"Roe v. Wade for Men"

[Thanz]

A vasectomy is not like getting a haircut. It's rather an invasive procedure. It really bothers me that people want to force men to have vasectomies or be subject to financial blackmail.

No one is forcing vasectomies. If, however, you have sex with a woman, get her pregnant, then refuse to pay child support under this ill-advised opt out plan, you would be using financial blackmail to force the woman to have an abortion if she could not afford it on her own. And that is supposed to be her unilateral informed decision. Right. Seems fairly coercive to me.

Ah, I see. "Having sex," even using a condom with a woman who swears she's infertile = "reckless behavior." Got it.

Voluntary assumption of the risk. Even when birth control is used, there is always a chance, however small, of pregnancy.

Under the law right now, most of the risks and responsibilities associated with that event are on the woman. She is the one who has to carry it to term, and, on birth will become the primary caregiver by default. The resposibility of the father is strictly financial. He has none of the physical risks. He also doesn't have the life risk of being a primary caregiver. Just money.

So, the woman also has a few extra "rights" that the man doesn't have. She can choose to make the emotionally difficult decision to have an invasive procedure to terminate the pregnancy. Or, she can make the emotionally difficult decision to give the kid up for adoption - but the father has some rights here too if that is what the mother chooses. Both of those "extra rights" are both fully supported by the biological facts of pregnancy, but also the extra responsibilities that women have vis a vis kids.

The entire situation is already unequal, but not skewed towards women as some have been arguing. They ignore the extra responsibilities of women and focus on the one decision that they can make but men can't in isolation and say "I want that too". Well, since you can't have the other responsibilities that are associated with that decision, you can't have the decision.

Allowing men to disavow children they father would not create a legal equality. It would only exacerbate an existing inequality. It would put ALL of the risks of pregnancy on the mother. How is that equal protection?

 

[megafly]

if that's not a skewed way of summing everything up here on this thread, I don't know what is.

I truthfully am looking for a way to be fair. The Misandropists who want to punish men because they have external genitals don't care about fairness. They will use "the good of the child" to arbitrarily tax citizens just because that child is using half of the same DNA. What about the "good of the adult"?


If having the brats taken care of is so important to you.....You pay for them.

Why do children of NBA players "need" 1 million a year in support, but children of janitors only "need" 6k? Are you punishing children because mommy doesnt like tall men in baggy shorts?

 

[jj]

I truthfully am looking for a way to be fair. The Misandropists who want to punish men because they have external genitals don't care about fairness. They will use "the good of the child" to arbitrarily tax citizens just because that child is using half of the same DNA. What about the "good of the adult"?

And how good is "the good of the child" to have an unwilling, present father?

Btw, I think it's 'misandrist', and yes, I do see some misandry in this thread.

 

[Thanz]

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.


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.

Some dads are bad. Yes, that's true. But we shouldn't base policy on your anecdotes. Further, there are existing laws to deal with dads who are abusive, etc. The proposed opting out, however it is phrased, does not target those people who would abuse their kids. I think that there is a huge difference between someone who would rather not have to support a child and someone who would actually abuse that child. You seem to be equating the two.

 

[Dunstan]

No one is forcing vasectomies. If, however, you have sex with a woman, get her pregnant, then refuse to pay child support under this ill-advised opt out plan, you would be using financial blackmail to force the woman to have an abortion if she could not afford it on her own. And that is supposed to be her unilateral informed decision. Right. Seems fairly coercive to me.

I don't really think anyone is forcing vasectomies on men. I was just tweaking Tmy's words to illustrate what Kevin has been saying repeatedly in this thread, which is that arguments are being made in support of "men must pay child support no matter what" that apply just as equally to the abortion context. The general tone of this thread is, "if you don't want to support a baby, then either get a vasectomy or keep it in your pants." Which is no different from saying "if you don't want to have a baby, then either get a tubal ligation or keep your legs closed" -- an argument that I think even most pro-lifers find crass.

