"Roe v. Wade for Men"

[toddjh]

So what's to keep a guy from signing away his parental responsibility but contacting the child anyway?

He would presumably be signing away his parental rights along with his responsibilities.

The child will still want to know its father.

That's fine. When he becomes an adult, he'd be free to contact the father. Or earlier, with his mother's (or new guardian's) permission.

Can the child search for and find and contact its dad?

Sure, if he wants. The father wouldn't have any parental rights, though, so it would be like a conversation with any random person on the street.

Can a signed away dad then sue for visitation rights?

Not in my opinion.

 

[meg]

At some point, will someone please explain to me how this is supposed to be good for the child?

 

[toddjh]

At some point, will someone please explain to me how this is supposed to be good for the child?

What child? We're talking about a fetus. If you're going to argue for the (future) welfare of the fetus, you'd better be prepared to argue against abortion altogether.

 

[mumblethrax]

It's simple: a legal disparity is one which creates a legal right or obligation for one class of people but not another.

Ok, so what is the distinction between a legal right which you have created out of thin air (the right to unilaterally abandon future offspring) and one that I create out of thin air (the right to own a widescreen TV)? Neither of these are themselves recognized 'legal right', but both follow for certain classes of people from other recognized rights. Can I make an equal protection claim of discrimination on the basis on wealth because the store won't sell me the plasma TV for the amount I can afford to pay? You seem to be rejecting the idea that discrimination between two groups is ok where there exists a legitimate state interest, so what is the justification for rejecting my claim?

Your argument is tantamount to saying that "equal protection under the law" necessarily equates to "equal protection in every aspect of life," which is absurd.

Strangely, this is your argument, not mine. And this is precisely what an equal outcome analysis would demand; equality in every aspect, except where some rational basis for discrimination exists.

Discrimination on the basis of race is a violation of the right to equality of opportunity.

And yet prior to the civil rights movement, this was considered perfectly legal. It took the passage of a great deal of legislation and exercise of considerable executive authority to get to the point where we are today. Why? Because the equal protection clause is not so broadly applicable as you imagine.

It may have an interest in the "promoting the public good" sense, sure (although I'd disagree). But that's not an equal protection concern.

It seems vital to determining where the state has an interest in letting discrimination stand. Equal protection is not as absolute as you imagine, either.

Sure, we could. But it's still not an equal protection issue, because there is no legal difference in the way people with disproportionate medical risks are treated. Unless you can provide an example of a legal right or obligation that one group has on account of its level of medical risk, this is not relevant.

You reject the equal outcome argument here but accept it elsewhere for unclear reasons. The legal difference is that wealthy people will effectively have the resources to combat diseases like HIV/AIDS, while less fortunate people won't. I might point to a principle like general welfare to buttress this claim. And those less fortunate people will be disproportionately women and homosexual men, so there would then seem to be an equal protection problem here. You might argue that there's no recognized right to treatment for HIV/AIDS; I would simply point out that the same is true with regard to this right of abandonment, or consequence-free sex, or reproductive choices after conception, or whatever it is that this complaint is founded upon.

 

[toddjh]

Ok, so what is the distinction between a legal right which you have created out of thin air (the right to unilaterally abandon future offspring)

The difference is that the legal right to "unilaterally abandon future offspring," as you so loadedly put it, already exists for one sex but not the other. It's not created out of thin air; it's already there, but is applied unequally. I propose applying it equally.

Neither of these are themselves recognized 'legal right', but both follow for certain classes of people from other recognized rights.

How does the right to own a widescreen TV follow from any other recognized right? As far as I'm aware, no "class of people" is guaranteed ownership of a 52" HD plasma screen, unfortunately for me.

Can I make an equal protection claim of discrimination on the basis on wealth because the store won't sell me the plasma TV for the amount I can afford to pay?

No, you both have a legal right to enter into a business transaction with a television retailer. You also both (if I had my way, anyway) have equality of opportunity with which to obtain the money necessary. There is no legal issue here.

