Court Strongly Rejects “Choice For Men” Civil Rights Lawsuit
| July 27th, 2006Via Red State Feminist, a pdf file of the court’s ruling can be found here. The court ruled “that the plaintiff’s claim is frivolous, unreasonable, and without foundation.”
Here’s a bit of the ruling:
According to the pleadings, Dubay commenced a personal relationship with defendant Lauren Wells, dated her, engaged in intimate sexual relations, impregnated her, terminated his relationship, and sued her for bearing his child. If chivalry is not dead, its viability is gravely imperiled by the plaintiff in this case.
But chivalry is not the issue here, nor does it provide a basis upon which to decide the legal and policy issues that Dubay seeks to advance through this litigation. Rather, the plaintiff contends that Michigan’s paternity statutes are repugnant to the United States Constitution’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses because he has no say, he argues, in the decision whether to beget and bear a child. Therefore, he insists, he ought not to be saddled with the financial responsibility of the child’s support, and he should receive damages from the private and public defendants who are attempting to exact that toll from him.
The plaintiff’s claims have been rejected by every court that has considered similar matters, and with good reason. The plaintiff’s suggestion that the support provisions of the Michigan Paternity Act implicates the Equal Protection Clause does not find support in the jurisprudence. First, the Act’s provisions apply only if a child is born and essentially do not concern anyone’s right to choose to be a parent.
Second, the statutory provisions are facially neutral, requiring both parents equally to support the child.
Third, the plaintiff argues that enforcing the Act’s provisions, without any deviation from the neutral language of those provisions, still can implicate the Equal Protection Clause because of an underlying inequality: the State’s recognition that women can choose to be parents and men cannot. This argument in turn is based on the existence of a right supposedly grounded in substantive due process, as the plaintiff acknowledged at oral argument. But the Sixth Circuit has squarely rejected the argument that fairness or reciprocity generates a substantive right to avoid child support on the theory that a woman has the right to bring to term or terminate a pregnancy on her own.
Finally, the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate in even the most remote way that state action plays a role in the interference with his choice to reject parenthood. The consequences of sexual intercourse have always included conception, and the State has nothing to do with this historical truism. Because the plaintiff has failed to state a colorable claim in his amended complaint, the Court will dismiss the complaint against all the defendants. In addition, the Court finds that the plaintiff’s claim is frivolous, unreasonable, and without foundation. Therefore, the Court will grant the State’s motion for attorney fees….
The above is pretty much the “executive summary” section of the judgement; read the whole thing if you’d like to see the arguments developed in more detail.
NOTE FOR COMMENTS: Please don’t post about how you have an income of $500 a month and the judge ordered you to pay $2000 a month in child support to your ungrateful lazy ex-spouse who spends all the child support money on dresses she can wear to the track and she earns more than you do anyway and the judge won’t even reply to your motions. Unless I know both you and your ex-spouse, and can hear her side of the story for myself, I don’t think anecdotal evidence of that sort really helps advance the discussion.
July 28th, 2006 at 6:55 am
Complicated decision, but I guess that’s the best we can hope for when the underlying biology is so obviously biased. It seemed to me that this version of “choice for men” accomplished nothing but leaving all consequences squarely on the woman who dared to have sex. After all, when two people have sex she gets pregnant, or not. If she gets pregnant, she has a baby or not. Whether she carries to term, has a miscarriage, or undergoes an abortion, I can’t see how anyone can argue she’s not taking responsibility for her choices and taking the consequences in stride. Given the cold hard facts of pregnancy, women don’t have a choice whether or not to take the consequences. If she has the child, she keeps the child or not. Keeping the child, she’s pouring her time and income into the child in which case the primary responsibilities and burdens are hers. If she gives the child up for adoption, she has the emotional consequences and whatever physical ramifications she was left with, but both she and the father are “off the hook” financially.
Then there’s the father. When he has sex he impregnates or not, neither result alters his body’s homeostasis at all though he might have some emotional response (some men don’t, let’s not discount them, and some men don’t know for one reason or another). If he impregnates, she carries to term or she does not. Presumably he can suffer emotional consequences either way or he might not, entirely depending on his temperament. If she doesn’t carry to term, he’s not obligated in any way to pay a dime (though many gentlemen do pay for medical procedures), his body hasn’t been involved for anything but the sex, and his emotions may or may not have been affected. If she carries to term, she may keep the child or not. If she doesn’t keep the child, he can adopt them in which case he certainly has consequences for the decision to adopt in that he is now raising and paying for them, but she’s just as on the hook for payment as he would be if she’d kept the child. If he doesn’t adopt… no financial consequences implicit, no bodily consequences implicit, nothing but his emotional entanglement. I’d argue the emotional consequences are not the realm of legislation and are so variable we can’t really make any pronouncements on them one way or other other.
In other words, no matter what happens: once there’s a pregnancy the woman is on the hook for boatloads of physical, financial, and legal consequences (pregnancy doesn’t come cheap, although she might get it subsidized through adoption), not to mention the unavoidable emotional consequences she may or may not have but, given her unavoidable daily, intimate involvement in the situation plus hormones probably will. The man, on the other hand, is definitely on the hook for whatever emotional consequences he’s liable to have and may be up for some financial and legal consequences if his “worst case scenario” develops. Even so, his financial and legal consequences won’t be comparable to hers even if he is on the hook for child support, presuming he didn’t want the child and didn’t adopt them. This version of “choice for men” means the man in question would be left holding some potential emotional consequences and nothing else, while the woman in question, regardless how the pregnancy proceeds or doesn’t, is left holding all consequences. Whatever happened to “it takes two to tango?” Doesn’t seem equal in the least. Actually, the current system doesn’t seem remotely equal since the woman handles all the consequences up until birth and then the law ostensibly views men and women equally, but that’s biology and the flipside is that the woman whose biology is personally effected have a say in managing the effect an unintended pregnancy has on their body which has a mitigating effect on those upfront consequences.
Is it fair? No. Is it equal? No. Is it the State’s fault? No, I’m afraid the State couldn’t legislate away this can of worms if it desperately, desperately tried (although holding fathers accountable for their offspring at all was an attempt). Certainly I understand how frustrating the situation is for the men caught in it: they don’t have a say in this event of major importance to their lives. Neither did any of us have a say when we were born and we’re not going to have much of a say when we die, some things just work out that way. How on earth are we supposed to improve the situation? Giving men a say after the fact is a legal fiction, generally a very bad idea, and extremely tempting because it holds no penalties for the man. He can avoid the payments and legal obligations, then years later have a mid-life crisis and get back in contact. Or the child will get curious and contact them. They get to be a father when they feel like it, if they feel like it, but the reality is different and it hasn’t changed.
In one form or another, this has always been a bone of contention and always will be. For what it’s worth, I would never have the child of someone who didn’t absolutely want to be a father and I’d advocate that approach to all women, but it’s nothing something one can legislate.
This comment was written by TheGlimmering.Report this comment to the moderators
July 28th, 2006 at 7:11 am
Glimmering, yes women are the ones who get pregnant.
Beyond the unavoidable biology, exactly what arguments against male choice do not apply to female choice?
After a woman gets pregnant, but before the third trimester, there is no child.
If you don’t like thinking of it as “male abortion” think of it as putting the child up for adoption.
This comment was written by Rob.Report this comment to the moderators
July 28th, 2006 at 7:26 am
Rob, the statutes are gender-neutral. If the woman did not want to be a parent, and she gives birth, she is still legally on the hook as a parent.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
July 28th, 2006 at 8:17 am
For what it’s worth, I would never have the child of someone who didn’t absolutely want to be a father and I’d advocate that approach to all women, but it’s nothing something one can legislate.
Well, it may not be something one SHOULD legislate. But you probably CAN do so without trampling on Constitutional rights.
These folks argue that even when you leave out the disturbing concept of a father having the right to force an abortion on a woman who didn’t want it, there is still a big gap left between that (which is truly frightening) and the current state of the law vis a vis child support, paternity, etc. So in theory you could elect to legislate anywhere within that gap, or outside it (e.g. you could make child support/paternity laws even more stringent.)
Similarly, they often argue that even if you leave out the equally disturbing concept of a father having the right to prevent an abortion even if the woman wants it, there is a gap left (a much much smaller one in this case) between that and issues regarding mental distress, etc, esp. between unmarried folks.
I have seen both arguments put forward numerous times. The first one is much stronger both from a moral and legal sense, and is usually the main one they focus on. Though it’s still a losing argument in court, as we can see here, for a variety of reasons. In particular, the state can always pull the “best interests of the child” magic bunny out of the hat, and it’s pretty damn impossible to win that argument.
Personally I’m somewhat of a free will contract advocate, so I’d have no problem with men and women being allowed to contract out of the default future child support/paternity/maternity agreements if they so chose. I’d be in favor of enforcing those agreements under contract law: at least it’d prompt folks to talk about these things before they went and had sex. But that is a different topic entirely.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 28th, 2006 at 8:20 am
Indeed they are however there is the option of abortion, Roe vs Wade isn’t just about bodily integrity, its also about financial and mental, and a child will have a mental and financial (and likely physical) effect on the father as well as the mother. Men should imo have the option to opt out, or perhaps better an opt in as then it cannot be used as a weapon against the mother.
This comment was written by Sarah.Report this comment to the moderators
July 28th, 2006 at 9:22 am
Therefore, the Court will grant the State’s motion for attorney fees…. The above is pretty much the “executive summary” section of the judgement; read the whole thing if you’d like to see the arguments developed in more detail. posted 2:52 am at Alas, a blog
This comment was written by feminist blogs.Report this comment to the moderators
July 28th, 2006 at 9:59 am
It has never seemed fair to me that women have this abundance of choice in regards to having a child and men have zero less they be a dead beat dad. And even that comes with financial and criminal penalities. Women have birth control options(Abstinence, Condoms, Patch, Pills, Shot, IUD) They also have choice regarding an unwanted pregnancy (Morning After pill, Abortion, Abortion pill). They can also opt out after having the baby (Safe Haven, Adoption). This is complete disregard to the emtions or financial stability of the father. All without any criminal or financial penaltie
Lets see, men have birth control (Abstinence, Condoms) or they could opt out or be unable to afford a child and be seen as the scourge of society.
Hardly seems fair or right. I am currently 4 months pregnant. I told my husband the way things are now, I could decide on my lunch break i don’t want to do this, go downtown, take the next day off and the day after have no baby. Without his knowledge or consent, this is something that would completely crush him emotionally.
But my mind set is you should never have sex with anyone you don’t want to have a child with. But thats just me.
I’m am 100 percent in agreement with choice for men.
This comment was written by Z.Report this comment to the moderators
July 28th, 2006 at 10:12 am
I’ve got the same answer for this guy that I’d have for a woman; if you don’t want to deal with the consequences of fathering a child, keep your pants on. If you wanted to have sex but didn’t want to start a child and took contraceptive measures, too bad; sometimes they fail and that’s a known risk you accept when you use them. And if your partner said that they were using contraception and either it failed or they lied, once again too bad; once again, a known risk.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
July 28th, 2006 at 10:29 am
Mythago, if a woman does not want to be a parent, she can place the child up for adoption, or abandon it(in some states) without any consequences, legal or financial. If the child goes to foster care, she cannot be imprisoned for not paying child support.
RonF, that at least is a consistent position, at least it is if you think abortion should be reclassified as first degree murder.
This comment was written by Rob.Report this comment to the moderators
July 28th, 2006 at 10:46 am
Hi Ampersand. Very glad to see you talking about this again! I loved all your past blogs on this issue - you’re very eloquent. (For those who want to find a few of them, search on “Ampersand” and “drinking brandy” - that’s how I look them up.)
Here’s what I posted here a couple of years ago:
What the C4M’s keep arguing, in not so many words, is that a man’s right not to use birth control - or not to campaign for better BC - is more sacred than his kid’s right to be fed and clothed. Or that bodily autonomy is no more sacred than a wallet - i.e., that a woman’s right to an abortion is no more sacred than a man’s right to his bank account. (Isn’t that pretty much the same argument used by those governments that cut off the hands of convicted thieves?)
See Katha Pollitt’s piece below (this should beVERY eye-opening to some who’ve posted today on this issue):
http://tinyurl.com/6k2ue
I can’t help but wonder whether the C4M’s WOULD bother to take advantage of better male birth control if they had it. If all men took full advantage, they could practically turn the U.S. into a patriarchy again - sort of a male version of “Lysistrata,” if you will! Not to mention why there’s little loud demand for it in the first place. Even columnist Cathy Young - whom I respect quite a bit - has yet to comment on the male lack of interest in male birth control!
I also want to hear what the ACLU’s Wendy Kaminer would say…
Comments?
This comment was written by lenona.Report this comment to the moderators
July 28th, 2006 at 11:11 am
she can place the child up for adoption
Not unilaterally. Unless the father’s rights have been severed, he has a say in the adoption. Surely I’m not the only one who remembers some very famous cases where adoptions were reversed because, post-adoption, bio-dad found out he was a father.
or abandon it(in some states) without any consequences, legal or financial
You misstate the law. In California, these ’safe baby’ statutes say that a mother or a father who leaves a baby at certain designated places, such as a hospital, will not be prosecuted for abandonment. That abandonment doesn’t automatically cut off either the mother’s or the father’s rights. The hope of these laws is that desperate parents will leave their babies at a hospital, not in a Dumpster. They’re not a ‘get out of child support free’ card.
If the child goes to foster care, she cannot be imprisoned for not paying child support.
Are you saying that in your state, the law holds that only fathers, but not mothers, are liable for child support if their child is in foster care for any reason?
The bottom line is that women are just as much on the hook as men. The only difference is that women sometimes have the option of getting an abortion, and sometimes may put a child up for adoption. But “I didn’t want to have sex” or “the condom broke” or “My husband locked me in the basement for nine months and prevented me from having an abortion” or “I didn’t want to be a mother” do not excuse a woman from her legal obligations to her child, either.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
July 28th, 2006 at 11:26 am
Well, lenona, if you’re going to ask for comments…
I am not a C4M advocate, and never will be: There are better uses of my time and a lot of the C4M folks have nasty anti-woman politics which I dislike.
But c’mon, enough of the straw men already. And there are a lot of them here, fertile or no.
First:
I can’t help but wonder whether the C4M’s WOULD bother to take advantage of better male birth control if they had it. …Even columnist Cathy Young - whom I respect quite a bit - has yet to comment on the male lack of interest in male birth control!
Who are all these “uninterested” men who don’t care about male birth control? You mean the ones under development that they can’t buy yet? I don’t think you have to wonder at all. Perhaps you missed Katha Pollitt’s link:
Ahhhh, THOSE uninterested men. My mistake. And you think a noninjectable pill wouldn’t get interest?
Let’s open up the rest of the straw bales here, shall we?
What the c4m’s keep arguing, in so many words, is that a man’s right not to use birth control…is more sacred than his kid’s right to be fed and clothed.
Nope. nasty missstatement. If I were to summarize the C4M position, I’d say:
Kids can be fed and clothed by men, women, both, or society. The responsibility for feeding and clothing a child should be proportional to the desire to actually have a child and/or act accordingly.
This may not even be accurate. I don’t think the C4M position is anti-BC. Instead, I think it has more to do with the rights and burdens which result from an unagreed-on pregnancy, whether accidental or not.
a man’s right not to …campaign for better BC - is more sacred than his kid’s right to be fed and clothed.
Ok, not only have you invented some random “right not to campaign for better BC” here but… oh hell, this is so silly it’s hard to respond. I have never heard this one. Would you mind providing some nice quotes, in context? I promise I won’t start talking about women not failing to exercise their right not to campaign against men not campaigning for male BC, because I get my nots mixed up.
Or that bodily autonomy is no more sacred than a wallet - i.e., that a woman’s right to an abortion is no more sacred than a man’s right to his bank account.
There are surely antiabortion C4M folks. I don’t really read their stuff though.
However, you’ve pretty much stated the worst case of idiocy which is “my wallet> your uterus.” As I discussed above, there’s a lot of grey area. Uterus “wins” easily IMO, but that does NOT mean “wallet = 0″ it only means “uterus > wallet”.
(Isn’t that pretty much the same argument used by those governments that cut off the hands of convicted thieves?)
…and this is relevant how?
It’s hard to have a discussion about the flaws of the ACTUAL c4m movement if we are, instead, forced to discuss the c4m movement dressed in a straw gorilla suit. That’s why I’m replying here.
BTW, Lorena, I am curious as to whether you’re of the “if you don’t want to deal with the consequences of fathering a child, keep your pants on” camp. And, if so, how are your relations with your prochoice acquaintances?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 28th, 2006 at 11:34 am
Uterus “wins” easily IMO, but that does NOT mean “wallet = 0″ it only means “uterus > wallet”.
Why is the debate framed purely in terms of “uterus” vs. “wallet”? Are these supposed to be each parent’s only investments? I’m sure there are plenty of men who don’t wish to be fathers, not because of the price tag, but because they do not want the moral responsibility of fatherhood. Yet the debate seems to come down, always, to child support.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
July 28th, 2006 at 11:58 am
I dunno why, Mythago. But when I see c4m folks pop up it’s usually about money.
