"Roe v. Wade for Men"

[chris epic]

http://print.family.findlaw.com/child-support/support-more/state-paternity-info.html

if you got some free time you can check out each state's "stuff" on paternity registration.

Most states have father registration deadlines that range from 5 days to 30 days after birth. We're looking at well over 30 states where fathers aren't very well informed about registries or of the fact that they will be fathers. The guy in the NYT article was told 3 weeks after his son was born (by the attourney) That's over two weeks past the minimum 5 day deadline and a week short of the 30 day deadline. Basically, the only way a father can protect his parental rights most of the time is to register EVERYTIME he has sex

 

[chris epic]

I'm pretty sure I brought the paternity rights up- I know the article is about a dad not wanting to pay child support- but this case ties in to the case underlying it- fathers' rights- so the adoption thing is relevant because we're talking about in what ways a father terminates or tries to terminate his parental rights vs a mother and the ways in which she CAN terminate her parental rights.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

This thread isnt really about abortion or when a fetus zygote or whatever is a person. We can go in all sorts of angles and theres been many o thread about those issues

Its about child support and who should foot the bill for the kid. So forgetting all the pro-anti abortion gripes, do you think dads should be able to opt out of providing for the kid?? Is that opt out fair to the child and soceity?

Certainly they should be able to opt out, if they do so before the fetus is a person. (It looks like this thread really is about when a fetus is a person after all).

At that point there is no child to be "fair" to, just a possible child. If the father says at that point "I'm not going to support this possible child", then it is up to the mother what to do with the fetus. If she wants to bear and/or raise a kid under those circumstances she can, and if she does not want to she does not have to.

Similarly, the mother should be able to abort whether or not the father wants her to.

 

[chris epic]

Certainly they should be able to opt out, if they do so before the fetus is a person. (It looks like this thread really is about when a fetus is a person after all).

At that point there is no child to be "fair" to, just a possible child. If the father says at that point "I'm not going to support this possible child", then it is up to the mother what to do with the fetus. If she wants to bear and/or raise a kid under those circumstances she can, and if she does not want to she does not have to.

Similarly, the mother should be able to abort whether or not the father wants her to.

So the fetus can be two different things dependent upon which words we use to describe it? Isn't that weird- I really don't think philosphy and biology can cooporate in this. A life is a life regardless of weather or not people think of it as a child or a potential child. The issue in America is that the constitution says a human life isn't a "person" until born. A person being the entity that is intitled to life, liberty, and protection. There's a difference between personhood and human-life because one has rights and the other doesn't.........shoot, did I just ask for a photo of kittens.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

So the fetus can be two different things dependent upon which words we use to describe it? Isn't that weird- I really don't think philosphy and biology can cooporate in this. A life is a life regardless of weather or not people think of it as a child or a potential child.

No, a life isn't a life. A newly fertilised egg is just a minute blob of goo with potential. It has absolutely none of the qualities that make an adult human special.

You can hold the belief that a fertlised egg is somehow morally like an adult human, but it's not a belief based on any observable reality. It's a religious belief.

The issue in America is that the constitution says a human life isn't a "person" until born. A person being the entity that is intitled to life, liberty, and protection. There's a difference between personhood and human-life because one has rights and the other doesn't.

As it should be, I think.

 

[mumblethrax]

The guy in the NYT article was told 3 weeks after his son was born (by the attourney) That's over two weeks past the minimum 5 day deadline and a week short of the 30 day deadline. Basically, the only way a father can protect his parental rights most of the time is to register EVERYTIME he has sex

No, he was notified three weeks before the child was due, which is what I found confusing about the article. What did he do in the intervening weeks? Surely, it must have occured to him to talk to a lawyer during that time? Hrmm.

 

[JamesDillon]

No, he was notified three weeks before the child was due, which is what I found confusing about the article. What did he do in the intervening weeks?

You're right, it was three weeks before. It appears that he had no idea that registering was a necessary step to preserve his rights, as the article goes on to make clear:

In her brief, Allison Perry, Mr. Jones's lawyer, called the Florida registry "a well-kept secret," with just 47 registrants for the 89,436 out-of-wedlock births in 2004. Mr. Jones, living in Arizona, had no reason to know of it. The adoption agency that alerted him to the pregnancy never mentioned it, and when the agency later sent him a letter, it enclosed information on a Florida registry for birth parents interested in a reunion when the children grew up, but nothing on the putative father registry.