Voluntary assumption of the risk. Even when birth control is used, there is always a chance, however small, of pregnancy.

I agree with that. It was Tmy's "reckless behavior" comment that I was criticizing. Aside from the misandry
jj has observed, I'm detecting a lot of puritanism in this thread, as though (a) anyone who's ever caused an accidental pregnancy is some irresponsible lothario who's having unprotected sex left and right, and (b) child support payments are the price you pay for having sex.

I'm not sure whether an "opt out" rule would be workable. It may be that we're stuck with an unfair system because the alternatives are all worse. Hopefully science will come to our rescue and make birth control -- especially for men -- so effective, reasonably priced, and free of side effects that it will be almost (if not completely) impossible for a man to become an unwilling father.

 

[meg]

Where is this misandry you guys are talking about?

I've seen misanthropy... and misogyny... and a certain amount of misogamy, as well as a little misoneism... but I don't recall seeing any misandry.

Since I'm one of the very few women on this thread, I'm wondering if you might be talking about me.... ?

Meg

 

[mumblethrax]

I was just tweaking Tmy's words to illustrate what Kevin has been saying repeatedly in this thread, which is that arguments are being made in support of "men must pay child support no matter what" that apply just as equally to the abortion context. The general tone of this thread is, "if you don't want to support a baby, then either get a vasectomy or keep it in your pants." Which is no different from saying "if you don't want to have a baby, then either get a tubal ligation or keep your legs closed" -- an argument that I think even most pro-lifers find crass.

I do think there's a difference. The consequences that follow from abortion are morally negligible and confined to the risk it presents to the mother. Amend your sentence to, "If you don't want to have a baby, then either get a tubal ligation or keep your legs closed or get an abortion," and it makes a great deal of sense.

The effects of allowing men an opt-out of support for future children will not be similarly confined. Some women will choose to have children on the basis of imperfect information about future income, some will underestimate the costs of supporting a child, some will have religious objections and be unwilling to put the child up for adoption once the hormones kick in. It's not altogether clear what the result of such a policy would be, but I think it's safe to say that it would increase the number of children without adequate support before the state gets involved.

And, predictably, the state will get involved. It's pretty unlikely that any developed country would allow children to go without minimal support, so the welfare rolls will swell. The male observer intent on maximizing his reproductive success will notice this, and exploit it. At this point we've established an economically suboptimal incentive structure.

The argument that child support payments don't necessary correspond to child support needs and are sometimes overly burdensome rings true, but I think it makes some sense to retain a meaningful risk for all potential breeders, regardless of income, if only because we seem to do better managing risks when they're personal. Perhaps a better solution would be to have non-custodial parents pay support into a general fund as a function of income which is distributed to custodial parents on the basis of need. I dunno. I don't expect this to happen, either.

 

[jj]

And, predictably, the state will get involved. It's pretty unlikely that any developed country would allow children to go without minimal support, so the welfare rolls will swell.

(bolding mine)

Really? Swell compared to now with all the skipped dads, etc?

How so? The only difference I can see is that the skipped dads won't be criminals, that the kids will still get support, and that mom will have very clear understanding, early on, of what support will or won't be available.

NOTE: I have been very clear, that any "opt out" has to be early on, and available ONCE. Any time beyond the time for an amnio, its results, and a bit of time for reaction are just too late.

And no, dad doesn't get to change his mind once he's made it up.

If anything, we'd have more, rather than less, dads being deadbeat. The welfare roles aren't going to swell enormously, so let's not beat that horse. If anything, they will shrink, because mom will have full information.

No, it's not an ideal system, one isn't possible, the biology is inequetable to start with.

 

[Tmy]

(bolding mine)

Really? Swell compared to now with all the skipped dads, etc?

How so? The only difference I can see is that the skipped dads won't be criminals, that the kids will still get support, and that mom will have very clear understanding, early on, of what support will or won't be available.
.

