"Roe v. Wade for Men"

[3point14]

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:


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.

I don't see that that's relevant to the debate - Yes it's wrong, yes it's a problem and yes it needs fixing, but it shouldn't colour my views on this issue, should it?

 

[toddjh]

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.

So, someone in a wheelchair, who is at a huge disadvantage compared to people who can walk, should just "get over it" because it's "by virtue of a biological fact?" No -- in the U.S., the law guarantees equal protection, and the Supreme Court has held that that applies to equalizing advantages and disadvantages caused by biology wherever reasonable.

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.

So, the fact that there exists one inequality between genders is reason to condone another? Is that really a position you want to support?

So you can't have entirely risk free sex. Welcome to the real world.

This isn't about having "risk free sex." It's about addressing the legal inequality between men and women...the same way the gender wage gap should be addressed.

 

[Thanz]

I don't see that that's relevant to the debate - Yes it's wrong, yes it's a problem and yes it needs fixing, but it shouldn't colour my views on this issue, should it?

Any sort of law that allows men to opt-out of child care responsibilities will only exacerbate gender inequality issues and hurt children. Women make less than men. In a case where a man has "opted out" of the child care responsibility, the woman will certainly have to work. The child will then be forced to live on the income of one parent only, and the one parent who has less earning potential (on average).

That is far more unreasonable than the current situation which holds the father responsible for his actions. And what is the benefit of this "opting out"? It allows men to have sex with out any risk of the consequences of pregnancy. Somehow, I don't see that as any sort of fair tradeoff.

 

[3point14]

Any sort of law that allows men to opt-out of child care responsibilities will only exacerbate gender inequality issues and hurt children. Women make less than men. In a case where a man has "opted out" of the child care responsibility, the woman will certainly have to work. The child will then be forced to live on the income of one parent only, and the one parent who has less earning potential (on average).

That is far more unreasonable than the current situation which holds the father responsible for his actions. And what is the benefit of this "opting out"? It allows men to have sex with out any risk of the consequences of pregnancy. Somehow, I don't see that as any sort of fair tradeoff.

You seem to be trying to justify the maitainance/childccare views you have with the discrepencies in wages between the genders. I fail to see the relevance of one to the other except in a very broad sense, certainly far too broad to have a bearing on this debate.

(edited for more typos)

 

[toddjh]

Any sort of law that allows men to opt-out of child care responsibilities will only exacerbate gender inequality issues and hurt children. Women make less than men. In a case where a man has "opted out" of the child care responsibility, the woman will certainly have to work.

Or she could opt out herself. Y'know, using her equal power under the law.

The child will then be forced to live on the income of one parent only, and the one parent who has less earning potential (on average).

Or perhaps the woman would decide that she's not in a good position to be raising a kid alone, and terminate the pregnancy, or put the child up for adoption. Her choice. If she chooses to keep the child, well, you can't say she didn't know what she was getting into. You say that men made their bed and so they should lie in it? I say the same thing about women who choose to have children they know they can't support.

Which is more reasonable: forcing a man to pay a significant portion of his income for two decades because he once put his #### in a woman, or forcing a woman to accept responsibility for a baby she made a conscious decision to have, even though she knew she'd be doing it alone?

And what is the benefit of this "opting out"?

It upholds the principle of equal protection under the law. A pretty damn good benefit, if you ask me.

 

[Thanz]

Or she could opt out herself. Y'know, using her equal power under the law.

So clinical. "Opting out". A lot of women would disagree with your assertion that the abortion decision is as simple as "opting out".

Or perhaps the woman would decide that she's not in a good position to be raising a kid alone, and terminate the pregnancy, or put the child up for adoption. Her choice. If she chooses to keep the child, well, you can't say she didn't know what she was getting into. You say that men made their bed and so they should lie in it? I say the same thing about women who choose to have children they know they can't support.

I disagree that the decisions are at all equivalent. The man, under your scenario, basically makes an arm's length decision without ever having to see the reality of that decision. Not so for the woman. She can't deny the reality of it - it is growing inside her body.

Which is more reasonable: forcing a man to pay a significant portion of his income for two decades because he once put his #### in a woman, or forcing a woman to accept responsibility for a baby she made a conscious decision to have, even though she knew she'd be doing it alone?

As loaded a question as this is, the former is more reasonable. I would, in fact, go further than this and say that the man has many more obligations to the child than just cash. Face up to your responsibilities. Be an adult.

