"Roe v. Wade for Men"

[Thanz]

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.

Well, except that the mother cannot waive the rights of the child. The child, when born, has the right of support from both parents. You are trying to make it easy for people to become "deadbeat dads", and I find that to be on the "bad" side of the ledger. Whether you agree with the position or not, you would at least agree that there are some people who conscientiously hold the position that the fetus is a human life, correct? And for a woman who holds this view, abortion is far from the cold unilateral, informed, rational decision that you are positing.

If a man is not ready to become a father, he can keep his pecker in his pants. If you take the risk of pregnancy, you must live up to those obligations when it occurs. And those obligations include support and access to the child.

 

[mumblethrax]

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.

A woman's decision to bring a pregnancy to term is always unilateral in our society. But this is independent of the question of who has the obligation to support a child once it exists. It's pretty clear that single mothers will not always have the resources to adequately support their children, so this support has to come from elsewhere in those cases.

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

But that responsbility certainly won't fall to the child, and its interests are those at stake, not the mother's.

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.

You can't deprive a fetus of future support payments, for essentially the same reason you can't deprive a fetus of a future life. You deprive a future child of child support payments. This may seem like a quibble, but it's an important distinction which gets to the critical difference between the relevant obligations.

 

[toddjh]

Well, except that the mother cannot waive the rights of the child. The child, when born, has the right of support from both parents.

I think that's begging the question. Isn't whether the child has that right the very thing being discussed?

You are trying to make it easy for people to become "deadbeat dads", and I find that to be on the "bad" side of the ledger.

Well, I think that's a little one-sided. For every deadbeat dad, I suspect there's a woman using an accidental (or "accidental") pregnancy as a steamroller -- there are despicable people on both sides of the gender line. My position might increase the number of the former, but it would, I think, decrease the number of the latter. Your position would have the opposite effect. I don't think you've shown that the effect on society would be on the negative side overall.

Whether you agree with the position or not, you would at least agree that there are some people who conscientiously hold the position that the fetus is a human life, correct? And for a woman who holds this view, abortion is far from the cold unilateral, informed, rational decision that you are positing.

Well, then she has conscientiously decided to assume responsibility for the child. I don't see the problem.

If a man is not ready to become a father, he can keep his pecker in his pants. If you take the risk of pregnancy, you must live up to those obligations when it occurs. And those obligations include support and access to the child.

Again, that's begging the question.

 

[toddjh]

A woman's decision to bring a pregnancy to term is always unilateral in our society.

It's always unilateral, but it isn't always informed. That's the difference that I'm proposing: the woman would know, at a time when an abortion would still be an option, whether or not she would be alone in raising the child. She would be in a position to make a careful, informed choice about whether to continue.

But this is independent of the question of who has the obligation to support a child once it exists. It's pretty clear that single mothers will not always have the resources to adequately support their children, so this support has to come from elsewhere in those cases.

If you're going to argue that the responsibility falls on the father even if he doesn't want to have a child, then you'll also have to be prepared to argue against adoption entirely. After all, you've said the child has a right to support from both parents, and you've made it clear that it's not fair to ask the state to bear the economic burden...so how can you justify adoption? If the father abdicates parental responsibility, it's a violation of the child's rights, but if both parents do it, it's not?

You can't deprive a fetus of future support payments, for essentially the same reason you can't deprive a fetus of a future life. You deprive a future child of child support payments. This may seem like a quibble, but it's an important distinction which gets to the critical difference between the relevant obligations.

But that "future child" is the creation of the woman alone. If she decides to create that child over the objections of the man, I fail to see how he has any responsibility. We're only responsible for something insofar as we have any control over it.

ETA: To address the obvious response, yes, the man chose to have sex. I don't regard this as an important issue. Sex may result in a fetus being created, but so what? You've already agreed that a fetus is not a person. Whether it becomes a person remains solely the prerogative of the mother, and so I believe the responsibility rests solely with her as well.

 

[mumblethrax]

It's always unilateral, but it isn't always informed. That's the difference that I'm proposing: the woman would know, at a time when an abortion would still be an option, whether or not she would be alone in raising the child. She would be in a position to make a careful, informed choice about whether to continue.

And some women would choose poorly in light of that information; they will bring children into the world despite that fact that they cannot support them. The problem doesn't go away with the introduction of new information. We cannot saddle the child with the poor decisions of its parents, at least not with regard to so fundamental an interest as eating and having shelter.