Surely, it must have occured to him to talk to a lawyer during that time? Hrmm.

Ah, right-- so this is all a big conspiracy-- he didn't really want to have the child, and now is just bringing a lawsuit for kicks? What else could have have possibly been preoccupied with during the 7-week span between the time in which he discovered his child was on the way, and it was born and given up for adoption?

 

[Thanz]

Certainly they should be able to opt out, if they do so before the fetus is a person. (It looks like this thread really is about when a fetus is a person after all).

At that point there is no child to be "fair" to, just a possible child. If the father says at that point "I'm not going to support this possible child", then it is up to the mother what to do with the fetus. If she wants to bear and/or raise a kid under those circumstances she can, and if she does not want to she does not have to.

Really, that is just semantic bull pucky. Support is the right of the child, not the mother. If you father a child, you are obligated to pay support. (You should also be a frickin' parent and not just a paycheque, but that is perhaps a different topic).

To say that you can opt out based on what point in the child's life you said it is like a kid in the schoolyard claiming he always gets the good swing because he said "stamps it no 'rases".

 

[mumblethrax]

Ah, right-- so this is all a big conspiracy-- he didn't really want to have the child, and now is just bringing a lawsuit for kicks? What else could have have possibly been preoccupied with during the 7-week span between the time in which he discovered his child was on the way, and it was born and given up for adoption?

I hope I didn't suggest a conspiracy. I'm just curious whether he sought legal advice during that time, particularly if he was determined to have custodial rights. It seems like the kind of question a journalist might pose, but the answer can't be inferred from the article.

Whether or not this situation is fair is a separate question. I think the difference in opinion here stems from some people seeing this as a wrong to be remedied, while I see the systematic bias in favor of women as itself going hand-in-hand with the disproportionate burden of reproduction which is placed on women. I don't think the treatment of men is good or fair in isolation; I think it's justifiable in the context of our society and our legal system.

 

[toddjh]

To say that you can opt out based on what point in the child's life you said it is like a kid in the schoolyard claiming he always gets the good swing because he said "stamps it no 'rases".

So, is it safe to assume you're also opposed to abortion?

 

[JamesDillon]

Whether or not this situation is fair is a separate question. I think the difference in opinion here stems from some people seeing this as a wrong to be remedied, while I see the systematic bias in favor of women as itself going hand-in-hand with the disproportionate burden of reproduction which is placed on women. I don't think the treatment of men is good or fair in isolation; I think it's justifiable in the context of our society and our legal system.

That's an interesting issue, but I don't agree. A systematic bias in favor of women can perhaps be justified, but small steps such as notifying the putative father of the birth, and making him aware of the need to register in order to preserve his rights should the mother decide to give the child up for adoption would be more equitable. This is particularly so in the case where the mother is relinquishing her rights over the child anyway (via adoption), so the real balance of interests is between the father and the potential adoptive parents. In that contest, I think the father should have the systematic advantage should he wish to keep the child.

 

[mumblethrax]

That's an interesting issue, but I don't agree. A systematic bias in favor of women can perhaps be justified, but small steps such as notifying the putative father of the birth, and making him aware of the need to register in order to preserve his rights should the mother decide to give the child up for adoption would be more equitable. This is particularly so in the case where the mother is relinquishing her rights over the child anyway (via adoption), so the real balance of interests is between the father and the potential adoptive parents. In that contest, I think the father should have the systematic advantage should he wish to keep the child.

I suspect that the hesitation on that part of states to introduce mandatory notification is that it makes adoption less attractive in those cases where the father has not yet been identified, which introduces the possibility of children going unadopted until such efforts have been exhausted and relevant deadlines have passed. They're probably still weighing the interests of children (in having a stable support environment) against those of the biological father in a time-sensitive period.

 

[Thanz]

So, is it safe to assume you're also opposed to abortion?

I have found it is not safe to assume much on this board.

