks to notify the father that she is pregnant.

3) Within 2 weeks, the father must declare his intent to provide support for the child or not support the child.

4) Armed with the information from the father, the woman decides whether to carry the pregnancy to term or to have an abortion. If the father declared to not support the child, and she has the baby, then he does not have to pay child support but he also loses all legal paternal rights. If he offers to provide support, and she decides to abort, he is SOL. If he agrees to support the child, and if she carries to term, then he has legal rights as a father, but he also has to pay child support.


Assuming that the woman discovers she is pregnant no more than one month into the pregnancy, this plan means that the fathers decision must be received by 2 months, still within the first term, allowing plenty of time to abort if she wants to. There probably should be restriction on how long the mother can wait before contacting the father, so that she can't wait until the third trimester before verifying she is pregnant (and it would encourage the woman to get to the doctor early on).

So here's the key to the plan: Ultimately, the decision for the abortion is soley in the hands of the woman. Her body, her decision. However, it is an INFORMED decision, and her decision is based on his willingness to pay. Moreover, she does not hold unilateral control over the process, and he is not controlled by her decision.

The biological difference is covered here. He cannot force her to have the child if she doesn't want to. Similarly, he cannot force her to have an abortion if she doesn't want to. She has control over her body, but he retains control of his wallet. SHe just knows when making her decision whether he will be providing child support.

ETA: I forgot to mention, missing deadlines will lead to implicit acceptance. I.e. if she doesn't notify the father in the proper time, she foregoes any right to child support. If he does not respond to her notification, he is bound to pay.

 

[Tmy]

No one is forced to have a baby. He couldve used a condom, not had sex, or got snipped himself.

As for adoption. A father can stop and adoption if he wants. Mom doesnt own the child.

 

[toddjh]

Time for my "equity plan" for handling the situation

Thanks for saying this so clearly. This is exactly what I'd like to see as well.

 

[jj]

The issue is the child's wellbeing, not the parents'. They created a kid, they have to provide for it. The mother may not want the father's money and support, but the kid is entitled to it regardless of her wishes.

Now you've added another "fact not in evidence" by stating as a premise that the issue is the child's wellbeing, and that they have to pay for any kid they create.

Obviously if they both AGREE to create the kid, yes. IF neither of them agree, then no.

You've given the woman the right to decide. I think that's proper. You also have to give the man the right to decide, with the obvious qualification that physical issues regarding the woman's body remain with the woman, period.

Now, this doesn't mean that a guy can say 3 years later "I changed my mind". He has to make up his mind, period, and his decision is binding. He has no more time to decide than the woman. I would include the post-birth adoption period for neonatal adoptions, not just the time that is allowed for deciding yes or no on an abortion, but no longer than that. (N.B. See below, I have modified my opinion based on toddjh's comments, and am leaving the previous for the record.)

And all men ought to be allowed the right to a DNA test. Period.

 

[jj]

So here's the key to the plan: Ultimately, the decision for the abortion is soley in the hands of the woman. Her body, her decision. However, it is an INFORMED decision, and her decision is based on his willingness to pay.

This is a good argument for requiring the decision at this time. While I would prefer that there was an option just post-natal, perhaps the only option there would be for the guy to change his mind and take on parental rights if he had previously rejected him. Note, this modifies my stance in the immediately preceeding article of mine.

 

[Meadmaker]

So, one inequity should follow another?

Yes. The law should not try to bring about equality where none exists.

We can't do anything about the natural problem,

The existence of two sexes is a "problem"?

In other words, the man has no rights in this regard. I think that's positively sexist.

Guilty as charged. I think nature is positively sexist.

As to why the man ought to have no rights in this regard, because any other solution would require either a) forcing a woman to have an abortion. b) forcing a woman to give up her own child. or c) Forcing a child to live without the support of two parents.

You might be able to convince me that there is another solution to this little quandry, but problems a, b, and c, above are ones I can't imagine compromising on.

 

[Tmy]

So here's the key to the plan: Ultimately, the decision for the abortion is soley in the hands of the woman. Her body, her decision. However, it is an INFORMED decision, and her decision is based on his willingness to pay. Moreover, she does not hold unilateral control over the process, and he is not controlled by her decision.
.

Its not about moms rights its about the child. He deserves to have a mom n dad.

Child support is for the child not the mother. If dad has custody of the kid then mom has to pay him. If granma has the kid, then both mom and dad should pay her support.

Under your plan do you know who would end up paying?? The taxpayer, taking care of these poor kids who are on the welfare.