It upholds the principle of equal protection under the law. A pretty damn good benefit, if you ask me.

Both people created the child, both people have to support it. That is equal protection under the law. Unless men have a choice to carry the baby to term, stop whining about not having the choice to not carry the baby to term. The inequality, if there is one, is biological in nature.

 

[toddjh]

So clinical. "Opting out". A lot of women would disagree with your assertion that the abortion decision is as simple as "opting out".

Well, they're free to disagree. I don't see why their personal opinions should be codified into law, though.

I disagree that the decisions are at all equivalent. The man, under your scenario, basically makes an arm's length decision without ever having to see the reality of that decision. Not so for the woman. She can't deny the reality of it - it is growing inside her body.

Well, I'm afraid that's one biological inequity that the law can't address. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to address the ones it can.

Both people created the child, both people have to support it. That is equal protection under the law.

Except that the woman doesn't have to support it, if she doesn't want to. If you opposed abortion (as I'm beginning to suspect you do), then your position would be consistent, but otherwise it's a plain old double standard.

Unless men have a choice to carry the baby to term, stop whining about not having the choice to not carry the baby to term. The inequality, if there is one, is biological in nature.

That was never in dispute. The inequality of a person in a wheelchair is biological in nature, too, but that doesn't mean the law shouldn't attempt to minimize that inequality by requiring elevators, accessible bathrooms, etc. The "it's biology" argument simply doesn't hold water, at least under the U.S. legal system.

 

[mumblethrax]

So clinical. "Opting out". A lot of women would disagree with your assertion that the abortion decision is as simple as "opting out".

This is what I find strange, too. Well, it's among the things that I find strange. A woman cannot opt out of the risks of pregnancy, she can only mitigate them. Why does that sound familiar?

For those claiming equal protection under the law, here's a simple question: which law? Certainly not Roe v. Wade, which is about the right to medical privacy (which men also have). Certainly not custodial responsibilities, which both men and women share. So can you point to where in our legal system this imagined right exists?

For those who consider the risk of child support payments--which can be mitigated to the point of being negligible--an intolerable burden: are you aware that women push human beings out of their vaginas?

 

[Thanz]

Well, they're free to disagree. I don't see why their personal opinions should be codified into law, though.

Why should yours?

Well, I'm afraid that's one biological inequity that the law can't address. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to address the ones it can.

But that is the inequity you are trying to address with the law. The law is ill suited to it.

That was never in dispute. The inequality of a person in a wheelchair is biological in nature, too, but that doesn't mean the law shouldn't attempt to minimize that inequality by requiring elevators, accessible bathrooms, etc. The "it's biology" argument simply doesn't hold weight, at least under the U.S. legal system.

Apples and Oranges. Wheelchair access to public buildings etc. does not have an adverse effect on able bodied persons. Your suggestion of opting out of childcare has an adverse impact on both women and children. With no corresponding benefit.

 

[toddjh]

This is what I find strange, too. Well, it's among the things that I find strange. A woman cannot opt out of the risks of pregnancy, she can only mitigate them. Why does that sound familiar?

Because you want it to sound familiar.

ETA: That was a little short, so I apologize. I'll clarify: I think you're using a superficial similarity between the two issues to try to equate them. Women have the same ability to minimize their chances of getting pregnant that men do. They also have the ability to mitigate the long-term effects of pregnancy through abortion. Men have no equivalent choice. That inequality may stem from biology, but that doesn't mean it has to end there.

For those claiming equal protection under the law, here's a simple question: which law?

"Law" does not refer to statutory and case law exclusively. Your argument is the same one the anti-gay-marriage crowd likes to use.

For those who consider the risk of child support payments--which can be mitigated to the point of being negligible--an intolerable burden: are you aware that women push human beings out of their vaginas?

Certainly. It is, unfortunately, an unavoidable fact of biology, and I'm afraid there's no legal solution to the medical difficulty of pregnancy and birth. Why do you feel that fact should be used to restrict the rights of others?

 

[toddjh]

Why should yours?

Because it's backed up by sound reasoning and increases freedom rather than restricting it. Yes, yes, I know you disagree, yadda yadda. We'll see what the courts say. They've convinced me I'm wrong before.

But that is the inequity you are trying to address with the law. The law is ill suited to it.

Hmm? I'm not trying to address the fact that pregnancy is difficult. I'm trying to address the inequality which stems from the legal, not biological, consequences of abortion.

