"Roe v. Wade for Men"

[chris epic]

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

that's why there's a problem- sometimes the person that wants sole custody can't afford to support the kid by themselves- but we aren't talking about childsupport- I believe the issue at hand is the lack of fathers' rights in this country.

 

[Tmy]

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.

How is that equitable?? The parents who caused the damage (ie the child) doesnt have to pay for it??? Guess who will end up paying, the taxpayer. Screw that. Stick it to dad. He can afford it.

 

[Dunstan]

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.

I don't think you're going to get a meaningful answer to this. Asking what is "the cost of raising a child" is like asking "what does it cost to live in Los Angeles" -- there's a big difference between owning a home in Beverly Hills, eating steak, and leasing a luxury car, versus sharing an apartment in a cheap neighborhood with roommates, eating ramen noodles, and riding the bus.

Does the cost of raising a child include owning a house, or is renting sufficient? Does it include private school tuition if public schools are available but inferior? Does it include a $30 baseball glove, or $2,000 of skiing equipment? When the kid turns 16, does it include the insurance and car payments for a cheap used car, an expensive new one, or neither?

Do your answers to the above change depending on whether the "sperm donor" in question makes $30k a year or $30M ?

I don't have great answers to these myself. On the one hand, there's the "can't get blood from a stone" problem: you just can't expect a guy making 30k to be able to contribute much in the way of child support. On the other hand, I don't see why a woman should receive $1 M a year just because she managed to get knocked up by a guy who makes $30 M.

 

[chris epic]

Interesting stuff that ties in to this issue

Cathy Young Reason, Feb2003, Vol. 34 Issue 9, p20, 2p

…presents an article on teaching gender studies course at Colorado College in Colorado Springs. Information on the myth surrounding orthodox feminism; Challenges facing conventional feminist views; Details on the social implications of biological differences between men and women.

…Other challenges to conventional feminist views turned out to be more controversial. With few exceptions, female students were wary of the view that biological differences between men and women could at least partly account for gender-based disparities in the workplace--a topic that prompted one of the most heated exchanges in the class this year. "bullsh*t!" cried Nan, a fragile-looking blonde, when a male student remarked that men were more physically fit than women for some jobs. (All names of students mentioned in this column are pseudonyms.) Nan's exclamation elicited a more verbal outburst from George, a tall, broad shouldered, baby-faced young man from a working-class background. "I don't care if you beat me up," George said. "I've spent a lot of summers doing heavy labor, like loading boxes and laying railroad tracks, and I swear, I don't think there is one woman who could have done the work we did."

Interestingly, some students' views on the social implications of biological differences flip-flopped when we got to another contentious topic: male reproductive rights. None of the students had given much thought to the paradoxical situation created by Roe v. Wade, which allows women but not men an "out" from the consequences of unwanted pregnancy.

Proposals for a "male abortion"--a legal procedure by which a man could terminate his paternal rights and responsibilities early in the woman's pregnancy--sparked a debate that divided the students more or less along gender lines. The men tended to be sympathetic to accidental fathers trapped into 18 years of child support; the women tended to be sympathetic to abandoned mothers who, they worried, might be pressured into having abortions even when they wanted to raise the child if they knew they couldn't count on financial support from the father. Suddenly, Nan was arguing that sometimes we just have to accept that biological differences place men and women in unequal situations…

-Cathy Young is a columnist for The Boston Globe

 

[pgwenthold]

Proposals for a "male abortion"--a legal procedure by which a man could terminate his paternal rights and responsibilities early in the woman's pregnancy--sparked a debate that divided the students more or less along gender lines. The men tended to be sympathetic to accidental fathers trapped into 18 years of child support; the women tended to be sympathetic to abandoned mothers who, they worried, might be pressured into having abortions even when they wanted to raise the child if they knew they couldn't count on financial support from the father. Suddenly, Nan was arguing that sometimes we just have to accept that biological differences place men and women in unequal situations…

So women are concerned they will be forced to abort a fetus they can't support, but men are concerned they will be forced to support a fetus they can't abort.

That's pretty much a statement of the problem. Who said something like, in a good compromise, neither side is happy with the result?

 

[toddjh]

So women are concerned they will be forced to abort a fetus they can't support

I don't get this part. Who is talking about forcing women to abort? Maybe one or two wingnuts, but certainly not the vast majority of men, even those in favor of a "male abortion." I don't understand where this comes from.

but men are concerned they will be forced to support a fetus they can't abort.

Which, on the other hand, does happen, and fairly frequently.

That's pretty much a statement of the problem. Who said something like, in a good compromise, neither side is happy with the result?

That's a true statement, but I don't consider the status quo any kind of compromise. As it stands now, the woman has a huge amount of decision-making power that the man doesn't. That's the situation that needs to be addressed. As far as I can tell, the "I might be forced to have an abortion" thing is just a distraction from the real issue.

 

[Tmy]

Men can abort. They just need to get snipped. Women can abort sort of after the fact. Both have the opportunity to prevent a child. If they dont use their options, then they shouldnt complain when the other does not.

In this case Mr. No-Birthcontrol wants all the advantages of free willy sex but none of the dangers. Booo F'n Hooo.

 

[Grammatron]

Men can abort. They just need to get snipped. Women can abort sort of after the fact. Both have the opportunity to prevent a child. If they dont use their options, then they shouldnt complain when the other does not.

No Tmy, getting "snipped" is not abortion, not even by a long shot.