The way welfare works now is that when mom gets the money she must tell the state who dad is. That way the state can chase dad for money. Sometimes the support is enough to get mom and baby off welfare or at the least, partial reimbursment for the state. Millions are saved per state because of this process.

Now imagine a system where mom and dad could easiy scam the system. Dad "opts out" so the state cant chase him. Mom is on welfare and alos getting cash on the side from Dad whos still involed like any other father.

By the way I dont know how someone making $8 gets a $500 month order. I dont know about that state but in mass. its based on an income formula. That dad would be paying like $60 a week.

 

[Tmy]

By the way if we really want to be equal wouldnt mom get her abortion AND dad will be required to get a visectemy. equal surgery all around!!!!

 

[mumblethrax]

How so? The only difference I can see is that the skipped dads won't be criminals, that the kids will still get support, and that mom will have very clear understanding, early on, of what support will or won't be available.

Whether or not absent parents will be considered 'criminals' is independent of the question of the effects on welfare rolls. It seems to me that we would retain all of the people who are on welfare as a result of missed support payments now (since there is no new incentive for non-custodial parents to pay child support) plus those who currently receive payments but wouldn't if the father had had any choice.

The only way that welfare rolls could shrink is if the knowledge that the father would not support the child were enough to significantly depress birthrates. I don't think this is likely, given that many women already go ahead with pregnancies where they know that the father isn't going to be a reliable source of support.

And, as Tmy pointed out, welfare paid in absense of child support payments is considered recoverable by many (most? all?) states.

If anything, we'd have more, rather than less, dads being deadbeat.

Yes, and if we eliminated taxation, we'd have fewer tax evaders.

 

[jj]

Whether or not absent parents will be considered 'criminals' is independent of the question of the effects on welfare rolls. It seems to me that we would retain all of the people who are on welfare as a result of missed support payments now (since there is no new incentive for non-custodial parents to pay child support) plus those who currently receive payments but wouldn't if the father had had any choice.

The only way that welfare rolls could shrink is if the knowledge that the father would not support the child were enough to significantly depress birthrates. I don't think this is likely, given that many women already go ahead with pregnancies where they know that the father isn't going to be a reliable source of support.

In other words, no evidence for your assertion. No more than mine.

Let's analyze your performance here: First, I haven't suggested that the criminalization of dads is related to welfare roles. So you're just building a straw man.

Then, "it seems to me" translates to "I believe" or "I think" or "I'm going to say". I agree that it seems to you. I even agree, and already did, that there will be some effect on welfare roles, just not the explosion that you "think of the children" people are proposing.

Finally, you don't know how potential mothers will react any better than I do. Some will not abort no matter what, some might react differently. So you don't get to make any conclusion there. Then you say "significantly depress birth rates". That's not really what the fact would be, it would be "depress the birth rate enough to mostly offset the absent, non-paying dads. After that, you go on to say "I don't think". Again, no evidence.

Now, what irritates me is that I think that I AM thinking of the children. You're casting this purely in dry economic terms, ignoring the effects of an unwilling dad on a child. There are costs that go well beyond the financial, as we can see in the newspaper every day. Why do you seem to ignore those costs? Does it help society to grow up more emotionally or physically crippled children if that can be avoided?

 

[jj]

Now imagine a system where mom and dad could easiy scam the system. Dad "opts out" so the state cant chase him. Mom is on welfare and alos getting cash on the side from Dad whos still involed like any other father.

This changes how? None that I can see. You can control a dad who "opts out" no more or less than you can control an unwilling father who works off the books. You do know that's the usual case, right?

By the way I dont know how someone making $8 gets a $500 month order. I dont know about that state but in mass. its based on an income formula. That dad would be paying like $60 a week.

Your straw man, your fire.

 

[jj]

By the way if we really want to be equal wouldnt mom get her abortion AND dad will be required to get a visectemy. equal surgery all around!!!!