I’ve got my guesses as to why, curious to hear yours. In no particular order, my guesses are:
1) It may be that in theory you can disclaim some of the moral issues by offering your choid up for adoption, for example. If you believe (as I do) that there is no inherent harm in adoption, then the moral responsibility of fatherhood is somewhat easier to avoid.
2) they adopt an adaptation of the typical prochoice argument:
-Adults will have sex;
-Some will get pregnant even if they try not to;
-the moral responsibility (if any) derives from choice and control. No choice, no control >> no moral responsibility.
3) It’s easier to talk about money, and easier to attack child support.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 28th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
Legally women always (before a certain point in the pregnancy) have the choice to abort. A woman who does not want a child does not have to have one. Period. You may think this is horrible law, and that abortion truly is murder, legally, this is not the case. Every child is the result solely of the mother’s choice.
Mythago, it is my understanding that in my state, a women who does not want to be on the hook for 18 years of child support can, if she so desires, make the choice of aborting the embryo.
The point at which men should be able to opt out of any responsibility for a child should match the points at which a woman can opt out of having a child or having financial responsibility for the child.
As to baby drop off, do you honestly think if the father took the baby, without the mother’s consent, and dropped it off, that should take him off the hook, or that he would not be prosecuted. Dropping of the baby does not end rights, but it probably ends responsibility.
Probably C4M revolves around money because the courts can force child support, but cannot force love or concern.
On adoption, if a woman does not list a father on the birth certificate, how could he oppose the adoption? Aditionally, very few of the C4M people are against abortion.
This comment was written by Rob.Report this comment to the moderators
July 28th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
Rob,
before I respond I’d like to be positive I understand what you’re saying.
I think you’re saying this, in essence:
So long as a woman can get a legal abortion, and so long as someone (he/she) can pay for it, then the man should be able to opt out. At which point the woman will have two choices: 1) Abort; or 2) Bear a child knowing the father will not assist her.
Is that a correct summary?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 28th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
I’m pretty much in agreement with TheGlimmering, who I think covered most angles of this argument in her comment. No matter what happens–abortion, miscarriage, carrying to term–the woman is strongly affected after the pregnancy, either physically or emotionally or both, and this can’t be said of men. So it’s absurd to say that women currently have all the “choices” while men don’t. Once conception happens, the woman’s body is going to be affected and she doesn’t have a bit of choice about that.
This comment was written by The Grouch.Report this comment to the moderators
July 28th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
Well I believe since we have to 100 percent bear the brunt childbearing, as nature has designed, it is 100 percent our responsibility to make sure an unwanted pregnancy does not happen outside of being raped in any form.(which is the only way I could see a woman being impregnanted without her consent). This means using all available means of birth control and/or practicing absintence or limited sex to men you are willing to procreate with.
If a woman CHOOSES to bear a child outside of those limits they should be willing to raise a child financially, emotionally, and physically alone whatever the impact such child may have on their bodies. Lets not talk about we don’t have any choice. In most cases we have a choice lay down with men.
A man, since he is not responsible physically for the burden of a child, but emotionally and financially, should assume that any woman he puts his penis in is a potential mother to one of his children and he should use all available birth control options given to him, including abstinence. If he chooses to have sex outside of the limit he should expect to bear finanically and emotional reponsibilty for any offspring.
HOWEVER
So far as abortion is legal and women have the many options of not being burdened with responsibilities of parenthood(and its financial and life impact cost) or the effect on her body a man should also have an option. It takes two to make a baby.
This comment was written by Z.Report this comment to the moderators
July 28th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
This is the kind of issue that I’d want to reserve judgment except on a case by case basis. There are too many variables to make a solid case for one ideal situation. However, I can understand why courts can’t possibly mediate individual cases. Any law around this will be unfair to someone, but I think current legislation errs in the right direction. It ensures a bit of a brighter future for a child who is less impoverished than without support from or contact with dad.
I ended up pregnant in a rebound relationship. I decided to have the baby, but recognized the father’s right to have a say. I wasn’t about to allow him a say over whether or not I abort - it’s my body; but I did let him choose between sticking around to enjoy the child and help pay for it, or leaving scott free with no money requested nor visitation allowed. BUT, I had decided to have the baby from a solid emotional and financial position. Not all women who find themselves pregnant have that luxury.
Some argue that if, at 8-weeks pregnant, a woman can choose to have or not have the baby, the father should also be allowed to choose to parent or not. It sounds reasonable in theory. But a man choosing to leave might create ongoing suffering for the child. And that should never be someone’s right.
But it IS so dependent on the people involved.
This comment was written by Sage.Report this comment to the moderators
July 28th, 2006 at 3:50 pm
As to baby drop off, do you honestly think if the father took the baby, without the mother’s consent, and dropped it off, that should take him off the hook, or that he would not be prosecuted.
Do you honestly think a law written to prevent babies from being left in a Dumpster or a toilet to die by mothers or fathers, and which is specifically written to include both mothers and fathers, somehow does not apply to mothers and fathers?
On adoption, if a woman does not list a father on the birth certificate, how could he oppose the adoption?
If the woman does not list a father on the birth certificate, how can he consent to the adoption so that it may legally take place?
A woman who does not want a child does not have to have one. Period.
Rob, repeating things that are false does not make them true. I have a right to own a mansion overlooking Puget Sound. Does that mean if I want a mansion overlooking Puget Sound I will get one, period? Of course not. You’re assuming that any woman who wants an abortion can get one. You assume that she has physical access to a facility that provides abortion and that she can afford one, merely because she has the ‘right’.
You also keep skipping past the point that once a child is born, both parents are financially and legally responsible. That is regardless of whether they wanted to be parents. If I get hit by a car tomorrow, go into a coma, and wake up nine months later to find I had a baby, do you honestly think that I am legally allowed to say “I didn’t want that baby, I didn’t get to choose an abortion, so I don’t owe the kid child support and I don’t have to be its mother”?
Z, why does childbearing have anything to do with responsibility for conception? Presumably everyone who consents to sex is consenting to the risk, however small, of pregnancy.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
July 28th, 2006 at 3:50 pm
Z and I cross-posted. I want to add that I’ve never in my life had unprotected sex, and I have three beautiful children to show for it. I was on the pill for my first, and I took it every day at the same time of day. It’s not 100%. Then, since I hate the pill anyway, and it didn’t work for me, I started using a diaphram. I got pregnant again. Also not 100% - in fact way less after the first child even if it’s newly fitter - good to know! Finally, before my guy moved in with me I decided to have a freaking tubal ligation!!! I was told to stop all sex for two weeks after the operation, then I’d be good to go. We waited a month. Six-weeks later I found out I was pregnant. My obgyn had warned me that even sterilization isn’t 100%, but it’s pretty darn close. I’m the first in her 10-year practice to get pregnant. My mom (who has two kids less than 10 months apart) told me we’re just built for making babies. Lucky bloody me!
Life’s a page turner!
This comment was written by Sage.Report this comment to the moderators
July 28th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
I have a right to own a mansion overlooking Puget Sound. Does that mean if I want a mansion overlooking Puget Sound I will get one, period? Of course not. You’re assuming that any woman who wants an abortion can get one.
That’s a practical question, not an issue of rights. You and I both have 1st amendment rights; we have variable levels of access to printing presses.
It doesn’t undermine my right to freedom of the press that there aren’t any printing presses for rent in (wherever-you-live).
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 28th, 2006 at 4:14 pm
Sage there are always exceptions.That is why all options for birth control and unwanted pregnancies should be available.
I myself am a product of an exception. A father, signed the birth certificate, then decided to not bear any responsibilty. My mother struggled, fought, and had to suffer the humiliation of being on welfare. (back then it was embarassing) Then he decided marriy my mother, had another child with her willingly, divorced her then left her holding the bag for both of us. By him signing my birth cert there was an assumption he was taking responsibilty for me, he made no claims otherwis, then he doesn’t uphold his end.
MYTHAGO
“You also keep skipping past the point that once a child is born, both parents are financially and legally responsible. That is regardless of whether they wanted to be parents. If I get hit by a car tomorrow, go into a coma, and wake up nine months later to find I had a baby, do you honestly think that I am legally allowed to say “I didn’t want that baby, I didn’t get to choose an abortion, so I don’t owe the kid child support and I don’t have to be its mother”?
Z, why does childbearing have anything to do with responsibility for conception? Presumably everyone who consents to sex is consenting to the risk, however small, of pregnancy. ”
You could give your kid up for adoption and sever all your legal and financial responsibilities to it. Thereby saying you don’t want it. This discussion is about more than abortio.n
And as far as I know, the most common way to have to suffer childbearing is to have sex. And I doubt women having invitro are doing it just for fun not expecting the result of a child.
This comment was written by Z.Report this comment to the moderators
July 28th, 2006 at 4:33 pm
Robert, that’s just the point. “You have a right to an abortion, some restrictions apply” is not the same as “no woman ever has to have a child if she doesn’t want to”.
Z, you have to have both parents agree to put the child up for adoption, or have one parent’s responsibilities severed . If I wake up with a new baby, and my husband doesn’t want to put the child up for adoption, I can’t say “Well I do, so the child support and responsibility are 100% yours, buster.”
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
July 28th, 2006 at 5:08 pm
mythago,
This comment was written by Sage.If I wake up tomorrow with a new baby, as a single woman I can write “father unknown” on the birth certificate and give it up for adoption without even letting the dad know we conceived a kid. I don’t need the father’s agreement or knowledge at all.
Report this comment to the moderators
July 28th, 2006 at 5:56 pm
Robert, that’s just the point. “You have a right to an abortion, some restrictions apply”
But feminists acknowledge no restrictions on the right to abortion - it’s supposed to be free and unfettered - or do I misunderstand on that point?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 28th, 2006 at 8:06 pm
Safe,
This comment was written by Lucia.If you can simply write “father unknown”, put the child up for adoption and have the stick over a father’s objections, then you must not live in the US. There have been court cases where fathers learned of their children, sued and the adoption was reversed. In that case, the biological mother is still on the line for child support.
Report this comment to the moderators
July 28th, 2006 at 9:31 pm
If I wake up tomorrow with a new baby, as a single woman I can write “father unknown” on the birth certificate and give it up for adoption without even letting the dad know we conceived a kid.
Better hope he doesn’t find out. Apparently Oregon is a popular state for adoption for precisely that reason–there is a law in Oregon that if an unmarried father isn’t present and involved with the mother during the pregnancy, he can’t veto an adoption. It is apparently unique in this respect, and adoptive parents who don’t want any rude surprises prefer adopting there for this reason.
Robert, I’m talking about reality, not theory. Abortion is not available to any woman who wants it, free, whenver and for whatever reason she wants it, as Rob thinks.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2006 at 3:05 am
But feminists acknowledge no restrictions on the right to abortion - it’s supposed to be free and unfettered - or do I misunderstand on that point?
I believe mythago is talking about reality, not feminist goals. In real life, in the U.S., there are quite a number of legal restrictions on abortion. ( That’s where the “mansion overlooking Puget Sound” comparison falls apart.)
This comment was written by Elinor.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2006 at 3:06 am
Whoops! Cross-post. Sorry, mythago.
This comment was written by Elinor.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2006 at 6:23 am
An adoption can only proceed if the father is not officially known. A mother can put unknown on a birth certificate. Many private adoptors will happily continue the process without a second thought as to birth father. She can also put her child up for adoption with baby in utero without the father’s knowledge by simply stating that the father is unknown. Only if, and ONLY IF the father is made aware of the adoption in due time and has the MEANS of fighting it than he MAY be successful in blocking the process. This is only the case if the father has the financial means of taking the adoption agency, the mother and the adoptive parents to court. If he doesn’t have the means to hire good legal council, best interest of the child, and the bias for mother in the legal system will beat him out. He has another point against him if he is seen as unfit compared to a 2 parent stable household the child might adopted into. Especially if he is young or unwed or not gainfully employed. He is always treated as an intruder or the enemy. His other problem is time. If he is assuming his child is going to be with its mother and does not contest the adoption within 30 days, or has no knowledge of it past that he is seen as given consent to the adoption. If the child has been immediately placed into the custody of the 3rd party right after birth than it becomes even more impossible because there is the bonding issues.
It is possible for a father to win over in adoptions, but it is an extremely hard and costly fight. Esepcially against adoptive parents that are desperately seeking to have a child in their hands.
This comment was written by Z.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2006 at 7:39 am
I think the old feminst point about how technically ‘neutral’ provisions can have enormous gender bias does get a running here. If Robert impregnanted Mythago she would automatically have custody after the birth and could drop the baby off at a safe haven if she wished. His chances of getting custody and being able to do the same would essentially be zero.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2006 at 7:50 am
Nik wrote:
What makes you so sure? Dividing the Child, a well-regarded book I’ve often seen cited by men’s rights activists, concluded that there isn’t enough evidence to conclude that courts are biased in men’s favor (or in women’s favor) in custody cases. (I’ve seen anecdotal evidence going both ways, of course, but that doesn’t tell us anything about the system as a whole.)
I’ve seen MRAs make this claim (that men can’t use safe haven laws) a lot. However, I’ve never seen any evidence that save haven drop-offs refuse to accept babies dropped off by men, or that they arrest men who drop off babies. Given what safe haven laws say (outside of Georgia), I’d find this remarkable if it were true. Nik, do you have ANY evidence at all that these things are happening, or is this just something you assume to be true?
(In contrast, I think there’s a lot of solid evidence that marketplace discrimination against women does exist - it’s not just something feminists pulled out of our collective ears and expect everyone else to accept on faith).
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2006 at 8:02 am
If the mother of the child didn’t consent to the safe haven drop-off and the father then proceded to take the child and drop it off, then wouldn’t our current system be seen as being guitly of custodial interferance if not out right kidnapping?
It is easier for a mother do drop off the infant given that she has default custody from birth. Just as the reality of abortion makes it difficult if not impossible for some women to get them - the reality of the safe haven laws make it difficult for a father to use them.
That being said, I still feel that as an adult that has chosen to have sex then unless the mother and father both agree to sever ties to the child, then the child should be supported by both the mother and the father.
And this is totally anecdotal, but I have a friend that put a child up for adoption without telling the three potential fathers. She simply left the father’s spot on the birth certificate blank, and then proceded with a private adoption to parents out of state. Ten years later and the fathers still do not know of the child and at this point it would be near impossible because of “best interests of the child” to over turn the adoption by anyone.
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2006 at 8:07 am
How many of these potential fathers ever use condoms? The guy in this case didn’t, and he’s upset because despite the precautions he didn’t take conception resulted and he can’t push it all away. What a guy.
Just because men can get away with not using contraception doesn’t meant they should, and in fact if they’re not using contraception they get no sympathy at all.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2006 at 8:19 am
Ginmar,
I don’t know if they were using bc or not (the woman or the men). And I agree if a man chooses to not use bc then he is as responsible for the resulting conception than the mother is even though she bears all the physical impact of the pregnancy.
I tend to believe our current laws are fine, but that there are some rare cases that should be looked at individually. As in the case of another of my friends, she deliberately misled her partner by telling him that she’d had a hysterectomy. Admittedly, this woman suffers from bi-polar disorder. But my feelings are that in this case, the man should have some options open to him other than those existing.
Like I stated, cases like the one I mentioned are very rare, and are exceptions to the normal situations seen in court. Men should always use condoms if they do not wish to be fathers, and if that desire is life long, then they should have a vasectomy and use a condom to ensure no conception can occur.
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2006 at 8:46 am
Amp,
I just made the claim on the basis that I think it’s bleeding obvious that the mother will get custody at birth.
The argument’s just one from incredulity. I don’t think it would be possible to bring a custody or paternity action in so short a timeframe (even ignoring that they would delay the case until the mother had recovered from labour and could give advice to lawyers). And if it came down to it - and I doubt it ever has - I don’t think a judge would use either the ‘best interests of the child’ or ‘primary caregiver’ standard to justify taking a newborn from a nursing mother who has just given birth and giving it to the father.
Please don’t misunderstand my point. I’m not making any general claim that custody is ‘biased’ against men - in the sense that men who reach a given standard have a tougher time than women who reach that standard. I’m not complaining about the standards courts use for judgement being bias. I’m just saying, in practice, there is no way Robert would be able to take possession of the child in the timeframe needed to use a drop off unless Mythago allowed it.
Apart from I think 4 or 5 states the laws all allow men drop off babies. That’s my point about a technically ‘neutral’ provisions. But I just can’t see how, unless the mother gave him the child, a father could legally get his hands on a child to drop it off.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2006 at 8:48 am
Robert, I’m talking about reality, not theory.
Precisely my point. There is a theoretical right to reproductive freedom, and then some practical limitations on that right.
And you’re using those practical realities as an argument against a theoretical right on the man’s side of things. You are, in effect, saying that I don’t have a 1st amendment right because you don’t have a printing press. But in fact, my theoretical 1st amendment rights are the same as yours, regardless of which of us has what physical property.