You seem to be rejecting the idea that discrimination between two groups is ok where there exists a legitimate state interest, so what is the justification for rejecting my claim?

Discrimination is acceptable when there's a legitimate concern at issue. I simply think that upholding equal protection is a more important concern than the ones you mention. It's a fundamental concept of our society -- possibly the most important -- and deserves to be treated as such. In this case, it would override nebulous and subjective ideas such as "for the public good." Again, this is the kind of thinking that has led to the eminent domain abuses of the last few years.

Strangely, this is your argument, not mine. And this is precisely what an equal outcome analysis would demand; equality in every aspect, except where some rational basis for discrimination exists.

No, my argument has always been that equality under the law does not equate to equality in all aspects of life. The law must treat everyone equally, but that doesn't mean life has to.

And yet prior to the civil rights movement, this was considered perfectly legal. It took the passage of a great deal of legislation and exercise of considerable executive authority to get to the point where we are today. Why? Because the equal protection clause is not so broadly applicable as you imagine.

And slavery was legal in this country for close to a hundred years. Would you use that as evidence to undermine the way we interpret our rights today? Attitudes change. I think they've changed for the better, and I have no problem interpreting our rights more broadly than they have been in the past. I'm more concerned with theory than with practice in this debate.

You reject the equal outcome argument here but accept it elsewhere for unclear reasons. The legal difference is that wealthy people will effectively have the resources to combat diseases like HIV/AIDS, while less fortunate people won't.

What is the legal issue here? Does a person have an innate right to HIV treatment, or does he rather have a right to spend his money as he chooses (which follows from the rights to privacy and free association)? I argue for the latter.

 

[meg]

What child? We're talking about a fetus. If you're going to argue for the (future) welfare of the fetus, you'd better be prepared to argue against abortion altogether.

I don't think so.

If a woman has an abortion, we don't have to worry about what's good for the child because there is no child.

If a man has this pretend on-paper-only abortion you seem to be advocating, there still is a child. We still have to be concerned with what is in the best interest of the child.

Big difference.

Meg

 

[toddjh]

If a man has this pretend on-paper-only abortion you seem to be advocating, there still is a child.

Because the woman made a unilateral decision to have it, even knowing there would be no financial support from the man. She had all the control, and all the information necessary to make an informed decision. If she brought the child into an environment in which it couldn't be raised properly, I don't see how you could argue that it's anybody's responsibility but hers. I certainly don't see how it's the man's responsibility -- he made his choice in a timely fashion, and gave the woman the opportunity to decide how she wanted to proceed. If anybody needs to help support the child in such a situation, it should be the state.

If the woman was concerned that the child wouldn't be raised in a good environment, then she should've terminated the pregnancy or put the child up for adoption.

We still have to be concerned with what is in the best interest of the child.

So, should poor people be able to have kids? Being raised in poverty wouldn't be in the best interests of the child, either. Come to think of it, there should be a parenting test too, right?

 

[jj]

At some point, will someone please explain to me how this is supposed to be good for the child?

Presuming for purposes of argument that a child is involved, I dare say that having a solid knowledge of who supports the child, who doesn't support the child, etc, would be a great deal better for all concerned than an uncertain arrangement wherein both the social and legal requirements are fuzzy, unclear, and mutable without (much) notice.

Do you disagree?

You're assuming an ideal here, I think, when you ask how this is good for the child, but you can't assume that having a particular dad is actually GOOD for a child, not at all. I don't speak from personal experience, but I do personally speak from the experience of knowing more than one person in that situation. In case Todd wonders, that also goes for some mom's.

My personal sample may be a bit biased, since most of the people I dealt with that I regard in that catagory were fathers, but they are in many social situations the ones who drive up to college to "lay down the law" to their potentially-errant offspring. Most of the moms were on the phone egging dad on.

And, almost to a person, the students with the most controlling parents were the ones who went the most berzerk when away from home for the first time. Those who had been managing their life since Jr. High seemed to do fine.