Apples and Oranges. Wheelchair access to public buildings etc. does not have an adverse effect on able bodied persons.

Ask a store owner who has to comply with the ADA and other regulations whether or not it has an adverse effect. Of course it does. If there were no adverse effect, people would be happy to do it on their own, and there would be no need for a law.

Your suggestion of opting out of childcare has an adverse impact on both women and children. With no corresponding benefit.

And, again, I'd argue that equal protection is a huge benefit. It's one of the cornerstones of our society. You seem to be arguing from a pragmatic point of view: do what you think will benefit people the most. That's laudable, but I think it's naive. The harm to individual liberty caused by that kind of cold utilitarian thinking far outweighs any benefits it may confer. It's the kind of logic which gave rise to the eminent domain fiasco the U.S. has enjoyed in recent years.

 

[mumblethrax]

Because you want it to sound familiar.

Or because it's true. Neither gender is entitled to risk-free sex.

"Law" does not refer to statutory and case law exclusively. Your argument is the same one the anti-gay-marriage crowd likes to use.

It would seem strange for them to do that, since I can point to any number of marriage statutes that explicitly discriminate on the basis of sexual preference.

But maybe, then, you can steer me in the direction of a general legal principle? What is the right that you argue that is being infringed upon here?

Certainly. It is, unfortunately, an unavoidable fact of biology, and I'm afraid there's no legal solution to the medical difficulty of pregnancy and birth. Why do you feel that fact should be used to restrict the rights of others?

There are any number of imaginable legal remedies for the problem. Perhaps women should be given a cash remedy by the state to compenstate the risks they take in pursuit of a common good. Perhaps the task of raising children, which disproportionately falls to women, should become a paid public office in recognition of same.

But I find it strange that you rely on 'unavoidable facts of biology' here and deny that any remedy can be provided, but you insist that biology is irrelevant to question of reproductive decisions despite the very different roles men and women play, and that remedy must be provided. I can hardly think of a more rational reason for discrimination between the sexes than to acknowledge our different reproductive biology.

And, again, which 'right' is being restricted? There is no right not to be subject to cash remedies from civil cases. It's interesting to note that the law is generally consistent with property law here; you have no right to dictate how a 'gift' of genetic material is to be used, but you are still liable for a resulting child.

 

[Thanz]

"Law" does not refer to statutory and case law exclusively.

Um, what else do you say "law" refers to, specifically?

 

[toddjh]

Or because it's true. Neither gender is entitled to risk-free sex.

Well, maybe not "risk-free," but I see no reason why the government should enforce a system which causes more risk to one gender than the other when a remedy would be easy to implement.

But maybe, then, you can steer me in the direction of a general legal principle? What is the right that you argue that is being infringed upon here?

It's discrimination on the basis of sex. Women are able to avoid the legal, personal, and financial obligations of parenthood, while men are not.

I know it's tempting to respond by saying, "it's biology," but if you really want to argue that point, the current system of child support is already a government attempt to protect women from a biological inequality. It's silly now to turn around and say that the government has no right to adjust its remedy a bit in the opposite direction in the interests of preserving equal protection.

There are any number of imaginable legal remedies for the problem. Perhaps women should be given a cash remedy by the state to compenstate the risks they take in pursuit of a common good. Perhaps the task of raising children, which disproportionately falls to women, should become a paid public office in recognition of same.

The government is not, and shouldn't be, in the business of rewarding, punishing, or subsidizing personal choices.

But I find it strange that you rely on 'unavoidable facts of biology' here and deny that any remedy can be provided, but you insist that biology is irrelevant to question of reproductive decisions despite the very different roles men and women play, and that remedy must be provided.

I don't say that it's irrelevant, I just say that the law is not powerless to address that particular inequality.

you have no right to dictate how a 'gift' of genetic material is to be used

Why not? You can, as a matter of contract, specify how other gifts you give are to be used. If you insist on looking at it in that context, I would argue that expressing your desire not to have children, and/or using birth control, constitutes a verbal or implied contract that the "gift" is not to be used in that fashion.

ETA: Likewise, if the woman dishonestly indicates that she doesn't want kids either, or lies about using birth control, that would constitute an act of bad faith and any resulting "contractual obligations" would be null and void.

Of course, it's pretty silly to look at it in terms of semen being a "gift," in my opinion. For starters, simply giving someone a gift doesn't impose any obligations on you, so, from that point of view, child support shouldn't exist at all. I don't think that's what you intend to argue.