If you're going to argue that the responsibility falls on the father even if he doesn't want to have a child, then you'll also have to be prepared to argue against adoption entirely. After all, you've said the child has a right to support from both parents, and you've made it clear that it's not fair to ask the state to bear the economic burden...so how can you justify adoption? If the father abdicates parental responsibility, it's a violation of the child's rights, but if both parents do it, it's not?

I don't really have to do that, because a child's right to support from its parents is a social construct (although one that is influenced by a biological imperative). If a society is willing to allow parents to relinquish custodial responsibilities, and it's in the interests of a child (and it certainly does seem to be better to place children with people who want to support them rather than those who don't), I don't really see where the problem is.

Maybe it would be better for children if we took them away from their mothers at birth and raised by professionals in public facilities. Maybe, but I don't expect to see that on any ballot initiative anytime soon. There are plenty of imaginable alternatives, but they mostly constitute radical social critiques; we should probably narrow the scope a bit.

But that "future child" is the creation of the woman alone. If she decides to create that child over the objections of the man, I fail to see how he has any responsibility. We're only responsible for something insofar as we have any control over it.

It's impossible (or at least, illegal) to create a child without at least the implied consent of a man. He does have control of where he puts his semen, so he is responsible.

ETA: To address the obvious response, yes, the man had sex. I don't regard this as an important issue. Sex may result in a fetus being created, but so what? You've already agreed that a fetus is not a person. Whether it becomes a person remains solely the prerogative of the mother, and so I believe the responsibility rests solely with her as well.

The 'so what' here is that it's currently impossible to create a fetus without sperm. There's an implied consent to abide by her reproductive choices when you squirt your genetic material inside of a women, in the same way that you don't really have a lot of input as to what someone does with money you give to them. There's also an implied consent to support the child if she chooses to bring it to term, because that's just the way our society has decided to do things. We could change our minds, but I think we need to think carefully about the consequences of providing a unilateral opt-out for fathers. It's not realistic to expect that men won't have sex, but it's reasonable to expect them to accept the attendant risks, particularly if they have plenty of opportunities to mitigate them.

 

[Thanz]

I think that's begging the question. Isn't whether the child has that right the very thing being discussed?

I'd like to see why you think the child does not have that right. Human children simply cannot survive on their own. The obligation of support naturally falls on the parents. I'd like to know what the child has done to abdicate any of those rights, or if nothing, how it is beneficial for children not to have those rights?

Well, I think that's a little one-sided. For every deadbeat dad, I suspect there's a woman using an accidental (or "accidental") pregnancy as a steamroller -- there are despicable people on both sides of the gender line. My position might increase the number of the former, but it would, I think, decrease the number of the latter. Your position would have the opposite effect. I don't think you've shown that the effect on society would be on the negative side overall.

Your position is based on nothing but conjecture. Mine is based on the fact that deadbeat dads are already a problem. If a potential dad could just disavow a child? That would lead to even more unsupported children. I severely doubt that the number of "steamroller" moms out there comes close to the number of deadbeat dads.

Well, then she has conscientiously decided to assume responsibility for the child. I don't see the problem.

So has the father, by not keeping his pecker in his pants.

Again, that's begging the question.

Well, no. Men have perfectly reasonable options available to them to not become a father. That is where the choice is made. So they don't get another kick at the can. I don't think it is a good idea to give them one. It only would encourage risky behaviour.

 

[toddjh]

I'd like to see why you think the child does not have that right. Human children simply cannot survive on their own. The obligation of support naturally falls on the parents. I'd like to know what the child has done to abdicate any of those rights, or if nothing, how it is beneficial for children not to have those rights?

The child has the right to support, but not necessarily from his biological parents. Unless you'd also like to argue against adoption?

Your position is based on nothing but conjecture.

Nah. I personally know two women who have confessed to having "accidental" pregnancies in order to keep their men in line. I don't know any deadbeat dads. Anecdotal, I know, but it's far from academic.

If a potential dad could just disavow a child? That would lead to even more unsupported children.

Or would it lead to less? I think fewer women would choose to keep an unwanted pregnancy if they weren't counting on support from the father.

I severely doubt that the number of "steamroller" moms out there comes close to the number of deadbeat dads.

So it would appear I'm not the only one using nothing but conjecture.

So has the father, by not keeping his pecker in his pants.

As I said in an earlier post, a person is responsible for something only to the extent that they have control over it. A man can abstain from sex, yes. So can a woman. The woman also has an additional option to terminate a pregnancy after the fact. The woman clearly has more control, and thus it's reasonable that she should also shoulder a proportionately larger share of the responsibility.

