"Roe v. Wade for Men"

[Tmy]

I've asked a question near the beginning of the thread, that was never answered..

http://www.babycenter.com/costofchild/
Cost of raising a child!

The thread is over 300 posts. Could you remind us what the question was?

 

[chris epic]

You know what, JamesDillon, your points are good ones.

I allowed myself to get off my point and be distracted by strawmen, some of which I raised. Sorry about that. I'm learning.

Anyway, my point, my argument, is that if a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy in certain cases, and a man is found responsible (financially or in whatever way) for that pregnancy, then he should have the same right to choose to terminate or keep the pregnancy.

It can't be her kid when it comes to life or death, but my kid when it comes to paying for it, but never the reverse in either case. It's either her kid and not mine, my kid and not hers, or ours. And if ours, we both have to agree on its fate, or else the courts will.

That's my point.

 

[Tmy]

You know what, JamesDillon, your points are good ones.

I allowed myself to get off my point and be distracted by strawmen, some of which I raised. Sorry about that. I'm learning.

Anyway, my point, my argument, is that if a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy in certain cases, and a man is found responsible (financially or in whatever way) for that pregnancy, then he should have the same right to choose to terminate or keep the pregnancy.

It can't be her kid when it comes to life or death, but my kid when it comes to paying for it, but never the reverse in either case. It's either her kid and not mine, my kid and not hers, or ours. And if ours, we both have to agree on its fate, or else the courts will.

That's my point.

Theres a distinction tween the pregnancy and the child. Mom can terminate the pregnacny (potential child) but she cant terminate the child. A man can effectivly terminate a potential child by getting a visectmy. Same difference really. Every sperm is sacred and all.

And you arent paying for the kid as some sort of punishment. You have a duty to care for your child. Just as mom does. If dad ends up with the kid mom is alos on the hook for support.

 

[Cain]

His original post. Text omitted

First of all, since women have had the power to put a child up for adoption, I do not see the point of muddying "men's rights" with all this Roe nonsense. Fundamentally, an abortion has nothing to do with it. Recent "Safe Haven" allow a woman to literally aband a child on the steps of a firehouse, hopsital or police station with virtually no legal repercussions (yes, it varies by state, and some states do not have such laws).

The fundamental equality at work is that both men and women should have full rights over their body. Men can still get a vasectomy (and deposit some of their boys at a wank tank for future use). I woud not be opposed to publicly subsidizing such a procedure.

How does the "national center for men's rights" distinguish cases of voluntary sex against male rape vis-a-vis financial obligations? As evidenced earlier in this thread, there are cases where men are raped, the woman gets pregnant, and the biological father -- the victim -- has to pay child support. Is your ultra-powerful moral argument going to observe that the woman had a choice to give the baby up for adoption, or the option of terminating the pregnancy? A far more powerful argument will probably note that the man never even had a choice in the matter.

In this so called "Roe v. Wade for men" case, the biological father did have a choice. He chose to sleep with her, and now he has to pay the consequences. He's not a co-equal partner, and he doesn't share co-equal responsibilities. He merely has to write a check, while the mother has the responsibility of being the child's primary caregiver. He has it easy.

Moreover, since the child's interests are paramount, someone has to pay one way or another. If you allow the father the choice to opt-out, then taxpayers (who also never had a choice) will pick up the tab. From a moral social welfare perspective, I do not have a problem with this; the child has rights . Economically, however, it leads to an inefficient, sub-optimal outcome because it alters the incentive structure. It empowers young males to engage in casual sex and push the costs onto others.

 

[Tmy]

A father can stop an adoption if he wants.

If a kid is born out of wedlock he doesnt legally have a dad until either 1) dad signs documents stating that he is in fact the father or 2) a paternity case is brought against dad, and a court rules that he is daddy.

We dont have to do this with moms cause we KNOW they are the mother.


I think theres a better case that actually rules in favor of the dad in a similiar situation. There was a divorced couple that had some frozen embryos that were supposed to be destroyed. Without the ex-husbands permission, ex -wife took the embroys and knocked herself up. The court ruled that dad was not on the hook for support of the child.

Im sure I read that story somewhere. Maybe I can find it.

 

[Cain]

Good points, Tmy. Is it OK when I see your handle to subvocalize it "Timaaah!" as in the character on South Park?

As for the embryo case you mention, it is better in some respects. One difference, I don't think it's crucial, is that she's purpsoely attempting to get pregnant. In a case of statutory rape, the young male could be using a condom and the woman can still get pregnant (or the woman can be using birth control). That is to say, she never planned on getting pregnant (it was an unintended consequence).

 

[Tmy]

I love southpark.

Hey, I see how its a bummer for dads who dont want to be dads. But the focus is really on the child, not mother or father. Weve decided to pass laws that ensure the little bastard is taken care of. I really dont have a problem with that. I think its kinda low that so many people are looking to get out of providing for their own child. scum.