Similarly, under the “reproductive choice” rubric, if humans have this theoretical reproductive autonomy, then we all have it.
I find C4M morally repugnant - but (correctly formulated) it is no more repugnant than C4W. If we’re going to permit moral repugnancy in the name of freedom, then we at least ought to be consistent about it.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2006 at 9:41 am
What the C4M’s keep arguing, in not so many words,
See Katha Pollitt’s piece below
http://tinyurl.com/6k2ue
Dear Sailorman:
I fear you made a few “errors”:
(Who are all these “uninterested” men who don’t care about male birth control? You mean the ones under development that they can’t buy yet? I don’t think you have to wonder at all. Perhaps you missed Katha Pollitt’s link:
So far, most of the experiments have involved not a pill at all, but weekly injections. Even considering the pain of the injection and the hassle of getting to the doctor’s office every week, men have apparently been lining up for drug trials. Fred Wu, a researcher at the University of Manchester in England, told the South China Morning Post, “When we made a request for volunteers, the switchboard was jammed for several days.”
Ahhhh, THOSE uninterested men. My mistake. And you think a noninjectable pill wouldn’t get interest?)
That was AFTER Pollitt’s column, from another article. What’s more, while men in England or China - no surprise there, what with one-child laws - may crave better methods, men’s rights groups in the U.S. have hardly been loud in the media about demanding them. Maybe that’s why they can’t buy them yet.
Also, I said “arguing in NOT so many words.” You removed “not.”
I admit I’m not as good a writer as Pollitt. As Amp said a while back, bottom line is, once a child is born, it has rights that can’t be signed away, even in advance.
Just check out this bit from Pollitt:
“In the quest to control their fertility, women have demonstrated in the
millions, gone to jail, jammed the polls, put up with the side effects and
health damage, and even died. They pay hundreds of dollars out of pocket every
year for contraception and abortion, and donate millions of dollars and
volunteer hours to Planned Parenthood, NARAL and other groups. How many of the
men complaining that women have all the reproductive options have written a
letter, given a dollar, joined a group, marched or demonstrated to get some for
themselves? Every disease and condition in the country has its advocacy
organization; where is the big fertile-male campaign to forward the development
of a male pill or a reversible vasectomy? Is male-controlled contraception at
the top of the list of demands of any men’s rights group?”
BTW, Lorena, I am curious as to whether you’re of the “if you don’t want to deal with the consequences of fathering a child, keep your pants on” camp. And, if so, how are your relations with your prochoice acquaintances?
This comment was written by lenona.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2006 at 10:03 am
When women can easily impregnate men and men are faced with carrying babies to term, get back to me.
This comment was written by ms_xeno.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2006 at 10:20 am
Apologies, ms_xeno, I’m not following your point.
Yes, men impregnate women, and women bear the children to term (or not). And?
I suppose the underlying question is: do you believe that human beings have reproductive autonomy?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2006 at 10:27 am
I suppose you missed the other 40 billion times that Ampersand has argued the correct point, even though often enough he has argued it directly to you.
The point is that women bear the major burdens and risks borne of reproduction. This is true regardless of whether she aborts or has the baby and deals with the attendent issues. It is thus ridiculous to argue for symmetry where biological symmetry clearly does not exist.
This comment was written by ms_xeno.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2006 at 10:32 am
The point is that women bear the major burdens and risks borne of reproduction. This is true regardless of whether she aborts or has the baby and deals with the attendent issues. It is thus ridiculous to argue for symmetry where biological symmetry clearly does not exist.
This is the argument that patriarchs use to argue against women’s full participation in society.
Women bear the major organic burdens and risks of reproduction. There are many other burdens and risks associated with children, which can be born by any parent (or even kindly stranger). The organic burdens run a high risk for a short period of time; the non-organic burdens run a more moderate risk for two decades-plus. It is not intuitively obvious that womens’ reproductive burden is automatically greater than mens’; the net burdens can be grossly unequal or quite egalitarian, depending on the arrangements reached by the participants.
And you didn’t answer the question.
Do you believe that people have a right to reproductive autonomy?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2006 at 10:54 am
Robert:
How did I know you were going to say that ? You needn’t be coy. Say it. Say, “ms_xeno is using the same argument a sexist male could use to tell women they can’t play pro football.” Except that would be bullshit. Nobody uses their reproductive parts to play football. People use their brains, limbs, hands and feet to play football. There is no biological disymmetry there between men and women. Unlike reproduction, where the disymmetries are glaringly obvious.
Furthermore, the fact that patriarchs use this excuse underscores my point. They use it to avoid the knowledge that if women are going to fully participate in society, they will need things that men don’t now and have never needed. It’s a neat, and classic trick. “We can’t give you special privileges, Honey. It’s we who have decreed that your nature-ordained physiology is inferior, which is why we also get to proclaim that any pro-equality measures which acknowledged this would be special privileges. Now stop complaining. It’s a sign of female weakness, not a sign that you actually have any legitimate complaints.”
Oh, bullshit. How many women in this space who’ve carried babies to term have torn your contention here to shreds ? Not to mention your claim that nine months of even a relatively uncomplicated pregnancy is nothing compared to some poor man having to work his tail off all by his lonesome so his kid can got to college ? I’m not playing this game with you again. It’s old.
Well, it isn’t obvious to a patriarch who lives to play “GOTCHA’” with feminists, at any rate.
Do you ever tire of attempting to back your opponents into corners with questions based upon useless generalizations, and then feigning wonderment that we don’t take your queries seriously ?
I’m not going to repeat myself in an endless loop. My point stands. It’s time for you to find another pigeon now.
This comment was written by ms_xeno.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2006 at 11:07 am
It sounds to me like you are intellectually aware of the contradictions in your autonomy-for-me-but-not-for-thee position, but either are not able or are not willing to address them.
The biological disparities that create a differential in (say) football are certainly less structurally inevitable than those which create a differential in reproduction, but it’s risible to say that they don’t exist.
I’m not sure what your paragraph about women who have given birth is all about. It would seem to support the contention; at childbirth, the bulk of a woman’s unique contribution to the reproductive process is done. (Nursing can extend the process, but on balance nursing seems to be fairly risk neutral.) Your statement about what I am claiming is dishonest, and so I won’t respond to it, other than to flag the dishonesty. Whether a man does the toiling after birth to nurture a child, or whether a woman does, or whether both do, and the relative magnitude of those contributions, is obviously variable. It is therefore intellectually invalid to claim that women always and everywhere have the larger burden. (And thus, arguments predicated upon women’s permanent condition of bearing the whole burden fail.)
Finally, how is my question to you going to back you into a corner? If you DO believe in reproductive autonomy for all people, fine. If you believe in it only for women, fine. I do not think there are any consequences to your beliefs, certainly not within this social space; all my question is attempting to do is get you to clarify them.
Your reluctance to do so pretty much answers the question: your position is cognitively incoherent and boils down to “women should get to do what they want”.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2006 at 11:56 am
I won’t be participating much in this debate, because the only computer I have access to is in a non-air-conditioned area. I’m sweating and sticky just typing this much. It’s gross. But I’m so dedicated to this blog, I’m going to type a response to Robert anyway.
O, how I suffer! You folks don’t appreciate what I go through to you. Did I mention that the walk to the computer is uphill both ways, and despite the 100-degree weather it’s through hip-deep snow? Weird, but there you have it.
I beleive that everyone, male or female, has an absolute right to do whatever they want with their own body to control or prevent their own reproduction.
I also believe that once a child is born both parents, male or female, are responsible for providing their child with needed support. (There are narrow exceptions to this, but by and large the general rule holds true, and the exceptions apply to both sexes).
You’re dishonestly twisting the feminist case to claim that “reproductive autonomy” includes the right for a woman to abandon a born child. But that has never been the claim made by most feminists about “reproductive autonomy.” You’re not finding a contradiction in the feminist views; you’re just setting up a strawman.
You can also fall back on the ridiculous - but commonplace - claim that brains and minds have no moral status whatsoever, and that there is no difference in the moral status of a five-day-old embryo and a five-year-old girl. But you’ve shown again and again that you’re unable to defend that position (or its close relatives) logically, so let’s not go there, please.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
You’re quite right that I can’t make a good logical argument for equating fetuses and babies; luckily, that has absolutely no bearing on the C4M argument, as I understand it.
Don’t overestimate what I’m trying to say - I’m not claiming that reproductive autonomy (for anybody) includes the right to abandon a born child. In fact, it seems that we are in substantial agreement about what “reproductive autonomy” means.
We both agree that before conception, people who don’t want children should act accordingly. (We differ on what “act accordingly” means, but nvm.)
We both agree that after birth, it doesn’t matter whether you want the kid or not; you’re liable to support any born child, with narrow exceptions that we probably do agree on, in the main.
What’s left?
The obligation to support a child that is in the womb.
I believe that both men and women have an obligation to support a child that is in the womb. I believe that if women have the right to terminate their support of such a child, then so do men. If a woman terminates her obligation by terminating the child, she does so into the indefinite future. If a man terminates his obligation by (legally) terminating the relationship between himself and the kid, that also goes into the indefinite future. I really don’t see much difference - other than that the man doesn’t have to kill anybody to exercise his “right”.
You (I think) believe that women have no obligation to support a child that is in the womb, but that men do, if the woman desires that. Which (at least to me) seems to be about on a par with saying that women have an obligation to support a child that is in the womb if the man desires it - which feminists reject as outrageous.
Is that a fair statement?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
You (I think) believe that women have no obligation to support a child that is in the womb, but that men do, if the woman desires that. Which (at least to me) seems to be about on a par with saying that women have an obligation to support a child that is in the womb if the man desires it - which feminists reject as outrageous.
Is that a fair statement?
Robert, I think you’re using radically different meanings of the word support. Support from a man’s perspective means child support. For a woman, it means the use of her body, significant physical health risks, and potential long term effects if the pregnancy isn’t an easy one. I don’t think you can rationally equate physically carrying a pregnancy to term with writing a check. So no, it’s not a fair statement, and it’s remarkable that you’d try and equate the two.
This comment was written by evil_fizz.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
The problem I see here consistantly is that of the physical burden on the mother, when we are address in totality all of the options a mother has to unburden herself of a child once its conceived versus a father.
The abortion argument only works if the sole purpose of the various means that women can unburden themselves of a pregnancy was due to the physical nature of pregnancy and thats it. Many women terminate pregnancy due social and life impacts such a pregnancy would have on them. A baby is in utero maximum 10 months. If it is born a parent is responsible for it for atleast 18 years. That can create a life impact larger than actually carrying the baby to term.
Not one person I know who has has an abortion has done it soley because of the physical burden(an its unfortunate I know many). That was the least of their worries.
GIMNAR
“Just because men can get away with not using contraception doesn’t meant they should, and in fact if they’re not using contraception they get no sympathy at all.”
I find this statement as to the very root of the unfairness. Women are given a free pass to kill or destroy soemthing that is essentially alive (and i say this as a pregnant woman whom weeks ago had nothing but a embryonic pole with a heart pulsating in it), or get out of it by other means, and no one puts any responsibility on them for pregnancy. We need sexual responsibilty the same as men. We can receive welfare to help us pay for such children to cloth them, feed them, and house them, college discounts, food vouchers, etc,
When is the last time you saw a public assistance program for men who are too young or too poor to support their children other than Jail or being branded a deadbeat and receiving. ” no sympathy”
Sometimes and Oops for a woman is the same Oops for a man, and if birth control is 98.9 percent effective and woman can still get pregnant on it, a condom is only 80 percent effective and thats one of the only options for a man.
I have zero sympathy for women whom CHOOSE to lay with men irresponsibly or even with irresponsible men and have resulting children
Again if a women bear 100 percent the responsibilty of pregnancy(as you guys seem to be arguing) and doesn’t want to get pregnant, they need to assume 100 percent of the responsibilty in preventing it.
With exceptions of course. Sage’s tale is a good example.
Again, it takes two to make a baby or maybe I’m wrong and thats not the case.
Z
This comment was written by Z.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
Robert, I think you’re using radically different meanings of the word support. Support from a man’s perspective means child support. For a woman, it means the use of her body, significant physical health risks, and potential long term effects if the pregnancy isn’t an easy one. I don’t think you can rationally equate physically carrying a pregnancy to term with writing a check. So no, it’s not a fair statement, and it’s remarkable that you’d try and equate the two.
I’m not equating the two. I’m comparing the total investment in a child required of a mother and of a father, and not finding any blindingly obvious mandatory disparity in the sum total. Women make a unitary unique contribution to a child’s support, and that contribution has a very large amount of value - but it isn’t the total, or close to it. Speaking in purely cash terms (although those terms are inadequate - see below), it seems odd to say that you can’t possibly equate carrying a child to term with writing a check - because there are women who choose to bear children for strangers in exchange for a check every day. Obviously these people manage to make the equation. It depends on the size of the check.
But it isn’t the “check” that’s the real burden of supporting a child. “Support” involves material support, emotional support, cognitive support (life training), an investment of time, bodily support, a host of foregone opportunities, and probably a bunch of other categories. It’s a HUGE sum total. The exact amount of support a particular parent gives a particular child is somewhat chosen (although people with certain values may feel compelled to provide more support than people with other values) - the state’s mandatory minimums are a tiny fraction of what supporting a child really entails. A child has legal entitlement to a bare minimum from each parent; he or she has moral entitlement to far more than that.
Women are free to jettison both the legal and moral responsibility. I’ve yet to see a consistent defense of the notion that men should not similarly be free.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
Women …no one puts any responsibility on them for pregnancy.
What about all the women in your country who are prosecuted or jailed for not being clean or healthy enough in pregnancy, Z? What about all the social pressure, to do this do that, not do this and not do that? What about the employment ramifications…
As for practicing a combination of contraception and abstinence with someone you are willing to procreate with, I’m sure your DH must be thrilled about that.
This comment was written by Helen.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2006 at 6:19 pm
Helen
I don’t know about unclean(whatever you mean by that) women being jailed having to do with Women having more choice than men and the double standard given to men. The only few cases I’ve heard are those that are addicted to narcotics and will not follow a treatment program.
I don’t understand the rest of your point. What about those problems for women? They exist.
This comment was written by Z.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2006 at 9:07 pm
Robert:
I don’t find it incoherent in the least. I believe firmly that you cannot call for legal symmetry where biological symmetry is likely to never exist. And, yes, I do believe that women should do what they want when it comes to reproductive choices. But you’ve known that for a dog’s years. You needn’t feign any confusion on that point. Actually it would make more sense to say that “the woman in question should have the right to make her own desires the final word on the subject.” Even if I don’t believe that her decision is the right one, she still had the right to make it.
Frankly, I think the guy who brought this case sounds like a grade-A heel. Even if I had a speck of maternal instinct, I’m not sure I would want to bring his child to term. Then again, what if I wanted the baby, and didn’t have enough financial support to break all ties to him, no matter how much of a heel I thought he was ?
Frankly, I think it’s rather funny that you can claim my position suffers from any more incoherence than yours does. I’m guessing that you are happy that this woman chose to have her baby once she knew she was pregnant, even under less than optimum circumstances. And yet, if “Choice for men” had enabled the heel of a father to drag her kicking and screaming to an abortion clinic, you’d probably be calling for him to be publically flogged– at the very least. Also, you don’t seem like the type that would champion the sort of programs that would make “Choice for men” feasable to society at large;The sort of programs that would diffuse the burden from a few heels out to the taxpaying population at large. Rest assured that your position seems as incoherent to me as mine does to you.
In other news, grass turns brown in Summer if nobody waters it.
Amp wrote:
Ding ding ding ding !!
BTW, does anybody remember the somewhat-related case of the woman who lost her court battle for the right to be impregnated by the frozen embryos that she had conceived with her ex-partner ? I felt bad for the woman, but I think in that case the court made the proper decision. The embryos were frozen. They were not already in the process of growing. I think that situation is closer to being a symmetrical situation for the man and woman– if only because the “potential child” is essentially in a state of stasis and the woman’s body doesn’t change unless somebody willfully implants the embryo. Incoherent ? Whatever. There seems to be a lot of that going around. Also, I’m guessing that particular situation is much less common than the one that’s the main subject of this thread.
This comment was written by ms_xeno.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2006 at 9:50 pm
Z, if you try any harder to miss the point you’ll be on the other side of the planet. You’re comparing things wihch cannot be compared: women get pregnant; men do not. I really don’t care if you’ve had kids or not—-why in hell would that grant you any credibility? Emotion is not an argument.
My comment was this: if men wish to not have kids, then they can avail themselves of any number of birth control or sexual practices wihch most definitely do not cause pregnancy. When they do not and whine, then I have no sympathy for them. Now what does your reproductive status have to do with that?
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2006 at 10:37 pm
I just made the claim on the basis that I think it’s bleeding obvious that the mother will get custody at birth.
Custody? Both the mother and father have equal rights and responsibilities–including the right to shared physical custody–unless a court orders otherwise. Dad is not ‘kidnapping’ his own child. Yet again, the point of the ’safe haven’ laws is to keep people from leaving unwanted children in places where they will die. If Robert is punished for taking our baby to a hospital, future Roberts will not be dissuaded from throwing the kid off the Golden Gate bridge or into a gabrage can.