 

[meg]

I'm sorry, toddjh. I still just don't get it. Right now, we consider it in society's best interest if both parents take responsibility for the welfare of any children they create.

Right now, yes, I see how some people could say that the present system is unfair, in that it allows one person to decide whether to continue a pregnancy or not. However, if she decides to terminate the pregnancy, that does not leave the other parent with the responsibility of raising a child alone.

I don't see how creating a system that allows (even encourages?) one parent to be relieved of the responsibility of raising a child that is the direct result of their own actions, and leaving the entire responsibility of the child to the other as a sole parent is good for the child, or good for society.

There are enough fatherless children in this society already. What possible reason could we have for wanting to create more?

Giving up a child for adoption is not a real alternative for the vast majority of women. To me, it is as rediculous as when the pro-lifers try to pretend that it's a real alternative to abortion. The hormonal, chemical, emotional and psychological bond created between a fetus and a pregnant woman over 9 months is too strong. There is a reason that there are over 4 million live births in this country a year, over 2 million of them "unplanned", yet less than 100,000 adoptions.

Meg

 

[toddjh]

I'm sorry, toddjh. I still just don't get it. Right now, we consider it in society's best interest if both parents take responsibility for the welfare of any children they create.

Yes, but we don't do it at the expense of the individual rights of the parents. Otherwise adoption would be illegal (the child needs his parents!), and birth control would be mandatory for all unmarried women (don't want to bring a baby into a house without a father, after all).

We do look out for the welfare of the child, but there are many exceptions.

There are enough fatherless children in this society already. What possible reason could we have for wanting to create more?

You're assuming -- without cause, I think -- that this system would result in more fatherless children. I have a feeling it would actually reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies significantly.

Besides, I still don't see "for the public good" as sufficient reason to severely curtail individual rights.

 

[meg]

Presuming for purposes of argument that a child is involved, I dare say that having a solid knowledge of who supports the child, who doesn't support the child, etc, would be a great deal better for all concerned than an uncertain arrangement wherein both the social and legal requirements are fuzzy, unclear, and mutable without (much) notice.

Do you disagree?

You're assuming an ideal here, I think, when you ask how this is good for the child, but you can't assume that having a particular dad is actually GOOD for a child, not at all. I don't speak from personal experience, but I do personally speak from the experience of knowing more than one person in that situation. In case Todd wonders, that also goes for some mom's.

My personal sample may be a bit biased, since most of the people I dealt with that I regard in that catagory were fathers, but they are in many social situations the ones who drive up to college to "lay down the law" to their potentially-errant offspring. Most of the moms were on the phone egging dad on.

And, almost to a person, the students with the most controlling parents were the ones who went the most berzerk when away from home for the first time. Those who had been managing their life since Jr. High seemed to do fine.

I'm not sure I get your point here, jj. When I asked what is good for the child, I was referring to our present practice of requiring both parents to provide support for the child, vs toddjh's proposed practice of letting dads skip out.

I don't think we have any laws, or proposed laws here regulating parents being controlling or their offspring or not, do we? I don't get what you're talking about.

Meg

 

[jj]

I'm not sure I get your point here, jj. When I asked what is good for the child, I was referring to our present practice of requiring both parents to provide support for the child, vs toddjh's proposed practice of letting dads skip out.

Be that as it may, I'm referring to actual experiences with actual dads. Some kids would be much better off without dad.

Now, I'll let Todd address your rather prejudicial way of expressing his idea. 'letting dads skip out" is quite an unfair, loaded way to express his position.

I don't think we have any laws, or proposed laws here regulating parents being controlling or their offspring or not, do we? I don't get what you're talking about.

Meg

You seem to be operating under the idea that it's always good for the child to have DAD (not a dad, THE dad) around.

I disagree. Strongly. I can base that disagreement on some experience with various dad's who were not good for junior at all. After you have to drag out one or two dads in a drunken rage who are beating up their kids (at college, in the hallway) for getting less than perfect grades, you get this kind of idea.