You cant make people be good parents, but at least you can make them provide for the child.

 

[TimmyBerry]

The thread is over 300 posts. Could you remind us what the question was?

For whatever reason, I was wondering what the cost of raising a child was. Vs. what the father actually has to pay in child support fees. Seems to me that the father isn't paying enough to begin with.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

For whatever reason, I was wondering what the cost of raising a child was. Vs. what the father actually has to pay in child support fees. Seems to me that the father isn't paying enough to begin with.

There are practical as well as moral considerations involved in setting child support.

For one, if you take too great a portion of a man's income he has little or no incentive to play the game at all. Past a certain point they will drop out of the system and work for cash in hand, and then the mother gets no money at all. The more onerous you make the support payments the more "deadbeat dads" you get.

(In Australia we have also had the opposite problem, that because "child support" was indexed to income then rich fathers have had to pay sums for "child support" far in excess of what it actually costs to raise a child).

 

[Tmy]

There are practical as well as moral considerations involved in setting child support.

For one, if you take too great a portion of a man's income he has little or no incentive to play the game at all. Past a certain point they will drop out of the system and work for cash in hand, and then the mother gets no money at all. The more onerous you make the support payments the more "deadbeat dads" you get.

(In Australia we have also had the opposite problem, that because "child support" was indexed to income then rich fathers have had to pay sums for "child support" far in excess of what it actually costs to raise a child).

In the US is more of a formula based on the incomes of both mom and dad.
Support aint some random number that the judge throws out. Its designed to be affordable, not to put the parent on the streets. The guys who go under the table do so to avoid paying anything. Not cause they cant live, but becuase they are greedy jerks.


All the states have some differences. In my state the formula is tossed once you hit a high level of income.

 

[strathmeyer]

I got to tell you- I wrote this whole thing once before but I timed out and lost it and had to re-write it again- its not comming out as articulately as it was the first time - but I tried

Chris, this is a well thought out and well penned post, but it has a few factual problems.

You remark that conception marks the life of a human being. This means that you think that using the birth controll pill is killing a human being (Correct me if I'm wrong!)

You write, "The only time a child in utero is protected is when the mother desires that child be born. For this there are laws concerning vehicular murder when an uborn child is terminated." This doesn't make much sense. I don't understand what, in particular, vehicular murder has to do with this, nor do I see what the mothers desire that the child be born has to do with it.

You also use the word "child" when you mean "unborn child". It's tough to have a conversation who uses words to mean something different than what they actually mean.

You wrrite, "So outside of this circumstance, who can protect a child if a mother decides to terminate her parental rights? No one." (And of course, by child, you mean unborn child.) this is not true. There are many laws to protect the rights of unborn children.

You write, "So the child in utero has no rights", but this is untrue.

If you beat up a pregnant woman who is more than X weeks pregnant (methinks X=24) and the fetus is aborted. You are guilty of some type of murder. If the pregnant mother decides that she wants to go on a alcoholic binge, the courts can lock her up to prevent her from consuming alcohol. I'm sure there are plenty of other exmaples.

 

[chris epic]

Chris, this is a well thought out and well penned post, but it has a few factual problems.

believe you me, I know

You remark that conception marks the life of a human being. This means that you think that using the birth controll pill is killing a human being (Correct me if I'm wrong!)

oh no, you're RIGHT! Thinking about it, I realize I am a bit indifferent about contraception ending human life. This is the world we live in, this society- a sex crazed society- our minds are riddled with sex- we don't look at it like we used to. I believe at one point in our prehistory we understood sex like any other animal- though pleasurable, its only service was that of procreation (or atleast its only consequence). On the one hand, we were unaware of the molecular biology involved in procreation- so we never had to look at life as a mass of DNA swirling into life. All we saw was that "inserting part A into part B created a new generation of us and boy oh boy does that feel good!" But now I see a much different appreciation of sex- one of self gratification, or traditionally an expression of love- and if we plan to have a child then we let nature take its coarse. However, if we do not plan on having a child we terminate that "potential" immediately with contraception- now we're only left with STD's, climbing levels of teenage promiscuity(sp) and, of coarse, abortion...okay, there is the option of dad saying "explitive this! I'm outta here" But of coarse we try our best not to see the molecular developement of our "potentials" as human life- it makes it easier to use contraception so we can go ahead with a good shag. Instead we dehumanize it by using words like "potential child" or "unborn" (almost sounds like a vampire "undead" a word that describes a limbo "not quite here but not quite there. And we all know the whole pergatory thing helps catholics grasp with their dead loved ones just as the whole limbo thing helps us live with the proceedure of pre-birth termination. So just as these words can be misleading, I will refuse to use words like "killing a child" to bring back the humanity that resides in the womb we lost some unknown time ago. Anway- so its this mentality that has led some or most women to go beyond Roe v Wade and use abortion as just another form of contraception.