 

[chris epic]

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.



As it should be, I think.

A life is a life is a life- the "goo" is equivalent to the prehistoric, primordial, microbial ooze....you know, our great great great....grandparents

In the same way, a baby isn't "morally" what ever that means) like an adult, a born baby is a potential adult. And its not just a religious belief, its biology- ask almost any biologist and they'll tell you that life for any organizm, starts at conception.

 

[chris epic]

(You should also be a frickin' parent and not just a paycheque, but that is perhaps a different topic).
QUOTE]

Thank you! You just hit the nail right on the head. That's exactly the premise behind this case. Fathers, now more than ever, are trying to step away from the presumtion that they are merely paychecks as upposed to other, more important forms of child support, like emotional involvement, and PARENTING.....

 

[toddjh]

Um, what else do you say "law" refers to, specifically?

"Equal protection under the law" means that the law must not tolerate a situation under which people (or groups of people) are granted or denied rights without just cause. It doesn't matter whether that situation is a stated goal or an unintended side effect.

 

[toddjh]

A life is a life is a life

So you're a vegan, eh? Or else maybe you concede that not all lives are equal?

ETA: Scratch that -- plants are alive, too. By all rights, you should be starving, shouldn't you? And of course you kill thousands of microbes (hey, "a life is a life") just by breathing.

 

[chris epic]

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

I kinda see what's going on. Its very difficult or impossible for a father to terminate his parental rights, before birth and especially after birth. So from your "if/then" statement- fatherless children becomes an economic detriment, not a moral detriment.

 

[mumblethrax]

Well, maybe not "risk-free," but I see no reason why the government should enforce a system which causes more risk to one gender than the other when a remedy would be easy to implement.

I question whether the risks are greater for men. There's no such thing as paternity mortality. It's much easier to transmit HIV from men to women than the other way around. The risk of having to pay child support just doesn't stack up.

It's discrimination on the basis of sex. Women are able to avoid the legal, personal, and financial obligations of parenthood, while men are not.

Hmm? They can not have sex. They can get vasectomies. Men have precisely the same right to police their own reproductive organs as women do. Do you really think it's impossible to avoid those obligations? It might be impossible to avoid them and also have sex (with a women), but if you want to have sex you accept the attendant risks. Just like women do.

I know it's tempting to respond by saying, "it's biology," but if you really want to argue that point, the current system of child support is already a government attempt to remedy a biological inequality.

The distinction is between rational and irrational attempts to do so.

It's silly now to turn around and say that the government has no right to adjust its remedy a bit in the opposite direction in the interests of preserving equal protection.

Oh, I think it makes a great deal of sense to do so. I just don't think you've demonstrated that there are any equal protection issues at stake.

The government is not, and shouldn't be, in the business of rewarding, punishing, or subsidizing personal choices.

Here are some things I'd like you to reconcile with that statement: tax deductions and credits, utility line taxes, sales taxes, Medicare, Medicaid, drug laws, seatbelt laws, drunk driving laws, public exposure laws, public urination laws, smoking bans...you know, it would probably be easier to list government actions that don't fall into this category.

You might still argue that government shouldn't do these things, but you certainly can't argue that is doesn't. Some European countries have begun doing exactly what I suggested in the face of declining birth rates: subsidizing reproduction.

I don't say that it's irrelevant, I just say that the law is not powerless to address that particular inequality.

The law is not powerless to address any particular inequality, it's just a matter of whether we want to live in a Harrison Bergeron world or not.

Why not? You can, as a matter of contract, specify how other gifts you give are to be used. If you insist on looking at it in that context, I would argue that expressing your desire not to have children, and/or using birth control, constitutes a verbal or implied contract that the "gift" is not to be used in that fashion.

And I would be uncomfortable with taking an assertion that she said she was sterile and on the pill (neither of which constitute an agreement not to bring a resulting pregnancy to term) as evidence of an implied contract. And these cases will always be about he-said she-said.

Keep in mind that the effect of introducing consent into paternity cases will be to shift the burden of proof away from men and onto women. Instead of cases were men claim to have been misled about birth control, and effectively have no hope of proving it, we'll have cases where women will claim to have been misled about a desire to father and support a child, and will have no way to prove it or to object to the unilateral opt out. That doesn't seem like any kind of remedy to me.