By the way, if Robert impregnated Mythago, he’d be SOL because the law would presume Mr. Mythago to be the baby’s father.
You are, in effect, saying that I don’t have a 1st amendment right because you don’t have a printing press.
No. I am am saying that having free-speech rights under the First Amendment does not mean that everyone who gets a printing press wants one. Rob’s argument is that anyone who has free-speech rights can print as many band flyers as they want whenever they want.
I believe that if women have the right to terminate their support of such a child, then so do men.
Indeed. So let’s agree that men have no obligation to support a fetus. Once there’s a born baby, a man’s rights and obligations are identical to a woman’s. As that’s the current state of the law, our work is pretty much done here.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2006 at 11:57 pm
First, I should clarify that I’m a female and a feminist, and happily so. So that y’all don’t mistake me for a troll. *g*
Now, in this particular case, and with the law as it stands, this guy’s a heel.
The way I tend to think about reproductive choice is this: Abortion is what you do to end a pregnancy, and adoption is what you do to end a parental relationship. Women, as the only folks that can get pregnant, have the right to choose not to be life support. However, once a baby’s born, you’re a parent.
On that understanding, I’d be totally open to the following solution: in the first and second trimesters of pregnancy which started through *consentual sex*, (an important distinction), a man could sign an “adoption” contract giving the baby once born up for adoption. The woman could either decide to raise the child without a dad or give the child up herself: in any case, if the father gave up the child for adoption, he’d have an order of no contact with the child. Conversely, if the woman decides to put the child up for adoption, the dad could take the child and the woman could have no contact. If the third trimester is reached (because in the third trimester, babies can and do come at any time), both parties are on the hook: both must sign off for adoption if that’s chosen, and both are on the hook for support.
What I’m interested in is what’s the feminist analysis of that is. Having gone through two pregnancies, I know how much bloody work pregnancy is, even without the childrearing afterwords: but that to me seems a different issue than that of child support and parenting. (In my proposed system, we could look at pregnancy support options, maybe: that a guy has to provide some help to defray the costs of pregnancy and childbirth. That makes sense.)
Of course, the child support thing bugs me, fundamentally… My mom never received a lick of it, and neither did my husband’s mom - and both were cases of dads bailing out, and both were cases where dad was offered full or joint custody - and the moms of three of my closest friends also didn’t receive support. The whining about support kind of pisses me off; for christ sakes, you don’t want your kids to have nutritious foods?
This comment was written by Arwen.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2006 at 12:28 am
if Robert impregnated Mythago, he’d be SOL because the law would presume Mr. Mythago to be the baby’s father.
If I impregnated you, I’d be SOL because my wife would cut off my dick.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2006 at 1:42 am
!?! You undermine your own point. You say something is the case, only to then admit it isn’t.
Just again: I realise (most) ’safe haven’ laws allow fathers to drop of babies. But how does a man take physical possession of the baby in order to be able to do this? The mother could allow him to take the kid, in which case there’s no problem. But other than that he’d have to undertake paternity and custody actions before his right to do this is recognised. But there’s no way these would be successful before the time limit needed to use a drop off expires. And even if a custody case was heard, there’s no way a judge would give custody to the father over a nursing mother who has just given birth on either the ‘best interests of the child’ or ‘primary caregiver’ standards. As there’s a strong case that she’s both the primary caregiver and it’s in the best interest of the child to be allowed to stay with her.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2006 at 6:27 am
How about an easier scenario?
Two consenting adults. Both with a clearly stated desire to avoid kids. Both using a mutually-agreed-on birth control. She’s told him she would have an abortion if she conceived. He’s told her he would not protest–in fact, based on what she has said, he expects her to have an abortion if she conceived.
They’re both careful. They’re both rational. They’re so unusually careful that they wouldn’t even have had sex if not for the above arrangements.
Then, she gets pregnant.
GIVEN THE ABOVE SCENARIO (no fair changing the hypothetical in your reponse)…
Well, what’s the man going to do?
He can’t make her abort. That is revolting to imagine.
If he changes his mind, and DOES want the child, he can’t make her keep the child. that would be equally revolting.
What’s the woman going to do?
She can make her decision to abort without his input. No rational person would suggest this would be inappropriate. he may be hurt; he may leave her; he may be pissed… but it’s not his uterus.
She can also make her decision to keep the child without his input. No rational person would suggest this would be inappropriate. He may feel guilty; he may leave her; he may be pissed…. but it’s not his uterus.
The only relevant question in this scenario is whether, IF the woman decides to keep the child, AND IF the man doesn’t want it, she should be able to sue him for child support. that’s it.
That question doesn’t affect her uterus, her choice, her ability to parent, or anything else which is directly related to her body. It’s “just” a matter of money.
I dislike many of the C4m arguments. But in this particular, limited, situation, I have difficulty understanding what a compelling argument would be to force the father to pay child support.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2006 at 6:56 am
Arwen, my father asked my mother to get pregnant and then bailed, and so we lived on welfare and charity for a long period of time. And thank God it was there because we would could have fell homeless or on the street. But there are men guinely that cannot afford children just as women can, but they have no support system to fall back on except again deadbeatism, losing their licenses, wage garnishment(even if is little) or jail. Sometimes they are too young to be viable enough to fully support a child. My father wasn’t the case and there are many men that are just bums, but there are many that can fall into the above category. I even think more poor fathers, especially young poor fathers, would take a more active role and be willing to be involved in their childs lives if they had some sort of support system themselves to deal with the huge responsibilty. It might even raise the quality of life for the child. It is always easier to just run away than deal with it, especially if they feel as if they are just looked at in terms of dollars signs and seen as an enemy. Alot of this men themselves have any fathers themselves to act as confidants or role models. And there are some adult men that can barely support themselves and end up with impregnating a woman non-purposely, it would be nice if they couldn’t get the same support that women can seek out.
Ginmar
Lets just agree to disagree, I have no sympathy for anyone, With Few Exceptions, who willingly has sex and it results with a unwanted pregnancy. Women or men. That is the essential purpose of the act.
Getting away from abortion (because thats only 1 option women have to relieve themselves of the responsibilty of parenthood), I belive that single men should have some sort of way to legally opt out.
This comment was written by Z.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2006 at 6:59 am
But there are men guinely that cannot afford children just as women CAN’T, but they have no support system to fall back on except again deadbeatism, losing their licenses, wage garnishment(even if is little) or jail.
This comment was written by Z.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2006 at 8:13 am
Yeah, Z, what are you doing on a feminist site, with all this those poor men crap? The fact is, men do not use birth control nearly as often as do women, and beyond that I don’t care for their whining. They don’t want to wear condoms, tough luck.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2006 at 8:24 am
Sailor,
If all else in this society were equal, that solution would probably be okay. If we had an excellent social support network to help poor women bear the financial responsibility of the babies that will come out of your outlined situations, that would probably also be okay. Unfortunately, as there is little help out there for women to raise children, as women are more likely to be poor, and so on and so forth, it doesn’t really work.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2006 at 8:56 am
I guess we have to throw out the old method of Marriage for life abstinence before marriage.
This was a method of dealing with this. Unfair yes, puritanical yes, but it was an attempt to protect children and women. Yes don’t scream I know it was oppressive and needed to go.
You could always go the Stalinist gulag route and put all children in state Daycare / orphanges shortly after birth.
Another choice is like conscription in where every adult is on the hook for four years for child care and assistance of parents regardless of status or position, sort of like an Israeli Kibutz, crossed with mandatory conscription…Like “It takes a village” on military steroids and official-ese. Of course parents would have less influence on their own children.
Or we could go European and Tax everyone to provide for a motherhood stipend, It would be like paid extended maternity leave. ( I personally hate taxes but it has been done, not that I would vote for it.)
Or finally we could license parenthood. Require Mandatory non negotiable contraceptives for both sexes until they are licensed for children.
Select your favorite … then explain why. Or critcize my reasoning but offer your own solution.
This comment was written by Steve.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2006 at 9:37 am
Ginmar, surely “feminist site, with all this those poor men crap” is not really what feminism is about, aren’t we supposed to be about equality rather than female superiority?
I like the mandatory contraception and license idea, seems like a good idea for dealing with these sorts of situations, I mean you need a license to drive and having a kid seems like a much more important issue.
This comment was written by Sarah.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2006 at 10:02 am
Sarah: Equality is not workable. You can average equality over a major mass of people but individualy it doesn’t work.
And as for female supremacy -vs male supremacy which would you pick? I know you want to say none of the above but if these were the only two which one and why?
This comment was written by Steve.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2006 at 11:06 am
TBH I would say male superiority, ok probably incorrect on this forum however in general Men seem to be more group orientated (in a very hierarchical way) while we (women) tend to focus much more on creating more of a social net. While the latter is can be very beneficial and helps support everyone the former is more likely to get stuff done as there is a clear hierarchy, similar to corporations I suppose. Social nets function well however in a society which needs to get things done and organised simply having a hierarchy makes more sense.
Equality I would say is creatable and viable, however it is equality of options not equality of choices, Women are geneally weaker than men, if we can meet the standards for things like firemen/people then this should be open to us, similarly if a man can meet the standards for teaching, nursery care etc then he should have that option open to him. Completely gender neutralise lawss and remove affirmative action. We should not be disadvantaged because of our sex but neither should it be a benefit, in this case Matt Dubay may be an idiot, a bad father and any number of things but he does have a point, they were screwing under the idea that no kid would result, to change these rules invalidates any contract they had.
In this specific case I would tend towards giving men the option to opt out (or in) as a legal abortion as Roe was not designed simply as a bodily integrity issue but for many different factors, if we are willing to allow it only on a body issue then perhaps we have a point but otherwise we seem hypocritical. Of course we do have to think of the child, however it is clear that this child was wanted on only one side, is it fair to the child to force a man who doesn’t want it into its life? Additionally the government is willing to help support (I would prefer only people who can support kids to have them but that is a different issue) people in these situations so the exact need for Matt to be present is unclear.
I do not believe that women or men are naturally better than each other, we have different focuses and development paths however thats the cards we were dealt, I know women who are great engineers and men who make great nannies however these fields are traditionally (and perhaps for a reason) dominated by the other sex.
This comment was written by Sarah.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2006 at 11:56 am
Sarah:
Thank you for a very in depth answer.
I tend to be philiophical about such things. As for which sex should be superior I would like to see women, just to watch at how it would work. Valuble data is gathered when observing women in conditions where they cannot behave in ways that are natural and have to adapt to the situation. Establishing a female Heiarchy with no male input would be interesting to observe. A world where a woman could not rely on any man, could not trade the protection of a husband for the police, where auto mechanics and plumbers were not men. An interesting thought.
As for equality I was not refering to Gender but group dynamic. Take the most equal group you can think of, Identical Twins. Have you noticed how twins will decide among themselves who speaks first and who dominates? A couple is no different. Dominance is sometimes subtle but is rarely purley gender driven.
This comment was written by Steve.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
True, however legislation should not treat people differently, the highest ranked member has the same basic rights as the lowest, different sub-groups may require specific legislation dependant on special conditions (such as minimum wage, or wage multipliers for CEOs) to ensure that people are not artificially stunted by their starting position in life. Groups alter and work very differently depending on stimulus, a look at history for example:
Women used to have virginity as a requirement (one would assume to ensure that any children you bear were actually your husbands) and in return you were meant to receive the support and protection of your husband.
Today virginity is a thing often traded for a few drinks or the promise of some company, in return the protection and support that were originally granted are now considered oddities.
We have adaptedto changing conditions, women have become more similar to men and in return are treated more like men, whether this is a good change or not is determined by the reader.
In a society of only women you would likely fill all of those roles, and likely a hierarchy would be utilised as it is essentially a requirement for a large number of people (where as men seem to like to form hierarchies even with only a small populace), again the quality of each of these roles might differ, however as no men would be present the requirements for the roles would also be different (very few 6′4 300lbs women running around for police officers to catch :D).
In the end however I do not think that modern society can support the road we are taking with support, benefits etc as (at least in the UK) a third of people receive benefits! I think that we need to rethink our approach and attempt to reintegrate the family units (nx parents + children) as a self supporting group.
This comment was written by Sarah.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
Ginmar I can come to this site if I want to as long as Ampersand allows me the privilage. I’m in a debate just like everyone else is here. I have an opinion, or is that against your rules for what sites I can comment on?
What if I said something to the tune of :
What are you doing on a feminist site? When you have routinely shown you are not a feminist but female supremecist.
This comment was written by Z.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
But how does a man take physical possession of the baby in order to be able to do this?
The same way the mother does: he picks the kid up and walks off. You keep insisting that he has to undertake ‘paternity and custody’ actions. Why? Based on facts you threw in about how the mother must be nursing and must be the primary caregiver:
Yet AGAIN: baby drop-off laws are not about custody, paternity or caregiving. Their entire goal is to tell people “Please don’t endanger or kill your baby. If you leave your baby at a hospital, police station, etc., you won’t be in any trouble with the law.” If you prosecute a father for doing this, congratulations, you’ve just insured that the law is absolutely useless.
But in this particular, limited, situation, I have difficulty understanding what a compelling argument would be to force the father to pay child support.
The fact that there is a born child, and the law requires parents to be legally and financially responsible for their children regardless of whether those parents ever wanted the child in the first place.
There is no “didn’t want it” or “couldn’t stop the pregnancy” exception for women. You are trying to create one for men.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2006 at 10:15 pm
Something about the choice-for-men argument reminds me of an argument I used to have all the time with my father, before we stopped discussing politics. Basically, his position went like this: once I no longer have children, there is no reason why my tax dollars, except, perhaps a small, minimal amount, should go to pay for the education of other children. That responsibility belongs to their parents and the other parents of that generation of kids or community. When I pointed out to him that the quality of the world his grandson will grow up to be a part of will be directly and, in many ways, causally related to the quality of the education received by “other people’s children,” he had no answer.
To argue that a man’s ability to choose not to pay to help support a child he has helped to conceive is the moral/ethical/legal equivalent to a woman’s rght to reproductive choice is to argue from the same kind of individualism–and I think it is a peculiarly American individualism–that my father was arguing from. The man gets to play a rhetorical trick–and I am thinking here of a point before anything legal is involved–which transforms the child he helped to conceive into not-his-child and so he feels he shouldn’t be obligated to pay for it.
I had more to say, but I am falling asleep. Still, I’m going to put this out there, just to see if it strikes anybody as a line of thinking worth following.
This comment was written by Richard Jeffrey Newman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2006 at 7:48 am
For me it’s really a more limited question regarding promises.
Man: “I want to have sex with you. I know a child is possible, even if we both do our very best to prevent it. And while I want to have sex, I do NOT want to raise a child. Or pay for raising one. Before we have sex, I need to know: If you get pregnant, will you abort the child, if I pay for it? And if you don’t want to abort, will you promise right now that you won’t ask me to support you and the child?”
Woman: “I want to have sex with you, too. And yes, I would abort.”
Man: “Are you sure? Abortion or a promise to leave me out of it? Because I really don’t want to get stuck with a kid I don’t want.”
Woman: “Yes, I promise. I don’t want one either.”
(Sex happens. Condom breaks. Pill fails. Pregnancy ensues.)
Man: “Oh, shit. Do you want me to pay for the abortion?”
Woman: “No. I think I’m going to keep the baby. I’ve changed my mind.”
Man (getting a little nervous): “Oh. That’s not really what I expected. But it’s your choice, I suppose. Do you plan to put it up for adoption?”
Woman: “No. I think it’s time I had a child of my own.”
Man (getting a lot more nervous): “Oh. So, you’re not going to break your other promise, are you? I’m off the hook, right?”
Woman: “We’ll see how I feel in 9 months.”
Man: “oh, shit. That sucks.”
Woman: “Well, I don’t have much of a support network. So it’s necessary.”
Man: “But neither do I! And you don’t have to have the child if you don’t want to support it.”
WIoman: “Don’t try to interfere with my reproductive autonomy, you asshole.”
Man: “I’m not. With or without my support, you have the SAME CHOICES you have otherwise. So stop claiming I’m screwing with your reproductive autonomy.”
Woman: “Well, you’re being stupid. You know pregnancy is always a risk of sex, and you chose to have sex anyway.”
Man: “Well, that sucks. I thought that you and I already contracted around the risks of pregnancy through the whole ‘abort or let you out of it’ conversation. Didn’t we? And more to the point, what’s up with YOU using that argument? Every time you discuss abortion with those prolife nuts down the street, you fly off the handle if someone suggests that you can simply avoid unplanned pregnancies by not having sex. In the abortion argument, it’s all about ’sex is natural’ and ’sex is necessary’ and ‘pregnancy is going to happen’…. why is it all of a sudden my fault now that the view benefits you?”
Woman: “well, it’s in the best interest of the child.”
Man: “No it’s not. At least not in a relative sense. And no, i’m not talking aboput the prolife ‘how can you care about its interests if you’re willing to kill it for convenience’ crap line. You and I both know we could put this kid up for adoption, and someone would take it. That child could be taken care of by SOMEONE.”