 

[Thanz]

The child has the right to support, but not necessarily from his biological parents. Unless you'd also like to argue against adoption?

Under an adoption, other people legally assume the responsibility for that support. A child has a right to support from his/her biological parents unless someone else has legally assumed that responsibility. I would argue that "not having an abortion" is not the same as legally assuming the responsibility for caring for the child on your own.

Nah. I personally know two women who have confessed to having "accidental" pregnancies in order to keep their men in line. I don't know any deadbeat dads. Anecdotal, I know, but it's far from academic.

If by "far from academic" you mean "far from an actual study of the problem done by academics", I'd agree.

So it would appear I'm not the only one using nothing but conjecture.

Indeed. Let's all just make up facts - it is so much easier that way!

Seriously, I just don't think that your argument or conjecture is very persuasive.

As I said in an earlier post, a person is responsible for something only to the extent that they have control over it. A man can abstain from sex, yes. So can a woman. The woman also has an additional option to terminate a pregnancy after the fact. The woman clearly has more control, and thus it's reasonable that she should also shoulder a proportionately larger share of the responsibility.

She already does. There is a heck of a lot more to raising a child than cutting a cheque each month. In the case of a "dad" who wants nothing to do with a child, and the mother is the primary or sole caregiver, she is already doing a heck of a lot more that the "dad". Cutting a cheque is literally the least you can do as the father of a child.

 

[Tmy]

I have a question. Why not let any parent opt out of financing the child AT ANY AGE??? Whats the difference if the kid is 2 years old or not even born yet. Just cause you cant kill a 2yr old you are now NOT able to opt out. Why not? Maybe you can dump them after a divorce. After all you didnt want a kid unless you still marrried.

By the way. Child support is not about supporting a kid that mom cant. Mom can have a great job, but the out of the household dad will still have a support obligation.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I have a question. Why not let any parent opt out of financing the child AT ANY AGE??? Whats the difference if the kid is 2 years old or not even born yet. Just cause you cant kill a 2yr old you are now NOT able to opt out. Why not? Maybe you can dump them after a divorce. After all you didnt want a kid unless you still marrried.

An analogous argument would be to say that if you can abort a fetus, why can't you murder an adult human?

The answer in both cases is that fetuses just aren't morally equivalent to adult humans, or even two year olds.

If by "far from academic" you mean "far from an actual study of the problem done by academics", I'd agree.

Indeed. Let's all just make up facts - it is so much easier that way!

Seriously, I just don't think that your argument or conjecture is very persuasive.

I don't follow your thinking here. We have hard data on the number of "deadbeat dads". We do not have hard data on the number of women who "accidentally" get pregnant, or who retain a pregnancy primarily because it lets them access a particular man's wallet. So you conclude that the second group is nonexistent or not relevant to the argument.

That just does not follow. All that does follow is that we do not know the extent of the "mendacious mum" problem.

 

[Thanz]

I don't follow your thinking here. We have hard data on the number of "deadbeat dads". We do not have hard data on the number of women who "accidentally" get pregnant, or who retain a pregnancy primarily because it lets them access a particular man's wallet. So you conclude that the second group is nonexistent or not relevant to the argument.

That just does not follow. All that does follow is that we do not know the extent of the "mendacious mum" problem.

Do we know the extent of the problem? No, we don't. But I don't find the argument to be logically persuasive. There is a whole lot more to raising a kid than money. And the money that the mom gets doesn't cover all of the child expenses. It doesn't make sense to get pregnant primarily to get access to a man's wallet. Which is why I don't find it persuasive.

 

[3point14]

1. I cannot afford kids - any woman requiring child support from me is well out of luck as I have no spare income whatsoever.

2. Birth control is never 100% certain, no matter what I put in the way, I may, if I have sex, cause conception.

By the logic applied by some people here, I should never have sex, because not 'keeping my pecker in my pants' is an acceptance of the responsibilities of fatherhood, which I can in no way take on board as my circumstances would not allow it.

Should I remain celibate?

 

[pgwenthold]

Do you have a choice?

 

[Thanz]

1. I cannot afford kids - any woman requiring child support from me is well out of luck as I have no spare income whatsoever.

2. Birth control is never 100% certain, no matter what I put in the way, I may, if I have sex, cause conception.

By the logic applied by some people here, I should never have sex, because not 'keeping my pecker in my pants' is an acceptance of the responsibilities of fatherhood, which I can in no way take on board as my circumstances would not allow it.