 

[toddjh]

Men can abort. They just need to get snipped. Women can abort sort of after the fact. Both have the opportunity to prevent a child. If they dont use their options, then they shouldnt complain when the other does not.

Men can be sterilized; so can women. Women have the additional option of unilaterally terminating the pregnancy after the fact, which is an option men don't have. The situation is not equal.

In this case Mr. No-Birthcontrol wants all the advantages of free willy sex but none of the dangers. Booo F'n Hooo.

This isn't about the consequences of his (admittedly stupid) actions. The circumstances are only incidental. This is about the legal inequity which has been brought under scrutiny by his suit.

 

[jj]

Men can abort. They just need to get snipped.

I repeat my point about self-mutiliation. Sheeesh! At least it appears that modern day reversals work (no, I was not aware of that, when I was the age it might have mattered, reversals did not work, period).

In this case Mr. No-Birthcontrol wants all the advantages of free willy sex but none of the dangers. Booo F'n Hooo.

So, what are you suggesting, then, really? I guess sex is a special action that deserves special, religious-looking restrictions, you mean?

There are some physical inequities that can't be avoided here, but I can't see the argument for furthering inequity in any direction, really.

I see a major difference between somebody who tried to be responsible and had something go wrong (call that an accident) and somebody who runs around trying to make as many kids as possible (call that a kind of abuse if mom isn't completely willing).

You would seem to be rather, well, unsympathetic altogether, regardless of deliberation, accident, deception (by either party) ...

 

[Tmy]

You would seem to be rather, well, unsympathetic altogether, regardless of deliberation, accident, deception (by either party) ...

Pretty much. In the end all that matters is that you have a new human being that needs to be cared for. Who better to provide than mom and dad? Otherwise lil Jr. will just end up being cared for by the state. Do you want to pay for this guys mistake??

Lets say Im drunk driving and I run over some kid. Hes brain dead. Should I be let out of a murder charge if the family pulls the plug on the kid? After all they can keep him alive for ages if they keep him on machines. No, Id be up on a muder charge and rightfully so. AFter all i did the deed, even if I didnt expect the results.

 

[jj]

Pretty much. In the end all that matters is that you have a new human being that needs to be cared for. Who better to provide than mom and dad?

Interesting.

First, there need not be a new human being. And mom, presently, has that option, and only mom. Yes, there is an inequity, and it's sensible here, dad should not be able to tell mom what to do with her body. But in return for that, what does dad get, besides (*&*(&'ed over?

Second, I can come up with many cases where mom and dad are not the best ones to provide for the new human being. I think if you'd cogitate on this for a very few minutes you'd have had that occur to you, too. There are many issues here, fitness and financial stability only being two major ones.

Is it better for a child to go up for adoption into a stable family, or is it better to stay with mom in the residence motel, or dad on the streetcorner, for instance? What do you say? How about if mom or dad, or both, are mentally ill? Drug addicts? In jail?

 

[Tmy]

I dont think poverty is a reason to take a kid away. But the courts/govt will take kids away if the parents are a danger to the kid.

I really dont see how dad is fudged over? He has a kid now. If he doesnt want to be in its life, then shame on him. The kid is f-over.

I cant think of a situtaion where we force people to undergo invasive surgery against their will? Thats a fundemental tenent of our country.

 

[Grammatron]

Pretty much. In the end all that matters is that you have a new human being that needs to be cared for. Who better to provide than mom and dad? Otherwise lil Jr. will just end up being cared for by the state. Do you want to pay for this guys mistake??

He's not a Jr. at that point or are we considering the fetus human now?

 

[Tmy]

He's not a Jr. at that point or are we considering the fetus human now?

The fetus is not a human. Dad's dont pay "fetus support".

 

[jj]

I cant think of a situtaion where we force people to undergo invasive surgery against their will?

But you'd have dad have to be snipped to avoid accidents? But mom can get an abortion?

I don't see anyone who has even remotely suggested compelling mom to get an abortion. I certainly haven't seen that.

I mean, come on, man, I can't even see what straw man you're trying to burn here.

 

[Grammatron]

The fetus is not a human. Dad's dont pay "fetus support".

Thus a man would absolve himslef of any future responsibility that might arrise through a financial abortion.

 

[Tmy]

The strawman is that the father is some sort of victim. The baby is the real victim.

The kid is his responsibilty. Why should the child suffer? he did no wrong, even if mom did (ex, lying to her partner that she was on the pill). THe kid has a right to have a dad, be his heir, and be supported. The child is the victim if his parents can financially abort him.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

The strawman is that the father is some sort of victim.

I don't see that as a straw man. The financial imposition of child support is significant.

The baby is the real victim.

At the point I thought we were talking about, there is no baby. Just a fetus which might or might not give rise to a baby.

The kid is his responsibilty. Why should the child suffer? he did no wrong, even if mom did (ex, lying to her partner that she was on the pill). THe kid has a right to have a dad, be his heir, and be supported.

So it should be illegal for single mothers to have children, because it would violate these rights you just made up?

 

[Tmy]

I don't see that as a straw man. The financial imposition of child support is significant.



At the point I thought we were talking about, there is no baby. Just a fetus which might or might not give rise to a baby.



So it should be illegal for single mothers to have children, because it would violate these rights you just made up?

The dads responsibility doesnt exist until the fetus becomes the baby. You can be a single parent and still have those listed rights for the child.

I cant see why so many people are cool wh a dad opting out of his financail responsibilty. Its bad public policy. Sort of like allowing people to just opt opt of paying taxes. The burnden will just move to the other taxpayers.