Woman: “Yeah? So?”
Man: “Well, if someone will take care of it, its needs will be met. It’s interests will be taken care of. YOU don’t have to do it–and I sure don’t have to do it either.”
Woman: “Well, that would cause emotional damage to me. That’s not fair.”
Man: “Fair? Why is my financial liability for the next 18-22 years irrelevant? Why should the emotional damage you might suffer by putting this kid up for adoption be any more relevant than mine: brokeen promises, unwanted fatherhood, financial liability…”
Woman: “It’s part of the physical differences between men and women. It would be to damaging to me to give up my child, And it’s not as damaging to you to be forced to parent.”
Man: “Huh? That’s bullshit. Only yesterday you were lobbying for 2 gay men to be able to adopt–you think they can’t parent because of their physical differences? And weren’t you also lobbying for more men to stay home so women could work? If you’re so much ‘better suited’ or so much more ‘invested’ then why are you taking those positions?”
Woman: “That was those arguments. This is a different argument. You contradict yourself sometimes, too.”
……and so on.
Yes, i KNOW this was an unusual and one-sided example. It’s a hypothetical designed to prove a point:
All we really need are enforceable “prenup” style documents which will relieve folks from child support (on either side). You can make ‘em as detailed as you want.
If you’re a woman and you don’t want to abort (and don’t want to raise a kid) you could lock the man in advance into taking custody, or paying full support, or finding an adoption. Or for paying for an abortion, for that matter, if that’s what you want.
If you’re a man, and you don’t want a child, you can secure your freedom from child support and/or custody. You might have to ‘trade’ a promise to pay for an abortion, or for delivery–but you would know before you went and had sex.
Beneficial for everyone, I think….
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2006 at 8:11 am
Sailorman,
I am off to a meeting and so I don’t have the time to respond in more detail, but I wanted to say that your hypothetical example reminded me of an actual conversation that I had with a girlfriend when I was in my 20s. I wrote about it an essay that remains unpublished, but I have posted the relevant excerpts on my blog.
This comment was written by Richard Jeffrey Newman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2006 at 8:16 am
…not just one-sided, but a highly stereotypical rendering of an odd situation as if it were normal.
Sorry, but that sounds a lot like “but women lie about rape!”
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2006 at 8:40 am
Hypothetically, men don’t need sex. Hypothetically, if a man is not mature enough to envision financially supporting a child he creates through sex, he is not mature enough to be having sex — isn’t that what they argue in regards to teen sex? Penis in vagina sex is one of a myriad sexual positions and acts. Don’t want a baby? Expand your sexual horizons.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2006 at 8:43 am
True. That’s why when it does become gender driven red flags should be going off everywhere.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2006 at 8:47 am
Oh come on mandolin.
How does my saying something is “unusual and one-sided” make your response anything but a personal attack? Don’t tar me with that broad ad hominem of being an anti-woman rape analyst, it’s beneath you. I hope.
Hypotheticals are useful because they allow you to deliberately craft a situation to discuss very limited issues without the ‘baggage’ of normal life.
I am trying to make a very limited point. I don’t care about the “oops” folks; I don’t care about the “didn’t think of that” folks or the “I was drunk” folks.
I am most interested in protecting (if I protect anyone at all) the most compelling set of people: Those who literally do everything within their power to avoid the situation. That’s what this hypothetical is set up to address.
And before you get back on your high horse: This is a common tactic. What, you think prochoice folks argue based on the drunk 24 year old who doesn’t use BC and gbets pregnant? no, they argue theory first based on a woman who DOES use BC and DOES do everything possible, and still needs the right to an abortion because nothing’s perfect and she shouldn’t have to bear the burden of an unwanted pregnancy.
So let’s start with the hypo I posted. Try responding to what I wrote (I didn’t see ‘rape’ or ‘lying’ in there anywhere, BTW). Or write your own.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2006 at 9:28 am
Nope. I was comparing your desire to analyze this weird and unsusual situation (as if it was normal) to the desire of rape apologists to analyze the weird and unusual situation of women lying about rape as if that were normal.
I see it as another manifestation of male anxiety around women’s bodies. Men want conversation about rape and abortion to center around their experiences.
It is appropriate for me to question why this hypothetical situation shows up on this thread at all.
And, BTW, I can disagree with you without personally attacking you. I don’t believe I have personally attacked you.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2006 at 9:30 am
(And BTW, I understand that you have highlighted this situation as “rare”, but that disclaimer doesn’t cut it for me. It’s still playing on a stereotype of women as fickle and lying people, and it resonates with ideas about how women get pregnant to trap men.)
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2006 at 10:00 am
Gee, Z, accusations of female superiority are common amongst anti-feminists. Just FYI. Sarah, same to you. It’s a revealing red flag.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2006 at 10:25 am
# Mandolin Writes:
July 31st, 2006 at 9:28 am
Nope. I was comparing your desire to analyze this weird and unsusual situation (as if it was normal) to the desire of rape apologists to analyze the weird and unusual situation of women lying about rape as if that were normal.
Nice (again) ability to ignore what I actually say (e.g. “this is wierd and unusual”) and treat is as if I said what you want to argue against.
I call straw man.
Hell, look above: You’re ignoring what I ACTUALLY say and comparing me to folks, who (in your own words) would phrase this “as if that were normal.” Not to mention that you just so happen to have used a comparison group who is clearly offensive, though you claim it’s not an ad hominem. I’ll grant you that one, but still… the deliberate misinterpretation is sort of annoying.
Shall I set you up as a straw feminist next? I’m sure the conversation would be grand.
I see it as another manifestation of male anxiety around women’s bodies. Men want conversation about rape and abortion to center around their experiences.
Can we both agree that this thread isn’t generally about rape? That my post has absolutely NOTHING to do with rape? This is getting sort of silly. I can’t control what other people post in the thread, but I”m not them.
It’s also not about abortion rights. In fact, my post doesn’t even question abortion rights; I’m a strong prochoice advocate. If you are feeling too lazy to read my posts (maybe this explains the problem…?) I can pull out the (multiple) quotes like these:
See? No rape. No abortion. it’s about c4m, which is the thread topic.
It is appropriate for me to question why this hypothetical situation shows up on this thread at all.
You’re right (sarcasm.) Why on earth would I be discussing choice for men in a post entitled “Court Strongly Rejects “Choice For Men” Civil Rights Lawsuit?” Are you sure you’re protesting in the right thread? This is what the thread is about.
As you would see if you read my posts, I’m not saying women are fickle and lying–they’re no more prone to that than anyone else (though incidentally I also don’t think women are LESS fickle and/or lie LESS than anyone else). I suppose you can read it any way you want, but you seem determined to view this as problematic no matter what I say, which seems extremely odd. Whose stereotypes are you so concerned about? This is beginning to seem like there’s some elephant in the room only you can see.
Who the heck can tell how they’ll feel in the future FOR SURE? Not me. You don’t know how you’ll feel about being pregnant until you’re pregnant. You can guess, but plenty of people are wrong. This isn’t “fickleness” or “lying” it is just a fact of life. (you don’t really know for sure if you’re a man, either).
Predicting how you’ll feel when you _____ is an imprecise science. The question is: who bears the burden of the imprecise prediction?
Other than refusing to talk about it or saying it’s inappropriate, do you want to address the issue?
Hell, if you think this is so obvious, concede and post your own hypothetical. But if you’re just dodging because you don’t want to answer, then why spend all this time on the thread?
.
.
Q grrl: Yes, in theory, I agree with you completely. Abstinence is, of course, entirely functional in avoiding support.
The main reason I don’t use that argument is that it seems to be at complete odds with a strong assumption made in the prochoice argument. I’m not willing to weaken my prochoice argument as a ’side effect’ since I view it as more important than the support argument.
I don’t see how a prochoice person can claim “you can avoid kids via abstinence if you want” with reference to support. Because then you’re setting yourself up for the “well, then you can avoid needing an abortion outside of rape, so what’s the harm if they’re illegal?” response. And though of course you can reply to that, it’s not as strong a reply.
There’s no good way to avoid the generalized attack: If you acknowledge that pregnancy is purely voluntary and that some sort of “consequences” are OK, you’ve got a much weaker foundation. It’s just not worth the risk to prochoice arguments IMO.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2006 at 10:42 am
Because there are laws against picking up kids and walking off with them. Safehaven laws give you immunity from a child abandonment charge, but not from a kidnapping charge. If you are not recognised as having any legal connection to the child, and you take it without permission from a person who does (the mother), you are in a great deal of trouble. The fact remains, while the law is techically neutral, it’s very difficult for men to exercise their ‘right’ to use a drop off without the mothers permission. I don’t believe you can’t see this.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2006 at 10:51 am
I’d love to see statistics on how many women have abortions compared to the amount of men who skip out on child support payments.
Of course your argument sets you up for the “why in the hell don’t men pay child support if they know damn well that abortion is either a difficult or illegal choice for a woman to make?”
You part and party of the mindset that needs and wants to view men’s and women’s reproductive choices as being unilaterally equal in depth and number. You feel quite comfortable framing abortion and child support on male biology, which IMO is probably the most fool hardy of viewpoints with which to approach the subjects. Female biology being what it is, it requires different choices, ones that are uniquely belonging to the woman making them. Men who are not comfortable with women making autonomous choices, that may or may not adversly affect the men, should not be engaging in the one sexual activity that will most likely result in a pregnancy.
And if you think I’m arguing for abstinance, your venue of sexual activity is mighty dim.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2006 at 11:59 am
Q, sorry. I don’t really use ‘abstinence’ much in normal conversation ;) and was using it to refer to penis-in-vagina sex. I thought this was clear from the context.
As for the rest of it, like the “You part and party of the mindset that needs and wants to view men’s and women’s reproductive choices as being unilaterally equal in depth and number” statement….
That’s not what I said. At all. As I’m sure you know. (Is there someone else posting under my name somewhere? Are you confusing me with another opponent? This is strange.)
But hey, maybe I’ve missed my own typing. Certainly I make mistakes. So:
If that’s what you think I’ve said, can you quote me sections of text from my posts which support your statements? If you’re going to tell me what my mindset is, or what I feel comfortable doing, it’d be helpful if I could see where on earth you’re getting your ideas.
Female biology being what it is, it requires different choices, ones that are uniquely belonging to the woman making them. Men who are not comfortable with women making autonomous choices, that may or may not adversly affect the men, should not be engaging in the one sexual activity that will most likely result in a pregnancy.
I don’t think there’s much basis for suggesting women can’t make autonomous choices. And I’m not suggesting the choices ‘belong’ to anyone else but her.
The issue is whether laws should be in place which minimize or prevent the adverse effect on others.
The two are separable. Can you see the distinction?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2006 at 12:02 pm
I was in a hurry before. I’ll just ask again - what is so wrongheaded, please, about Pollitt’s arguments? See here again: http://tinyurl.com/6k2ue . Thank you.
This comment was written by lenona.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2006 at 12:04 pm
I’d love to see statistics on how many women have abortions compared to the amount of men who skip out on child support payments.
The abortion statistic is easy: 1.29 million abortions in 2002, per the gold-standard AGI. The number has been flat or reducing slowly since then, I know anecdotally.
Deadbeat dads is trickier.
From what I can tell from fifteen minutes of Googling, there is no single statistic; I couldn’t even find an estimate. So we’ll have to work backwards. CDC says that there are currently 3.7 divorces per 1000 population, so call that 1,110,000 divorces annually.
If EVERY marriage that ends in divorce has children in the picture, and EVERY noncustodial father is a deadbeat in his child support payments, then there are more women choosing/being forced to abort than there are men choosing/being forced to not support their kids.
The actual proportions are of course much lower; lots of people divorce without kids, and probably the majority of noncustodial fathers pay their support. So there are WAY more “deadbeat moms” than there are “deadbeat dads”.
You part and party of the mindset that needs and wants to view men’s and women’s reproductive choices as being unilaterally equal in depth and number.
I think actually that Sailorman views men’s and women’s reproductive rights as being equal in strength and number. Which seems reasonable to me.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2006 at 12:07 pm
Mythago, that’s not true about the child abandonment laws, at least not in all states. Here in Ohio, if a woman gives up her infant under our version of the law, within 72 hours of birth, she is also signing away her maternal rights.
I think this whole Choice 4 Men movement is ridiculous. The ONLY time men have any choice in whether to reproduce is when they decide whether or not to keep it in their pants. Once sperm meets egg, the process of biological reproduction is complete. Women can choose whether to impede the movement of sperm, whether to help prevent implantation, whether to end a pregnancy (which doesn’t start until implantation), and whether to keep the baby because we are the ones carrying the pregnancy. I would be for “choice for men” if men could get pregnant. They can’t. End of story.
It amazes me that when it comes to facets of human life and livelihood having nothing directly to do with gender, such as the right to be paid equitably without regard to gender, people come up with all sorts of excuses why women should be treated differently. In the one realm where gender really does make a difference? Nah, treat women and men the same. That is ridiculous.
This comment was written by Dana.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2006 at 12:13 pm
Also? I can’t believe there are people here referring to writing a check or having money transferred from one’s account as “parenting.”
You’re not really a father if you’re just paying support, guys. You’re a non-anonymous sperm donor.
This comment was written by Dana.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2006 at 12:28 pm This comment was written by Q Grrl.
Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2006 at 12:34 pm
Specifically, what’s so bad about these arguments of Pollitt’s? From http://tinyurl.com/6k2ue :
Dec. 1998: “You religiously employ, with never a slip, some combination of pills, injections, implants, foams, gels and devices for, oh, twenty or thirty years with whatever side effects, inconvenience or expense each of these entails. OR you experience morning sickness, weight gain, varicose veins, stretch marks, childbirth and all that follows. OR you make your way through a swarm of screaming fanatics to a clinic for an abortion you may feel uneasy about. The ability to select, without legal coercion, from this menu of problematic and expensive alternatives is called having all the power in human reproduction. That, at any rate, is what men’s rights groups are calling it………….
“a victory for (him) could mean the end of paternal support for out-of-wedlock children–every man could claim his girlfriend tricked him………
“What if (he’s) right, though, and (she) did deceive him? Well, just as pregnancy is a risk of sex, people behaving badly is a risk of love. All the more reason for men to protect themselves (with male birth control). How many women, after all, carry unplanned pregnancies to term because their boyfriends deceptively promise to marry them or otherwise support the child? It’s the oldest story in the world!……..
“Is male-controlled contraception at the top of the list of demands of any men’s rights group? Women assume all the responsibility for birth control, and all the risks of its failure. This isn’t women ‘having all the power.’ It’s men having their cake and eating it too.”
And finally, so long as the majority of American men continue to ignore or laugh, Jay Leno-style, at men like Frank Serpico or Peter Wallis or Matthew Dubay (all of whom filed pretty much the same lawsuit), I think that says that most American men believe in taking responsibility for what they helped start. Not to mention that no man I’ve ever heard of has seriously wished to go through pregnancy and childbirth just for the alleged beauty and spiritual glory of it, so that, again, sounds as though men know when they already have a pretty good deal going for them, and they’re not about to demand more. Except, let’s hope, in the form of better male birth control. Keep in mind that a condom, by itself, is only 90% good, and the real-life failure rate of the female Pill is 6%. Sounds as though you should use them together, no?
This comment was written by lenona.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2006 at 12:55 pm
Q Grrl Writes:
July 31st, 2006 at 12:28 pm
I think actually that Sailorman views men’s and women’s reproductive rights as being equal in strength and number. Which seems reasonable to me.
Sure, they can be. However, no man should confuse the point at which his reproductive rights end: ejaculation into a woman. The choice over his autonomous body and actions ends once he has ejaculated into a woman.
No debate there in terms of the BODY. And no debate in terms of his physical contribution to a fetus.
Up until that point he has the same choices and responsibilities. After that point, his responsibilities start to far outnumber his choices.
What I’m confused by is your appaernt inability/unwillingness to distinguish between the PHYSICAL/NECESSARY and the NONPHYSICAL/OPTIONAL. They’re not the same. The fact that the man does not have any choices which directly affect the pregnancy does not directly relate to a requirement for him to be responsible.
If any given man does not like this, or thinks it is unfair, he can:
1) get a vasectomy
2) use a condom
3) refuse to ejaculate inside of a woman
4) refrain from sexual activity
1) is possible, and fairly cheap. It’s difficult and expensive to reverse, but there’s no reason not to if you don’t want kids any more. I’ll be getting one myself soon, I think. technically this isn’t 100% effective either, though (unlike BC) the failure rate is really minuscule.
2) is great but not nearly 100% effective; it’s not really a solution any more than another type of BC.
3) Assuming you’re not referring to the Amtrak method of birth control (always pulls out on time…), then this is certainly functional.
4) As you noted, where’s the fun in that? Though it would work seeing as it’s just an expansion of #3.
Sailorman: your hypothetical story is based soley on a perceived equality in biological function and therefore in the choice making attendent to that function.
I really don’t understand this. I could list ways in which women and men are different; I could list all the various quotes where I’ve said that in this very thread–and you’d continue to blather on about how I think ____ no matter what. Jeez, would you stop already?