Oh boy- here I go with my adversityto abortion- I don't want to come off this way. I want to stay on the topic of Fathers' Rights- okay? If the government advocates abortion, then, as redundant as it sounds, women have the right to exercise that right- I only want equal rights for fathers.

You write, "The only time a child in utero is protected is when the mother desires that child be born. For this there are laws concerning vehicular murder when an uborn child is terminated." This doesn't make much sense...

You made a better example of this below

If you beat up a pregnant woman who is more than X weeks pregnant (methinks X=24) and the fetus is aborted. You are guilty of some type of murder.

You also use the word "child" when you mean "unborn child". It's tough to have a conversation who uses words to mean something different than what they actually mean.

again, the whole "humanizing/dehumanizing" thing. I think I made a pretty good point with that. Me "child" word is just as difficult to you as "potential child" is to me- thus, I really don't see anyway around it. Remember, back in prehistory- the only potential around was the man and the woman- then BAMB! and 9 months later we made a child. There has never been a "potential child" there has been a development of a child from the begining of the first trimester to the moment of birth, but never a potential. If I place a 6 month premature baby in an incubator it doesn't suddenly become a potential, its just in a different location.

You wrrite, "So outside of this circumstance, who can protect a child if a mother decides to terminate her parental rights? No one." (And of course, by child, you mean unborn child.) this is not true. There are many laws to protect the rights of unborn children.

I definately need to see the list- not that I don't believe you, but I obviously need more education on this stuff (and no I'm not being facetious) But what I do know for a fact- the one protection lacking for unborn children is that I, as a father of a child "that one day will be born" have no right to protect my child if the mother decides to terminate it.

Thanks for talking with me about this, I appreciate it.

 

[chris epic]

Honestly "Roe v Wade for Men" is a terrible voice for fathers' rights advocasy. Although there is a principal behind it, I really don't think I want this guy and his lawyer representing my ideas about the whole thing.

 

[slingblade]

I, as a father of a child "that one day will be born" have no right to protect my child if the mother decides to terminate it.

That's a problem, no doubt. What does a man do when he admits he fathered a child, desires to be a parent and wants to keep the child, but the mother insists she'd rather abort?

Should the father have the right to stop her and force her to carry the fetus until birth so he can take custody? Does he have no rights to this child? Does she have no rights to her own body?

I don't know what the answer is, but I agree, it doesn't seem right...for anyone.

 

[chris epic]

...Does he have no rights to this child? Does she have no rights to her own body? ...I don't know what the answer is...

Honestly, either way you look at it, what ever the solution or compromise, someone is going to feel submissive and powerless. Should we then be "chivalrous" and say "ladies first"? because I think that sounds condesending and undermines the feminist spirit behind Roe v Wade and women's rights in general.

 

[JamesDillon]

There's an interesting article in today's New York Times about the rights of biological fathers to prevent the adoption of their children.

Under Florida law, and that of other states, an unmarried father has no right to withhold consent for adoption unless he has registered with the state putative father registry before an adoption petition is filed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/n...&en=9f1afc8c10fcac31&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Hopefully we can all agree that the system as it currently exists gives insufficient regard to the rights of unmarried biological fathers who want to be involved in their children's lives?

 

[chris epic]

Hopefully we can all agree that the system as it currently exists gives insufficient regard to the rights of unmarried biological fathers who want to be involved in their children's lives?

thanks for the article, James. That helps reshape my partial misconception that mothers can give their children up for adoption without father's consent.

fathers can consent- if they know about the pregnancy ...imediately

 

[JamesDillon]

thanks for the article, James. That helps reshape my partial misconception that mothers can give their children up for adoption without father's consent.

fathers can consent- if they know about the pregnancy ...imediately

You're welcome. It appears from the article that fathers' rights are not so well protected as I had assumed.

 

[chris epic]

I've asked a question near the beginning of the thread, that was never answered..

http://www.babycenter.com/costofchild/
Cost of raising a child!

[http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/businessmanagement/DF5899.htm[/url]

I guess, bare minimum (urban/suburb- single parent with income less than 38,000 a year) around $350,000 from 0 to 18 (and that doesn't count Christmas' and Birthdays and the Circus and candy and toys everytime you go into a convenient store and "He has that why can't I" (no, I'm not a father but I have several nieces and nephews

 

[Ace_of_Sevens]

Here's an idea that's equitable: Do away with child support. Assuming both parties are legally competent to be parents and the kid is born:

If neither party wants the kid, is is put up for adoption with no legal responsibilities to either parent.

If only one party wants the child, they get sole custody and have to pay full support.

If both parties want the child, they split custody and costs.