Things that are safe to assume:

• If and when shanek comes back, he will complain about government regulation and government intervention into peoples lives.
  
• If you start a thread on Israel/Palestine, gun control, abortion or free speech, you will get replies.
  
• If CFLarsen gets involved in a political thread, it will go on and on for several pages without saying a whole heck of a lot.
  
• Michael Badnarik will never succeed in getting elected to any position in the Federal Government, despite being just 2 badges shy of Eagle Scout.
  
• If Dr Adequate has another post combined with his on the next language award poll, a major breakdown may occur.

 

[toddjh]

I have found it is not safe to assume much on this board.

So, do you oppose abortion?

If you don't, then you're in the bizarre position of saying that it's abhorrent for a man to withhold financial support from his future offspring, but it's perfectly acceptable for a woman to withhold its life. That's a level of cognitive dissonance I wouldn't be prepared to accept.

 

[Thanz]

So, do you oppose abortion?

Ah. You have cleverly seen that I did not answer the question that was implicit in your earlier assumption. Suffice it to say that I will not be answering it now either.

 

[toddjh]

Ah. You have cleverly seen that I did not answer the question that was implicit in your earlier assumption. Suffice it to say that I will not be answering it now either.

Any particular reason? Seems strange to enter a debate if you have no intention of defending the position you espouse.

 

[Thanz]

Any particular reason? Seems strange to enter a debate if you have no intention of defending the position you espouse.

I will talk to you all you like about father's rights/responsibilities. I decline to enter the abortion debate. In fact, someone has tried to split that debate from this thread already.

 

[mumblethrax]

If you don't, then you're in the bizarre position of saying that it's abhorrent for a man to withhold financial support from his future offspring, but it's perfectly acceptable for a woman to withhold its life. That's a level of cognitive dissonance I wouldn't be prepared to accept.

There's nothing bizarre about it. There is no such thing as fetus support, only child support. You cannot withhold future child support payments, because once a child exists its interest in being supported outweigh a parent's interests in not supporting it.

We cannot use fetus and child interchangeably, because they are not interchangeable. There is no hypocrisy in supporting the right to abortion while rejecting the right to withhold child support.

If a man indicates that he will withhold support, there will exist children without support, because not all women will make a rational decision on the basis of this new information. This is bad. We can talk about shifting the burden of support away from parents to the state, but as Cain pointed out earlier, this solution is economically sub-optimal.

If a woman gets an abortion, no child will ever result, so no wrong is being commited. If it is wrong to deprive a fetus of a future life, it is also wrong to deprive gametes of future life; this leads to some clearly absurd conclusions.

 

[toddjh]

There's nothing bizarre about it. There is no such thing as fetus support, only child support. You cannot withhold future child support payments, because once a child exists its interest in being supported outweigh a parent's interests in not supporting it.

I would argue that, if the father has made it clear that he wants no part of it, then the mother has made a unilateral, informed decision to continue the pregnancy, and therefore bears sole responsiblity for its support. As you point out, there was no child when the father abdicated responsibility. From that point of view, it was the woman, and the woman alone, who made the decision to bring that child into the world -- because she was the only one who had the option to choose otherwise.

If a man indicates that he will withhold support, there will exist children without support, because not all women will make a rational decision on the basis of this new information. This is bad.

I agree, except I would say the fault lies with the woman for failing to make a rational decision.

If a woman gets an abortion, no child will ever result, so no wrong is being commited. If it is wrong to deprive a fetus of a future life, it is also wrong to deprive gametes of future life; this leads to some clearly absurd conclusions.

I don't believe it's wrong to deprive a fetus of a future life. I just don't think it's wrong to deprive a fetus of future child support payments, either, as long as the woman is in a position to make an informed decision about whether she still wants to have the child and raise it alone.

 

[toddjh]

I will talk to you all you like about father's rights/responsibilities. I decline to enter the abortion debate. In fact, someone has tried to split that debate from this thread already.

Yes, I'm posting there too. But I think it's impossible to separate this issue from abortion, and wrong to try. The central point of the "Roe v. Wade for men" issue is the legal inequity which stems from allowing women to opt out of parental responsibility, while denying an equivalent option to men. The two issues are intertwined in the context of this thread.