You are assuming that men and women can come at the issue on a similar plane, at least legally and contractually, but in reality you are trying to extend the man’s rights while retracting the woman’s autonomy. He wants a contractual agreement; she wants determination over her own body/biology.
Perhaps he needs to keep his zipper up and his peter in his pants.
This is not a zero sum game. It is merely adding an ADDITIONAL issue:
5) He can sign a document promising _____, and his partner can sign a document promising ______, and they’ll be legally enforceable solely on the matter of finances and/or custody
Please explain to me how that impacts her body. Or her biology. PLEASE. Because the fucking straw men act is getting on my nerves.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2006 at 1:01 pm
Leona
Is the physical nature of pregnancy the sole reason women have abortions?
This comment was written by Z.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2006 at 1:23 pm
That question’s answered in her post, Z.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2006 at 1:48 pm
Sailorman: buy a clue, then buy a book. Plenty of feminist theory floating around the used bookstores. You keep shifting the hypothetical around, bit by bit. Her biology is effected by the fetus; he wants a contract that premises his economic desires and she makes a decision contrary to that. He is trying to circumscribe her physical autonomy with his financial needs. I think that is a sloppy sexual ethic.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2006 at 1:58 pm
Sailorman, thank you for being willing to argue this here.
Bean, the thing about the different equalities was quite interesting.
This comment was written by plunky.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2006 at 2:06 pm
Q Grrl, while I agree in the context of the situation mentioned both parties agreed as to what should happen, the reality may differ however it does seem that the guy is the one to lose out with no choice, it may only be financial however in the modern world money is power…
This comment was written by Sarah.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2006 at 2:14 pm
Some people act as though these guys are the only ones who have to provide financial support.
Mothers are still expected to financially support their children, and can and have been prosecuted when they have not done so. They do not escape financial obligations just because they get child support. Child support does not provide for all of the cost of supporting a child.
There is no money fairy. Jeez.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2006 at 2:18 pm
Oh, and I find the arguments that women have more options for BC than men to be laughable. Who traditionally insisted that BC was the woman’s responsibility? That would be men, who weren’t interested in taking responsibility for that.
Now, with women’s options for BC and abortion being curtailed, it’s even more laughable to insist that we’ve got all of these options. Abortions aren’t accessible to many women anymore, BC (especially the Pill and Plan B) is often denied to women in the name of religious freedom, and many health insurance plans don’t cover BC (but will cover Viagra).
Some people really do want to go to the bad old days, where boys could be boys and those dirty sluts could deal with babies as a punishment.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2006 at 2:19 pm
Bean, I recognize the validity of your point. Thanks for the correction.
The difficulty with formal vs. substantial equality is this: the legal system can give us formal equality. Formal equality is straightforward, definable objectively, and so on. No human system can provide substantive equality; it can only make approximate efforts, any configuration of which will leave a substantial minority (or even a majority) convinced that they have been treated unfairly. Under formal equality people can at least see that the rules they were fucked over by are the same rules that everyone else got fucked over by, too.
Since legal systems depend upon social acceptance for the ongoing legitimization of their force, it is psychologically important that people have some straw of perceived fairness to grasp at. A legal system tasked with ensuring substantive equality will undermine its own long-term viability with every new “success”.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2006 at 2:21 pm
Note: This comment is stuck in moderation, thanks to my use of the V word. I’m editing it so it won’t be stuck.
I find the arguments that women have more options for BC than men to be laughable. Who traditionally insisted that BC was the woman’s responsibility? That would be men, who weren’t interested in taking responsibility for that.
Now, with women’s options for BC and abortion being curtailed, it’s even more laughable to insist that we’ve got all of these options. Abortions aren’t accessible to many women anymore, BC (especially the Pill and Plan B) is often denied to women in the name of religious freedom, and many health insurance plans don’t cover BC (but will cover drugs like V****a).
Some people really do want to go to the bad old days, where boys could be boys and those dirty sluts could deal with babies as a punishment.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Also, I’m not sure how formal equality would screw over women, if men (and women) were contracting for these resolutions per Sailorman’s suggestion. If a woman can’t possibly support an infant on her own, then she ought to refrain from having sex with men who have indicated via their contract that they won’t be supporting any children that result. Similarly, if a man can’t bear the thought that “his” baby will be aborted, then he ought to refrain from having sex with women who indicate that they do not intend to bear any resultant offspring to term.
I recall having a conversation with a girlfriend about fifteen years ago about vaginal intercourse, and her declaration was that we would not be having it until she was convinced that in the event of a contraceptive failure, I would step up to my obligation. Seemed very sensible to me, and we restricted our sexual choices accordingly.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2006 at 2:59 pm
Why, from a bottom line perspective, is it so important that men who conceive children be held legally responsible for the financial support of those children? Because there is no adequate social system set up such that children could be otherwise provided for financially. In other words, the reliance on a father’s income comes as much from the way society structures who is responsible for the economic well-being of children as from anything else. I also wonder if this focus on the father’s financial responsibility doesn’t have its roots in the patriarchal notion that a child’s legitimacy rests on being the offspring of a man who is willing publicly to claim him or her as offspring.
Seems to me that if men want to argue that it should not be possible for women to force us into fatherhood by choosing to carry to term a pregnancy we would like to see terminated, then the place to focus our energies is not some sort of contractual agreement–it is horribly cynical to make any aspect of a human being’s future contingent on a contract that was signed before he or she was born–but on the kinds of social change that will alter both the social structures surrounding child-rearing and the cultural definition of paternity. Otherwise, I don’t think it matters how carefully one tailors a hypothetical situation in order to get at the core issues of choice for men, you are still asking women to play on an uneven playing field.
This comment was written by Richard Jeffrey Newman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2006 at 3:21 pm
I am pretty confused by the “unequal playing field” claim against the contract solution.
BEFORE SEX, the playing field is unequal because men and women do not have equal societal power.
BUT assuming the woman knows her situation, including the physical realities of pregnancy/abortion, and assuming both parties are mentally competent–she can take this into account in the subsequent negotiations. So the contract provides an opportunity to BALANCE the problem. Because she is going to bear more risk, she should/can demand more concessions in exchange for sex.
Or not. Maybe it’s not that big a deal for her to be pregnant. That’s her choice. Similarly it’s his choice as well. Maybe he’s rich and is willing to promise 100% support and no custody. Maybe he’s poor and won’t sleep with anyone who demands custody, even a dollar a day.
How is that a biased playing field?
Richard, the whole “the place to focus our energies is not some sort of contractual agreement” argument is still avoiding the issue of whether the contract is 1) morally sound, and 2) effective.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2006 at 4:08 pm
I think there are four basic reasons that are being thrown about:
(1) People think it’s important that when a woman makes a decision to have an abortion, keep a child, or have an adoption it shouldn’t be made under duress. My making fathers pay support they feel women will be protected from being pushed into making choices they wouldn’t really want to make, and may be very unhappy about, because of concerns about money.
(2) People also think mothers and children (and taxpayers?) are more deserving of money than fathers. Mothers/taxpayers have done nothing to deserve having to take up someone else’s burden (mothers/taxpayers), and feel their happiness is more important than that of adults.
(3) People are also worrying about societal inequalities. They think that if people can opt out of supporting children men will do this more than women. If mothers’ energies go into providing for their children, and fathers’ don’t, this will lead to most the money and power being held by men. A method of taking money from fathers and giving it to mothers is a way to partially remedy this.
(4) There’s also an argument from ‘fairness’ between individual men and women. People think it’s unfair that the mother typically faces huge burdens (physical, economic, and so on) from the pregnancy. People think these burdens should be shared equally - or as equally as possible. Where one parent is absent, getting them to pay the other money moves us closer to that situation.
The reason isn’t just that there is no social system of providing for these children financially. Some people think fathers paying the money is preferable to a social system of providing for these children financially, and aren’t willing to get rid of the problem through unwanted abortions or adoptions.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2006 at 6:11 pm
Astounding discussion. Speaking as a long ago divorced single mother scrambling to pay her son’s first semester tuition, I’ve got the giggles here.
My experience is anectodal, but quite typical of the divorced custodial parents I know. Child support is a myth. My ex certainly never paid it, in spite of my spending a lot of money I didnt have for two years dragging him in and out of court. I finally gave up when a family services officer told me that “Hey, he doesnt beat the kid, and he sees him, what more do you want? We see a lot worse here.” I was also told by the state that the only way to get him to pay was to quit my job and apply for government support so the state would chase him. Otherwise, good luck sistah. I finally decided the time and energy spent trying to get him to pay his court ordered support would be better spent on my own career, so I could have some level of security about what was coming in every month. It took a lot of time away from parenting, since I had to work, and still do, very long hours. Did my ex pick up the slack there, either? Nope, he was too busy with his social life. I didn’t have one.
I do have to point out, before one of the advocates here says “Ah you probably trapped him” that we were married when I conceived, that I was lukewarm at best about children, and he was gung ho to have them. The pregnancy was planned.
So now my son is approaching his first year of college, and I have two weeks to find $9000 I don’t have. Additionally, he had an accident this summer, which required $2000 of dental work not covered by my insurance. When I broached the subject with his father (and I use the term loosely), his response, knowing full well he owes me 14 YEARS of back support was “Bummer. Good luck with that. I have no extra money cause I’m going to Mexico on vacation.” I have had *one* five day vacation “away” in 14 years, and that only because a friend offered to help defray the costs.
Spare me, please, from the woe is me coming from deadbeat noncustodial parents of *any* gender. Even if I had received every penny I was due, in no way shape or form would that have taken care of my child’s financial needs. A woman receiving child support is NOT freed of the obligation to contribute financially to her child’s wellbeing.
I believe that PARENTS have an obligation to support their children. I aldo believe that a man who does not wish to become a father should, just like a woman who does not wish to become a mother, take responsibility for his *own* method of contraception (and two is better than one, of course).
The idea that women are willing to *trap* men for a paltry couple of hundred bucks a month that probably won’t show up anyway is ludicrous in the extreme, and probably as common as hen’s teeth. You don’t live in the lap of luxury on a child support payment, unless the child’s father is a multimillionaire…and there aren’t a lot of those floating around to be “trapped” into child support payments, ya know? The child support isn’t going to cover half the cost of raising a kid. When my son was little, going back 14 years, my child care expenses were $800 a month alone, and that’s if I didn’t get stuck working unpaid overtime (I’m salaried and always have been). Half of that is $400, and we haven’t yet covered the increase in rent from needing an extra bedroom, the cost of food, health insurance, medical expenses not covered by insurance, clothing, toys, shoes, more use of utilities (takes more to heat a larger space), school supplies, life insurance so you won’t leave the kid totally destitute if you die, dental bills, toiletries, medications, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Not to mention the cost of educating a child, which even at a state school can run you close to $20K a year, depending on location. I believe Amp’s research indicated the average child support payment was $350 a month, and many states do not require that payment beyond the child’s 18th birthday regardless of educational plans. $350 a month isnt going to cut it. It wouldnt have covered half my child care expenses 14 years ago.
This comment was written by Broce.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2006 at 7:49 pm
Sailor,
Your tone is hostile. I feel that you have ignored me and you feel I ignored you. We obviously aren’t communicating.
But please do not call me ‘lazy’, etc. That IS a personal attack.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2006 at 10:52 pm
To draw from the oft-quoted phrase with regard to legality of abortion…
If men could get pregnant, “Choice for (Wo)Men” would be law in an instant.
This comment was written by Scarbo.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 5:50 am
What is it about priveleged groups not recognizing privilege?
Did someone once say that privileged people were loathe to give up privilege?
How does male choice affect female choice? It does not. The option to abort is still hers and only hers.
This comment was written by Rob.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 7:01 am
Which is precisely my point. There are a number of you here that believe that a woman’s choices about her body and about her pregnancy and future childrearing are an equal and equivalent exchange for money.
I am saying that after a certain end point (ejaculation), a man’s choices are severely curtailed and that by all means he should be aware of this and plan accordingly. Men make these types of negotiations all the time. It’s the primary goal of politics the world over. I find it interesting that what men are willing to do on a global level (plan, prepare, accept losses and sacrifices), they are most unwilling to do when it comes to women’s choices and bodies.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 7:55 am
Oh, men fight wars and plan ahead sometimes, so they should have no reproductive rights. It all makes sense now.
Why should a woman’s reproductive options not end at pregnancy?
This comment was written by Rob.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 7:56 am
Well since this discussion is going round and around and back and forth, I’ll just make my position know, clear, and be done with it. :)
for the third time
Women who lay with men should do so only with the knowledge that said man may be a potential baby daddy , until all forms of birth control become equally 100 percent effect and 100 percent effective in however they are implemented
Man who lay with woman should do so only with the knowledge that said woman may be a potential babies momma, until all forms of birth control become equally 100 percent effect and 100 percent effective in however they are implemented.
Men should have some sort of way to opt out of the responsibilty of fatherhood without legal consequences. More than likely a time sensative way to dissolve fatherhood. Possible with a no-contact clause and penalties such as if there is a violation of the contract his fatherhood will immediately be re-instated and he is responsible for all back child support and future support.
Men should have some sort of resource besides jail to assist them with child support if they want to pay it but are unable to or support to help cope. I don’t believe most men in this situation are rich, well cultured and well educated in the first place.(well atleast where I come from) they tend to be poor, uneducated, sometimes young and or have a parenthood=doom. They also have a warped sense of manhood and warped opinions of women.
Men whom are able and unwilling to support their children should be punished . Jail time, liscense revocation, wage garnishment and asset seizure. A woman who marries a man that owes childsupport does so knowing that her income becomes part of the support award. If a man has a claim of joblessness his job history will be examined and he will be penalized if it is found he is viable for job or if not, he will be given job assistance and placement. If he fails to keep a job or complete the program he will be exposed to the above penalties for child support non-payment.
Men should be provided a better form of birth control besides a condom or abstinence or being surgical altered to never have children. Hopefully this will come soon.
Women should have access to abortions and all options available to her currently at her whim to end unwanted pregnancy or unwanted parenthood.
If a woman names no father on a birth certification she is thereby assuming total responsibilty for child on her own. No adoption may take place without a vigorous search for a father.
Of course with exceptions.
This comment was written by Z.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 8:01 am
Rob, I don’t understand what you’re missing. Can you expand?
Z:
And women too? Women can opt out of motherhood without legal consequences? In a time sensitive way? Slowly dissolving their motherhood?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 8:12 am
Abortion is a way of opting out of motherhood, or do you disagree? Should there be a legal penalty for aborting? $500/month for 18 years? Why not?
I truly don’t see how men, as a gender, can be held responsible for walking away from the responsibilities of fatherhood when women, as a gender, opt out of having a child frequently.
Z, are there any other debts for which people should be imprisoned?
It would be wonderful if laws were written with the interests of children at heart. They are not. Laws ensure reproductive freedom for women. Why not for men?
he should have used a condom, if he didn’t want a baby, so he should support any children resulting. The slut should keep her legs together, so she should not be allowed to get an abortion and support any children resulting. Compare and contrast.
This comment was written by Rob.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 8:22 am
Sure, Q.
I see no reason why any woman couldn’t contract for (for example): “If I get pregnant, you will pay for my medical care, you will pay for my choice of abortion or delivery, including any prenatal and/or follow-up care, and you will be standing in the delivery room to take the baby, who I never want to see again, and assume all parental rights and responsibilities.”
You could also contract for the current status quo: “If I get pregnant, you will abide by my choice in the matter. You agree to be liable for 1/2 the child support whether or not you wish to parent the child.”
And you could contract for MORE than the status quo, even more than the first example: “If I get pregnant, you will pay for my medical care, you will pay for my choice of abortion or delivery, including any prenatal and/or follow-up care, you will relinquish all parental rights, and you will pay $20,000 per year in child support until the child is out of college, including any college tuition.”
If you can’t agree, you take your chances and go with the status quo.
THIS is a “negotiation” as you put it. Sex is not a negotiation. One crucial part of a negotiation–the part I am proposing, and the part you seem to be unwilling to address–is enforceability. If you negotiate for something and you don’t get it, you should account for what heppens next.
Under the current legal system, no matter what people say prior to sex, there’s a “do over” when they’re pregnant. This doesn’t really benefit anyone.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 8:23 am
Because there’s a baby that needs to eat?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 8:33 am
Because there’s a baby that needs to eat?
There is sufficient public welfare assistance available in the United States that very few babies will starve.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 8:47 am
Q Grrl
Time sensative meaning you can’t wait 5 years and decide you don’t want to be a father anymore.
Woman have 3 legal ways of opting out of parenthood. Abortion, Safe Haven, and Adoption.
A man cannot abort a woman’s baby without it being a criminal act. And he has no right to dictate a woman’s right to an abortion. A man cannot take a child from a wanting mother and drop it off, that is kidnapping, a man cannot remove a child from its wanting mother and place it up for adoption, that would be kidnapping. Men without certain ressources available to them have an extremely difficult time fighting and succeeding in an adoption that might already be in the works for whatever reason.