#HYPERBOLE 1
Yes, yes, mom gets to kill the kid, dad gets to be mutilated. Yeah, that's really very, very equal.
#HYPERBOLE 0

You don't really know a lot about this process, do you?

 

[Thanz]

Now, what irritates me is that I think that I AM thinking of the children. You're casting this purely in dry economic terms, ignoring the effects of an unwilling dad on a child. There are costs that go well beyond the financial, as we can see in the newspaper every day. Why do you seem to ignore those costs? Does it help society to grow up more emotionally or physically crippled children if that can be avoided?

The problem with your argument is that you seem to be equating dads who suck with those who would opt out. That is, the dads who suck now will be the ones that opt out in the new system. While I agree that there is some overlap, the two groups are not the same. Certainly you'd agree with me that absentee dads are not the only dads who suck, and it is more of a danger to the child if the abusive parent lives in the home. So, I disagree if you are suggesting that this measure will eliminate sucky dads.

I don't, however, think you are making that argument. I think your opinion is that the number of sucky dads will go down. We have nothing but speculation on this point. But I will say this: not all of the men who opt out will have ended up as abusive parents. Some would, no doubt, have simply been paycheques. Some may have been positive influences on the child.

Finally, if the dad is truly abusive, there are laws and measures available now that can help in that situation. I believe they are not always used to their full potential. Perhaps those should be strengthened rather than taking the drastic step of eliminating more dads than necessary.

 

[jj]

The problem with your argument is that you seem to be equating dads who suck with those who would opt out. That is, the dads who suck now will be the ones that opt out in the new system.

I don't know that, but I am reasonably sure that a system in which dads who opt out have no, zero parental rights, at least allows some control over the situation.

Same goes for moms, really, if dad wants to raise the kid and mom doesn't.

 

[Thanz]

I don't know that, but I am reasonably sure that a system in which dads who opt out have no, zero parental rights, at least allows some control over the situation.

Current laws allow for "some control over the situation". Why go to the radical step of allowing an opt out? IF you don't know how much of a benefit it will be, why do it?

 

[epepke]

Child support belongs with the child. Mom cant gove it away, its not hers to give. The right to support follows the child whether he is in the custody of mom, dad, or gramma.

Yes, she can. Any woman in the US can drop off a child at any number of places, including most fire stations, and it will become a ward of the state, no questions asked.

I realize that reality can be annoying, but that's what it is.

 

[meg]

I'm just going to repeat this from earlier in this thread for epepke:

ImaginalDisc: May I point out that the mother is allowed to give coustody of her child to the state, by dropping off the child at a firestation, with no questions asked? That is functionally the same as an "on paper only medical procedure", it says "the child I gave birth to is not my responsability, and I give it to the state."

Meg: ID, I think you're really misconstruing the purpose behind the safe baby laws. The ability to drop off a baby at a hospital or firestation is not to make it easy for a woman to give the kid up for adoption. It is to prevent abandonment and death of the child. The point of these laws is to give the mother in crises an option besides abandoning or killing the newborn infant.

In my own state, the child is handed over to child protective services, who then decide where the baby should go. There is a search for the father, or other family members for the child to live with. Should no suitable family members be found, and should the mother not return (they do get a time period where they can change their minds and retrieve the baby), THEN the baby is placed up for adoption.

It is not the equivilent of an on paper abortion. It is the equivilent of telling desperate mothers "Don't kill the baby! If you bring it here instead, you won't be prosecuted for murder or gross negligence."

Big difference.

The child is not an automatic ward of the state. Nor is the child automatically given up for adoption.

Meg

 

[jj]

Current laws allow for "some control over the situation". Why go to the radical step of allowing an opt out? IF you don't know how much of a benefit it will be, why do it?

1) The step isn't "radical", that's more scaremongering from you.
2) Nobody's suggesting that we trash most of the current laws
3) The "benefit" comment of yours is a straw man. The question is one of equity.