 

[meg]

Ah. Ok. I see what you're saying, jj, and actually, I personally agree. I think there are probably quite a few people that might be better off if they hadn't had the parents they got.

What I was referring to, though, was that the state has the opinion that a child has the right to financial support from both parents. The state feels that "what is good for the child" includes the financial support from both parents.

And, whether you like my wording or not, I think it is important to keep in mind what this whole conversation is about. - Some men wanting the "right" to not pay child support.

Meg

 

[jj]

And, whether you like my wording or not, I think it is important to keep in mind what this whole conversation is about. - Some men wanting the "right" to not pay child support.

Meg

And I submit in that case that it's nearly a sure conclusion that the kid is better off without them.

 

[toddjh]

And, whether you like my wording or not, I think it is important to keep in mind what this whole conversation is about. - Some men wanting the "right" to not pay child support.

That's like me saying that it's about some women wanting the "right" to trap a man into sending her a check every month. Both are unfair to roughly 50% of the population, and ignore the larger issues at stake.

 

[meg]

And I submit in that case that it's nearly a sure conclusion that the kid is better off without them.

Perhaps. But he/she is not better off without his money.

Meg

 

[meg]

That's like me saying that it's about some women wanting the "right" to trap a man into sending her a check every month. Both are unfair to roughly 50% of the population, and ignore the larger issues at stake.

Yes. The larger issues at stake. Namely, the most important being, what is best for the child?

If I understand what I've been reading, both here and elsewhere, about family law and child support laws, etc, the rights of the child to have the support of both parents trumps the rights or either parent to not want to financially support it.

If someone here has a better grasp of family law, and believes I am mistaken, I hope you will correct me.

Meg

 

[toddjh]

Yes. The larger issues at stake. Namely, the most important being, what is best for the child?

That is an important consideration, yes, but I don't think it's the most important. And neither do you, I think. Surely you recognize that there are many compromises made which weigh the welfare of the child against other important considerations. The welfare of the child is not by any means paramount; otherwise they'd take away the children of poor people and give them to people who can better provide for them.

If I understand what I've been reading, both here and elsewhere, about family law and child support laws, etc, the rights of the child to have the support of both parents trumps the rights or either parent to not want to financially support it.

Discussions of current law are irrelevant because we're talking about changes that would necessarily affect those interpretations.

 

[jj]

Perhaps. But he/she is not better off without his money.

Meg

Not clear at all, if that also involves dad.

 

[meg]

Discussions of current law are irrelevant because we're talking about changes that would necessarily affect those interpretations.

That's just not true. Discussions of current laws are indeed relevent, because if you/we decide to go about changing the fundamental reasoning behind them (which is what you're suggesting), we also need to consider the implications on other current laws, as well as possible future outcomes.

You might be suggesting that a man's right to not choose a financial burden supercedes the right of a child to be fully supported.

You also might suggesting that a man's right to not choose a financial burden supercedes a child's right to know and be supported by both parents, which is considered a pretty fundamental right both here in the U.S. and around the world.

Those two statements are impactful and far-reaching.

Beyond the family court, and human rights issues in general, and childrens rights laws in particular, those two statements could and would have a profound affect on our welfare and social services, to name just a couple. What you might be suggesting implies that it's not necessarily the parents' responsibility to care for their children. You might be suggesting that the state should indeed be taking more responsibility for raising our children. Are we willing to accept what that might entail? If we accept the notion that society should take more of the financial responsibility of raising children, what about other aspects? Can the state then start declaring parenting methods, for instance? How many other rights, as parents are we willing to give up?

Right now, we hold the family unit to be somewhat sacrosanct. If we invite the state in as an active member of the family, with a larger financial interest, what are the repercussions of that idea?

If you really want to make that change, I think you're going to have to put forth a lot better reasons than "If a woman can get an abortion, why can't a man? It's just not fair."

I'm sorry guys. The answer to that question has already been stated here. You can get an abortion, just as soon as you get pregnant.

There's no such thing as a on-paper-only abortion. Because there's no such thing as an on-paper-only child.

Meg