This comment was written by Z.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 8:51 am
“They also have a warped sense of manhood and warped opinions of women.”
This is not a reason to exempt them from responsiblity for the children they father. It’s a reason for them to grow up and learn how reality works, just like the rest of us have to do.
This comment was written by Broce.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 8:53 am
Broce
Thats easy for your to say when you don’t have to deal with generational mental poverty.
This comment was written by Z.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 9:01 am
“There is sufficient public welfare assistance available in the United States that very few babies will starve. ”
Are you kidding? Sufficient public welfare? As I understand it there is a 5 year lifetime limit on TANF, with a 2 year at any one time limit.
This comment was written by Broce.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 9:05 am
“Thats easy for your to say when you don’t have to deal with generational mental poverty. ”
No, it’s easy to say because it’s reality. Are you suggesting that any man with a warped idea about women should be exempt from taking responsibility for children? Because an awful lot of men who did not grow up in poverty, mental or fiscal have warped ideas about manhood and about women.
A lot of women have warped ideas about womanhood and men, but that does not exempt them from caring for the children they birth.
This comment was written by Broce.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 9:07 am
In researching to try and answer Q Grrl’s question about the relative prevalence of deadbeat dads vs. aborting moms, I came across something which I didn’t know.
The majority (70% I think it was) of child support arrears - back payments that are owed - are not owed to custodial parents. They are owed to states. Most of the non-custodial parents who owe child support or don’t pay child support are involved with custodial parents who are on public assistance. When a custodial parent is on public assistance, they get their check, and the state goes after the non-custodial parent for “child support” - but the support is actually owed to the state to reimburse it for the welfare that the state shouldn’t have to pay, if there was a working dad in the picture.
So the “but babies will starve” argument doesn’t seem to work very well; moms who are at that level of desperation will get support from the state, not from the man, if the man doesn’t step up. C4M might make welfare dependency worse but it won’t starve any kids.
The population of deadbeat dads is, by and large, a singularly unskilled and socially underclassed group of men. A realistic policy on support should probably recognize that.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 9:08 am
Are you kidding? Sufficient public welfare? As I understand it there is a 5 year lifetime limit on TANF, with a 2 year at any one time limit.
So you stay home with your baby for two years, and then you get a job.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 9:37 am
Robert, I said nothing about starving. A baby needs to eat well, have clean clothes, a safe car for transport, adequate heat and cooling in their house, etc. etc. What world do you live in where these things come free or even inexpensively. Oh wait, you already know these things: you just hate having to admit that women have legitimate complaints in this world. Grow up.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 9:39 am
Broce - These women get government and public assistance. Available to them are parenting classes, support groups, financial benefits, medical benefits, nutritional benefits, housing assistance, daycare assistance, educational assistance, self esteem classes, and mentorship programs all provided by tax payers dollars and enforced by the government. They are also no longer socially penalized for any behavior conductive of producing children out of wedlock and out of the bounds of any stability that is nuturing for the child.
These men, usually from single mother households themselves, get either their own deadbeat dad to look to or the rooster that hangs out on the corner. Maybe if they are lucky someone will privatley have a resource available to them, but more than often those are aimed at mothers.
again, its possible that we live in two different realities. Mine is that many, whom become fathers and whom become the father that are such loathed aka deabeats are usually low in self esteem, poorly educated, jobless or poorly employed, low skilled, and no one said that should absolve them from their reponsibilities automatically but they should be assisted.
This comment was written by Z.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 9:41 am
Precisely. And why is it that men forget this so often? If men are only using birth control at about 20%, then they’re sending a very clear message that they don’t give a rat’s ass about the women they’re fucking or the children they’re creating.
Birth control for men is easy to use, widely available OTC, inexpensive, and has a high rate of success. Why aren’t men using it? Especially if the cards are so obviously stacked against them?
Don’t want child support payments? Use birth control. Your own.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 9:49 am
Q Grrl,
You can get pregnant, men cannot. its your 100 percent your responsibilty to prevent it and your reponsibilty 100 percent the outcome.
Cry Foul
This comment was written by Z.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 9:54 am
Well, then, Z, if women have all the responsibility,t hen they get all the rights, too, and the subject is closed. Christ.
Women form the majority of those getting raped, so I guess to take your reasoning where it logically goes, when bad things happen to people, it’s their responsibility to prevent them?
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 9:58 am
Yeah, sure is a shame there’s all those well-paying male-dominated fields out there that men don’t take. Poor babies.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 10:07 am
Child support is owed the child. And the child does not give a flying fuck that you feel you didnt have as many options. The child had even less than you did, and absolutely NO involvement in the act that got her into this world.
The excuse that the choice wasnt equal falls flat when you correctly apply it to the one you actually owe the support to. The child had even less choice in the matter than you did and the child is the one you’re answering to for it’s existance and support.
“Well I didnt want to have you” will get a “tough shit, you DO “response from the child.
This comment was written by pheenobarbidoll.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 10:08 am
Abortion is a way of opting out of motherhood, or do you disagree? Should there be a legal penalty for aborting? $500/month for 18 years? Why not?
WTF?
Child support is not a penalty for being a non-custodial parent. If the parents were living together, they would both contribute in cash or in kind towards the household expenses the existence of the child entailed. If one parent is non-custodial, sie still has to make that contribution. Usually in cash, since it makes the accounting easier, although the Child Support Agency here in the UK makes allowances for contributions in kind when calculating the level of support payable.
Child support isn’t a punishment for not wanting to be a parent: it’s a recognition that the child exists and needs parents whatever the parents may feel about it. If a woman has an abortion (I cannot believe I have to type this) there is no child to be in need of support.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 10:09 am
okay Ginmar,
what the hell does rape have to do with anything
I thought we were talking here about two consenting folks having sex and resulting in an unwanted or unexpected child.
This comment was written by Z.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 10:10 am
>.Are you kidding? Sufficient public welfare? As I understand it there is a 5 year lifetime limit on TANF, with a 2 year at any one time limit.
So you stay home with your baby for two years, and then you get a job.
>>
Robert. TANF requires that you work, I believe, from the postpartum period onwards. If you are talking strictly about a population of women who qualify for TANF (and I don’t know why you are limiting it this way, the vast majority of single parents work), you’re talking about a population of people whose job skills are limited. They are unlikely to land a job that has good benefits, pays a living wage, including enough to cover child care costs.
This comment was written by Broce.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 10:13 am
Your knowledge of biology is somewhat lacking, my dear. Women don’t “get” pregnent. They get impregnated.
I assume that you’re in favor of castration for males then? Since they don’t need their balls or anything.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 10:19 am
If your ‘logic’ works, Z, it works for all things.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 10:19 am
Rape has everything to do with becoming pregnant. This again, however, is the glaring blind spot in your knowledge of human biology. Sperm, even sperm from icky, nasty, raping men, can cause a pregnancy.
So, again, since it is 100% my responsibility to prevent my pregnancies, I now solemly declare that the 3rd Wednesday of every 2nd month is the Q-Grrl Free Clinic, offering free castration services with minimally invasive techniques, the best in Jack Daniels anesthesia, and a free lolly-pop for the trip home! Come on boys! I’ll see you soon. *smooch*
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 10:23 am
“These women get government and public assistance.”
Which women, Z? I got jack. I didnt get child support, and I didnt get any other kind of assistance when my ex decided not to pay. I was on my own, right from the get go, with no family support, no support from anyone.
“Available to them are parenting classes, support groups, financial benefits, medical benefits, nutritional benefits, housing assistance, daycare assistance, educational assistance, self esteem classes, and mentorship programs all provided by tax payers dollars and enforced by the government.”
Baloney, Z. Self esteem classes? Mentorship? Where?
“They are also no longer socially penalized for any behavior conductive of producing children out of wedlock and out of the bounds of any stability that is nuturing for the child.”
Why those horrible sluts, opening their legs like that! I provided a stable and nurturing environment for my child without assistance from my ex, Z. I was lucky, damned lucky that I was intelligent, and landed in a career field entirely by accident at a time when that was really the only requirement - no one was looking for a college degree. I make more than most men, but the bottom line is the only difference between me and “those sluts” is that I had the bad judgement to actually marry the man who eventually fathered my son, and I was damnably lucky to find a way to raise him without assistance.
“These men, usually from single mother households themselves”
And the women you’re disparaging here are not?
“Mine is that many, whom become fathers and whom become the father that are such loathed aka deabeats are usually low in self esteem, poorly educated, jobless or poorly employed, low skilled, and no one said that should absolve them from their reponsibilities automatically but they should be assisted. ”
Ya know Z, I live a pretty middle class existence. So do many of my single parent friends. NONE of them receive child support from the fathers of their children, all of whom are also middle class. I know it’s comforting to believe that this is a “ghetto problem”….but it is not.
Many middle class single mothers are like me, they work 80 hours a week and forego chasing the father for support, because they don’t have enough energy to chase him, work, and spend time with the children.
And a lot of single mothers who come from the backgrounds you site also have the same issues, yet no one says “Poor thing” when she screws up, they just come take the kids away.
There are, by the way, a number of programs in existence now to support especially teen fathers from the socio-economic groups you mention. They are great programs, and I am all in favor of them.
But getting back to your earlier statement that the poor things had twisted opinions of women, as though somehow that makes it all ok….it doesnt.
When my ex and I split, I’d been a SAHM. I got up off my ass and took a job, any job, and slept on a sofa for four years so I could take care of both *my* responsibilities as a parent, and me ex’s, since it was apparent right from the start that he had no intention of paying *any* support. His first check bounced, costing me $40 I didnt have, and there wasn’t another one. All I am suggesting is that anyone who has a child needs to do whatever it takes to support that kid, period. Add in any programs you like to help develop job skills or whatever, but in the meantime, the kid needs to eat, needs to having clothing and medical attention, etc. No parent should be off the hook for *any* reason short of death or disability.
This comment was written by Broce.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 10:23 am
Q grrl
yeah I’m an idiot in regards to biology. Thanks for pointing that out for me. I forgot, dummy that I am an all…
Replace pregnant with impregnanting and BEING pregnant. Now what.
Castration??
now your just getting dramatic (Cried Foul)
I’ll be dramatic too
I believe men should be castrated and woman should have their breast and clitorises cut off because they don’t really need to them.
Whatever, that makes you happy?
Strawmen.
This comment was written by Z.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 10:30 am
How/why did people deliberately detour so far off topic? What on earth does a discussion about contractual agreements and child support have to do with… rape? With… castration? WTF?
We all know about straw feminists; they’re bad, like ALL straw people are bad. But here some folks are gleefully setting up straw arguments left and right: “Rapists!” “Abortion!” “Rape AND abortion!” “AAAA!!!” and (surprise!) the straw people are losing.
Wow, that makes for a fun discussion! Not. You folks are mirroring–almost exactly–the behaviors of the trolls we all despise in other contexts. Ain’t it grand?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 10:30 am
oh my god. This conversation isn’t about Rape, its about constenting people having sex and an unwanted child. Rape is violent criminal act. Unless your of the camp that believe all heterosexual sex is rape against women?
again, taking things way out of context. Obviously you have nothing to add because your injecting something into the discussion that is totally not in the boundries that this discussion is taking place. Unless I have been mistaken the whole time and this conversation was about men raping women and not about two people agreeing to have sex together.
Again Q grrl is pointing out my lack of intellegence, so maybe this is the case. I’ll go find the other thread. I might have made a wrong turn somewhere.
This comment was written by Z.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 10:31 am
Hey, at least strawmen can’t run out on child support payments.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 10:34 am
Z: you’re the one that came in with the “women are 100% responsible for 100% of their pregnancies so teh damn bitches betta keep their skanky legs shut” argument.
Don’t go screaming around the blog crying “foul” when we point towards your sophmoric attempts at debate.
I’m having a hard time believing it is 2006 and I have to explain to another adult (?) that women cannot get pregnant in the absence of male ejaculate.
Pray tell Z, how does that ejaculate get inside a woman?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 10:36 am
Chill out Sailorman. I’m just talking about hypotheticals and all. ‘kay?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 10:41 am
Q Grrl I don’t know what you are even talking about anymore. As you keep pointing out I’m too stupid to know the basic rules of how conception works, so maybe I’m too stupid to follow you. And I don’t agree with you. Lets just leave it at that?
This comment was written by Z.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 10:53 am
Sailorman, maybe it you actually tried, you’d get it.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 10:58 am
pheenobarbidoll wrote:
Thank you!
This comment was written by Richard Jeffrey Newman.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 11:07 am
I don’t understand this debate at all.
If a child is born then it’s about the child’s rights not the parents.
It doesn’t matter if the father or mother wants to sign away their rights - none of them can sign away their child’s rights to be supported by its parents.
The other aspect of this debate is just the usual abortion - anti-abortion debate. As a woman I decide who will have the use of my body, and whether to give a parasitic emryo the housing and means to, possibly, eventually develope into a child.
This comment was written by B.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 11:26 am
Z, let’s make this simple:
You can impregnate a woman. It’s 100 percent your responsibilty to prevent it and your responsibilty 100 percent the outcome.
This statement is no less (and no more) valid than yours.
This comment was written by Pyosis.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 11:31 am
What is all this talk of a “child”, and the child’s rights?
We’re talking about fetuses, and the right of both sexes to walk away from caring for fetuses. Fetuses don’t have any rights.
Sure, that fetus might later become a child, and then it will need support.
But that strikes me as being the problem of the person who decides whether or not to let the fetus become a child. Nobody is forcing women to bear children - to do so would be horrible and wrong, according to feminists, right? So, you have all the choice in the world.
I don’t see a problem with the people who have all the choice also having all the worry.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 11:52 am
Richard
that is essentially the point.Once there is a child it need to be supported However as things stand now, if a mother does not want to support her child being she doesn’t want the responsibilty or she cannot care for a child she can physically and financially give up or physically and financially abandon (with some time restrictions) it without penalty. These laws are gender neutral but they are implemented with bias towards the mother. And in the later case a change of mind can result in returned custody
There are also government implemented progams that provide women with assistance in caring for children who may not be able to. This should be the case for men who have a the desire but not the means or the assistance.This is something that would benefit the child on both ends.
This comment was written by Z.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 12:13 pm
I have little to say. I strongly support Sailorman’s comments in this thread.
Q Grrl, I think your comments here have been exceedingly aweful. You can reedem yourself in my eyes (not that I expect that you will or ought to care about my opinion of you) by addressing how exactly you think that the “keep your legs crossed” argument is more valid here than when it’s used against abortion, which has been asked of you several times in this thread, and which you haven’t addressed.
About the “it’s the child’s right to support” argument. I think that the child should not have a universal right to support from both of its biological parents. I think that the child should have a universal right to support from at least one person.
In fact, the way the laws currently work, it’s not apparent that such a right is recognized. If the child has a universal right to support from both biological parents, how is adoption possible? Why are safe haven laws permissible? The argument is not a strong one.
This comment was written by pdf23ds.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 12:25 pm
So you’re proposing that we define living children as “unaborted fetuses” or some such, and that we shouldn’t sweat guys not wanting to support an unaborted fetus who exists outside the womb because this guy actually made his real choice sooner, when it was still inside the womb, and that’s what should count? And this “virtual abortion” that a man has is made a reality by the woman’s actual right to abortion? Are you seriously suggesting this? It’s only by defining abortion in the most abstract terms (as you do, in defining it as merely the right to “walk away from caring for fetuses”) that one could make such an equivalence.
This comment was written by Imani.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 12:28 pm
No, Imani, I’m not seriously suggesting that. It’s monstrous.
But it is the logical extension of pro-choice values and logic. Sauce for the goose, etc.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 12:36 pm
Wow, Robert, nice strawfeminst you got there.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 12:39 pm
Robert, either state this “logical extenstion” in the form of a proof starting from Amp’s post on personhood and dendritic spines, or withdraw that absurd claim.
This comment was written by hf.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 12:39 pm
pdf: I addressed it in my comment about men’s lack of committment to using thier own birth control. I listed abstaining from one.form.of.sex as an adequate method of avoiding pregnancy. I would give the same advice to women. Surprised? Ah, but I didn’t tell the useless skank to keep her legs shut, so I guess it doesn’t count in the haters’ book.
Robert and Z: what are women to do in Mississippi, South Dakota, and Ohio? You make it seem as if abortion clinics are as easily accessible as Ben & Jerry’s. Or that having an abortion is less risky than a choice between Rocky Road and Vanilla Bean. Are you truly suggesting that the idea of male contraception is as foreign as humans walking on Mars? Come on now.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 12:41 pm
I think the C4M people are trying to fight the phsyical realities of gender in a way it hasn’t even occurred to feminists to begin fighting! But then again, (re)writing the law so that men are always in the better starting position out of the block is pretty much par for the course for male supremacists.
This comment was written by Tara.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 12:41 pm
You’ll need to find a doctor willing to sterilize young fertile women too. It’s not as easy as it sounds.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 12:42 pm
“But it is the logical extension of pro-choice values and logic.”
Umm, no. You’re the first person to bring up the equivalence in support of the (sort of) pro-C4M side of the argument. I don’t believe Sailorman’s or Z’s argument depends on that equivalence at all.