Should I remain celibate?

Well, you need to make a cost/benefit decision for yourself. Does the benefit of sex outweigh the potential cost of fathering a child before you are ready? You could also engage in activities other than intercourse.

But in general, I would answer your question with yes, you should remain celibate. If you are completely unable or unwilling to accept the responsibility of parenthood such that any chance of it scares the willies out of you, you should not engage in activities that may lead to you becoming a father.

 

[3point14]

Well, the cost benefit analysis is pretty irrelevant because I cannot afford to even contribute to the upbringing of a child. At all.

What you are saying is that any man wanting to have sex should both be able to afford and be prepared to afford the cost of half a child. this seems pretty unreasonable to me, especially in light of the fact that any woman wanting to have sex needs to be in the same situataion or be prepared to have an abortion.

So we end up with a bunch of celibate, frustrated 16-27 year olds, a whole heap of well heeled men in their 30's sleeping with everything they can get their hands on, cos they never had sex in their 20's (because they didn't want kids and were being socially responsible) and women of every age (who are prepared, morally, to have an abortion) with complete sexual freedom?

I may be exageratting slightly for effect, but this seems to be what you are suggesting?

(edited for format and my extensive typos!)

 

[3point14]

Do you have a choice?

I told you, I'm poor!!! (sigh) so right now, no.

Anyway, I was being hypothetical.

and, erm, what's it got to do with you!??! (yeah, um, that told him, um..)

(bigger sigh)

 

[Thanz]

What you are saying is that any man wanting to have sex should both be able to afford and be prepared to afford the cost of half a child.

First, you seem confused. The risk that you are weighing is the possibility of having a child. Not definitely having a child. So, if you use all sorts of birth control, the risk may be 1 in a 1000. You then ask if the sex is worth the 1 in 1000 chance of fathering a child.

this seems pretty unreasonable to me, especially in light of the fact that any woman wanting to have sex needs to be in the same situataion or be prepared to have an abortion.

Really? Unreasonable?

How is it unreasonable to expect you to be responsible for the consequences of your actions? How is reasonable to have a kid with no support because you wanted to get your ya-yas out?

So we end up with a bunch of celibate, frustrated 16-27 year olds, a whole heap of well heeled men in their 30's sleeping with everything they can get their hands on, cos they never had sex in their 20's (because they didn't want kids and were being socially responsible) and women of every age (who are prepared, morally, to have an abortion) with complete sexual freedom?

I may be exageratting slightly for effect, but this seems to be what you are suggesting?

Exaggerating slightly? At least. All I am saying is don't engage in behaviour if you cannot accept the consequences of that behaviour. Personal responsibility. Pretty simple, actually.

 

[pgwenthold]

I told you, I'm poor!!! (sigh) so right now, no.

Anyway, I was being hypothetical.

As are most my questions about "should I be celebate"

 

[3point14]

Really? Unreasonable?

How is it unreasonable to expect you to be responsible for the consequences of your actions? How is reasonable to have a kid with no support because you wanted to get your ya-yas out?

The unreasonableness I was pointing out was in the descrepency between what you seem to allow for the woman, who can be absolutely certain that she is not going to become a mother, and therefore is, by your logic, allowed to have as much (safe) sex as she likes, and what you allow for the man, which is that he is only allowed to have sex if he is prepared to become a father, because he can't be certain he won't become one.

 

[Thanz]

The unreasonableness I was pointing out was in the descrepency between what you seem to allow for the woman, who can be absolutely certain that she is not going to become a mother, and therefore is, by your logic, allowed to have as much (safe) sex as she likes, and what you allow for the man, which is that he is only allowed to have sex if he is prepared to become a father, because he can't be certain he won't become one.

I don't see it as unreasonable that a woman may have one more option than a man by virtue of the biological fact that the child gestates in the woman. It is biology. Get over it.

You want real unreasonableness? How about this:

Although the gap between women and men’s wages has narrowed substantially since the signing of the Equal Pay Act in 1963, there still exists a significant wage gap that cannot be explained by differences between male and female workers in labor market experience and in the characteristics of jobs they hold.

http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/EOP/CEA/html/gendergap.html

Men have got it pretty good in this world. So forgive me if I don't cry you a river if you can't get your ya-yas out without possibly having to live up to the consequences of your actions. So you can't have entirely risk free sex. Welcome to the real world.