This comment was written by pdf23ds.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 12:46 pm
I find it very telling that so many men (on this thread, even) think of child support as a “penalty.” You are so bitter and resentful about having to give up any possible privilege that you will suggest with a straight face that men shouldn’t have to pay child support because women can just go on welfare. WTF?? Living on welfare is HORRIBLE. It is deeply stigmatized, and it is *not* enough money to live on, let alone to support a child. Whining that “I don’t want to pay child support, she should just go on welfare” indicates that you have absolutely no respect for women as people.
This comment was written by Karolena.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 12:48 pm
Bean, I’d appreciate your thoughts about my argument against the “it’s the child’s right” position.
Q Grrl:
“I addressed it in my comment about men’s lack of committment to using thier own birth control.”
Many anti-abortion folks would assign the greater blame to women who are inconsistent in their use of birth control, so this doesn’t serve to differentiate the positions enough.
“I listed abstaining from one.form.of.sex as an adequate method of avoiding pregnancy.”
So do those who use that argument to oppose abortion.
This comment was written by pdf23ds.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 12:59 pm
“In fact, the way the laws currently work, it’s not apparent that such a right is recognized. If the child has a universal right to support from both biological parents, how is adoption possible? Why are safe haven laws permissible? The argument is not a strong one. ”
Adoption and safe haven laws create the opportunity for a child to recieve support from 2 parents.
Both biological parents are needed for an adoption to take place. Every effort WILL BE MADE to ensure that. Adoption agencies hire private detectives to seek out the biologiocal fathers before 1 parent will be allowed to surrender a child for adoption. In cases of safe haven, efforts ARE made to find willing relatives, efforts are made to find the father as well. In each case, every effort IS made to give a child 2 parents.
The responsibility to replace 2 biological parents falls to the biological parents in cases of adoption. Adoptive parents serve as biologocal parents. In cases of safe haven laws, the responsibility to replace 2 biological parents with adoptive parents falls to the state, after BOTH parents (if and when possible) consent to the state taking that responsibility on.
This comment was written by pheenobarbidoll.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Karolena
Well I for one suggested that men that wanted to support their children get welfare assistance also. Saying this as a woman who has been on welfare twice.
This comment was written by Z.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 1:08 pm
“Robert and Z: what are women to do in Mississippi, South Dakota, and Ohio? You make it seem as if abortion clinics are as easily accessible as Ben & Jerry’s. Or that having an abortion is less risky than a choice between Rocky Road and Vanilla Bean. Are you truly suggesting that the idea of male contraception is as foreign as humans walking on Mars? Come on now.”
Q grrl,
what about the baby girls in India?
This comment was written by Z.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 1:09 pm
Q Girl, are you the strawfeminist other feminists are always complaining about?
You consistently misunderstand. In the first trimester, there is no child. There is just a woman with a choice.
Let’s say 2 people go out for a drive. The woman drives. They get a flat tire. The man says, I think you should get a new tire. She says “its my car, its my choice, you can’t make me replace the tire” She drives on the bad tire and ruins the rim. Are they 50/50 responsible for the additional damage?
I agree that women who have children in extreme desperation are committing a crime.
On the plus side (for some) the men who are imprisoned for child support arrears are probably disproportionately black.
This comment was written by Rob.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 1:14 pm
“Both biological parents are needed for an adoption to take place.”
Yes, and I think this is proper, as long as neither of the biological parents has signed off on their parental interest in the child. The default should be that both parents are responsible for the child. But I don’t think this fact gives any support to the “child’s right” argument. No, in this case, it’s more about the parent’s right–the right to have a say in what sort of care their child is placed under.
“In each case, every effort IS made to give a child 2 parents.”
Not because two is any magical number (though I’m sure this is a widespread view) but because single-parent households tend to be much less suitable as adoptive families, and triple-parent households are very rare. For instance, I presume that you would support the right of competent gay couples to adopt?
“Adoptive parents serve as biologocal parents.”
No, adoptive parents serve as parents–parents that replace what is traditionally the role of the biological parents. But the task of raising a child has little to do with biological relatedness. And to the extent the raising a child *does* have to do with biological relatedness (such as being familiar with family diseases and psychological problems, and infant-mother bonding,) adoptive parents serve as poor replacements. Adoptive parents do not serve as biological parents.
“In cases of safe haven laws, the responsibility to replace 2 biological parents with adoptive parents falls to the state”
Again, 2 is not a magical number. If a single person could demonstrate that they would make a good parent, the state, ideally, would consider them eligible as an adoptive parent. And anyway, the state often places orphans in the care of single relatives, like aunts, uncles, and grandparents, in preference to dual parent unrelated families.
This comment was written by pdf23ds.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 1:15 pm
Thats the most inaccurate analogy I’ve ever read.
This comment was written by pheenobarbidoll.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 1:18 pm
A general philosophy post before I wash my hands of this one.
I don’t want to pay child support because I don’t have any children who aren’t being supported in a marital relationship. I “pay my child support” every day by being a dad.
I also don’t mind paying taxes to support some kind of social welfare net to help parents who, for whatever reason, don’t have a partner to help raise their child. That’s a difficult situation to be in, and as noted, it’s not the child’s fault.
That said, I really don’t understand the pro-choice position being articulated (or avoiding being articulated) here. If it’s OK for a woman to decide she doesn’t want any part of the reproductive consequence of her sex life, why isn’t OK for a man?
Answers about “the welfare of the child” don’t fly. The woman gets to choose whether the child comes into existence. She’s not being forced into child-rearing. If she doesn’t want to raise the child herself, then she has options. The concomitant of power is responsibility; if women have 100% of the choice and 100% of the options, guess where 100% of the responsibility is going to wind up?
Yeah, those options aren’t great sometimes. That’s life. Perhaps if you can’t get an abortion where you live, and can’t afford birth control, and don’t have a man in your life who will step up and BE a man, and can’t face bearing a child only to give it up for adoption or to an orphanage, and can’t live on public support…perhaps that’s the time when you should consider the fact that vaginal sex is an optional part of life, and cock - just like pussy - is not a human right.
Alternatively, people can accept that babies are a duh-obvious predictable consequence of intercourse - and that people who are not prepared to deal with those consequences, one way or the other, ought to refrain from intercourse. And men and women can both step up to their unique responsibilities, and do the right thing.
But “these guys aren’t stepping up to their responsibility!” is a laughable position from people whose entire gender philosophy is predicated and centered around ensuring that women are able to sidestep their own responsibilities. (And kudos to the group of feminists who recognize this and disavow pro-choice arguments as being central to feminism.) I don’t think some of you perceive how absolutely flailing your responses to C4M arguments are - and that’s just the arguments that aren’t cut-and-paste jobs from patriarchs and theocons with “woman” crossed out and “man” penciled in.
If we want people to be obliged to meet their responsibilities as adults, then that’s fine - from my POV, it’s more than fine, it’s the best way to handle things.
If we want people to be empowered to avoid the responsibilities and consequences of sex, then that’s fine, too, if that’s what the bulk of society’s members want. But then we can’t be surprised when everybody wants into the lifeboat.
Either everybody who’s able-bodied swims, or everybody rides. “My magical uterus powers are a ticket to ride in the lifeboat - you boys get back into the water” is a non-starter.
If feminists want to seriously address these issues, then you’re going to have to put in a lot of work. Right now, C4M is the province of the bozo fringe - people who weren’t raised right and have a pretty lame stock of legal and mental capital to put into the fray - and in the court of public opinion, they’re starting to kick your ass. I was hostile to C4M arguments two-three years ago - and in the meantime I’ve been hearing from their loser brigade and from feminism’s best and brightest. And the loser brigade is winning the argument in the public mind. They’ve convinced me; there’s no justification for giving one gender a special power in the reproductive arena.
What do you think is going to happen when the next couple of generations of men - the ones who have been raised with “reproductive autonomy” and “choice” drilled into them from childhood - hit maturity? They’re not going to put any more credence in magical uterus powers than I do, and fifty years of egalitarian teaching is going to put the kibosh on the idea of “substantive justice” and special rules for one group. Add that to the baseline level of misogyny already in the culture, and what do you think the outcome will be?
If she can choose, so can he.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 1:28 pm
“No, in this case, it’s more about the parent’s right–the right to have a say in what sort of care their child is placed under.”
Hardly. If the parents picked an inappropriate environment or unfit adoptive parents, that child would be taken out of the situation. After you sign away rights, you have no say. The state and the adoption agency will place the child with adoptive parents that best suit the childs interests and rights.
“Not because two is any magical number (though I’m sure this is a widespread view) but because single-parent households tend to be much less suitable as adoptive families, and triple-parent households are very rare. For instance, I presume that you would support the right of competent gay couples to adopt?”
So far, data on 2 parent households does indeed suggest this is the ideal enviroment for a child to recieve rights such as proper housing, clothing, nutrition, and other variations of support. 2 parent household does not= male/female. A parent is without gender.
“No, adoptive parents serve as parents–parents that replace what is traditionally the role of the biological parents. But the task of raising a child has little to do with biological relatedness. And to the extent the raising a child *does* have to do with biological relatedness (such as being familiar with family diseases and psychological problems, and infant-mother bonding,) adoptive parents serve as poor replacements. Adoptive parents do not serve as biological parents.”
Family history is given in cases of adoption. Adoptive parents are aware of family dieases, problems ect. Infant-mother bonding happens through day to day care and emotion between infant and mother. Adoptive parents are in no way poor replacements providing they put in the effort it takes to truly care for a child and invest the emotion needed to form bonding.
“Again, 2 is not a magical number. If a single person could demonstrate that they would make a good parent, the state, ideally, would consider them eligible as an adoptive parent. And anyway, the state often places orphans in the care of single relatives, like aunts, uncles, and grandparents, in preference to dual parent unrelated families. ”
And one of the requirements is the financial stability to raise a child without welfare assistance or burden to the state. In other words, a single family member making or exceeding an average 2 parent income, or access to support that meets or exceeds an average 2 parent income. They dont hand them off to people who cant feed them.
This comment was written by pheenobarbidoll.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 1:29 pm
pdf: are you saying my arguments are unsound because someone else wants to restrict women’s access to abortion? I’m really not sure where you are going with your statements.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 1:33 pm
Q Grrl: I’m saying that your argument is exactly as sound whether used against C4M or used against abortion choice. I happen to think it’s quite unsound in both instances.
This comment was written by pdf23ds.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 1:36 pm
I am finding myself increasingly frustrated as I read through this thread. Here is some of what I have been thinking, not necessarily in the most logical of orders, as I read:
1. When a couple gets divorced, there are two forms—and, as far as I know, only two forms—of payment that one spouse makes to another, alimony and child support. The first, according to my understanding, is to help the less financially well-off spouse to maintain a standard of living comparable to what he or she enjoyed while married; the second is to support the children of the marriage. It is not money that is owed to the custodial parent and it is not a penalty; it is a payment intended to continue to provide the children of the marriage with the kind of financial support they had while their parents were married. The money that would be paid to the mother of the child who is at issue in this argument is no different; it is not her money and it is not a penalty to which a man is subject because he has helped to conceive a child. It is money earmarked for the child.
2. I realize that the child support payments a man would have to make for a child he didn’t want might feel like a penalty, and I do not want to trivialize the enormity–and while it is certainly not as enormous as being pregnant and giving birth and then being a child’s primary care giver, it is still enormous–of a man’s realization that a woman’s decision not to abort will turn him into a father and legally obligate him to that child for a significant number of years, the fact remains that the relationship we are talking about here is not the one between the man and the woman with whom he conceived the child; the relationship we are talking about is the one between the man and that child, and that relationship exists from the moment the child is conceived. When my wife and I conceived our son, the fact that my son was not yet in the world only meant that, just as he was still a potential child, I was his father in potentia. The fact that my wife, if she wanted to, could have gotten an abortion without even informing me does not change this fact. I helped to make the fetus that eventually became my son. Leaving aside, for the moment, the kinds of contractual agreements that Sailorman is talking about, to walk away from the fact of this relationship is to fail to take responsibility for my own actions.
3. Now, as far as I know, the only kind of support a parent can be legally compelled to provide for a child is financial. We cannot compel a parent to love a child; hell, we can’t even compel a parent to treat his or her child kindly or non-abusively—what we can do is punish the parent after the fact of the abuse. So, since the choice-for-men that started this whole discussion is ultimately nothing more than the choice of whether or not to pay child support, it seems to me we are back to the question of how society structures itself to provide financially for born children. We do not live in a culture that says, “The overwhelming majority of people have sex for pleasure and not solely for reproduction; this means that there will be, in any given year, a given number of unplanned pregnancies, and out of those pregnancies, a given number will result in a child that was not planned, and some percentage of those children will be born to parents either one or both of whom will not want to be parents. We need, as a sexually active society, collectively, to figure out how to provide for those children and offer support to whoever ends up being the child’s parent/caregiver.”
Rather, we live in a culture that is not only ridiculously conflicted and neurotic and hypocritical about sex, but also says you are solely responsible for your own actions, which is why the relationship that is at issue in this discussion and in the whole choice-for-men argument is not between the father and his child, and how that relationship is/ought to be shaped by the fact that the child had no choice about being born, is entirely dependent, etc., but rather between the man and the woman, i.e. “She shouldn’t have the right to force me to become a father.” (And here I return to something I said above: he was a father the moment that child was conceived.)
4. And so we come to the contract: The problem I have with the contract idea is that it presupposes two entirely rational, relatively well-educated and highly privileged individuals who are not only able to think logically before they get sexually involved, but are sophisticated enough to really think through all the implications of what such a contract would mean; as a hypothetical, for example, it does not account for the men to whom Z refers, who are so disadvantaged and demonized in so many ways that such a contract would, I think, be meaningless to them. The contract idea is, in other words, so divorced from the reality of how actual people behave when they are sexually involved that even if it is internally consistent, it is not a workable solution to anything. (And I am not suggesting that Sailorman actually meant the contract idea should or could be implemented; I am explaining why I think it’s not worth talking much about.)
5. Q Grrl’s point about castration is an important one, not because it should be put into action—obviously—but because it raises, graphically and disturbingly, the question of male heterosexual responsibility solely in terms of the male body, which is something that I think has been given short shrift in this discussion. Male reproductive choice, if it is going to have any kind of moral/ethical authority, needs to be located in the realities of the male body, in the same way that female reproductive choice is located in the realities of the female body. Anything else, given that we live in a male dominated culture, is going to end up being, almost by definition, an expression of male power and privilege.
Okay, I have gone on long enough. I apologize for the lenght of this.
This comment was written by Richard Jeffrey Newman.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 1:37 pm
This is why it is so hard for a single father to contest an adoption and win if he doesn’t have an army backing him. A 2 parent household with a stable income is an ideal setting for a child.
Single parents can adopt but the have to shown exemplorary proof of financial income and assistance with raising the child(nannies, family, etc). However if the price is right, adoption agencies will fudge stuff for the parent.
This comment was written by Z.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 1:39 pm
Pheenobarbidoll: As far as I know, you get all the facts about adoption right. But I don’t see how your post makes the argument that the biological relationship is somehow privileged, such that a child being raised by one parent has a right to support from the other parent.
I’m open (and somewhat favorable) to the argument that, given the realities involved, that making the biological parents responsible is the best practical solution, but I still strongly object to saying that the child has a right to that particular form of support.
This comment was written by pdf23ds.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 1:41 pm
Oh, and I strongly support the position that each parent has an obligation to support the child if they’ve previously committed to do so. No backsies. So, in Sage’s situation, I would say her husband was a real asshole, and would support much stronger enforcement of child support payment collection.
This comment was written by pdf23ds.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 1:47 pm
Oh, and I strongly support the position that each parent has an obligation to support the child if they’ve previously committed to do so. No backsies. So, in Sage’s situation, I would say her husband was a real asshole, and would support much stronger enforcement of child support payment collection.
Absolutely. Once a relationship is established and an obligation voluntarily assumed, that’s the ball game.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 1:49 pm
I can endorse Richard’s 3rd point. In our current political situation, and with the current state of welfare, I would not necessarily support changes to lessen men’s obligation to support their biological children. While I believe that the situation is unjust, I think the welfare of the child could be an overriding concern. (Yes, I’m waffling a bit about it.)
This comment was written by pdf23ds.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 2:37 pm
But “these guys aren’t stepping up to their responsibility!” is a laughable position from people whose entire gender philosophy is predicated and centered around ensuring that women are able to sidestep their own responsibilities. (And kudos to the group of feminists who recognize this and disavow pro-choice arguments as being central to feminism.) I don’t think some of you perceive how absolutely flailing your responses to C4M arguments are - and that’s just the arguments that aren’t cut-and-paste jobs from patriarchs and theocons with “woman” crossed out and “man” penciled in.
No, what’s “flailing” is your giving cover to those who would hijack pro-choice language to create some new “right” for men rather than doing the more difficult work of trying to establish an independent philosophical foundation for it, and the only thing that’s “laughable” is any suggestion that feminists drop everything they’re doing to educate those who are too obtuse to see the difference between the right to an abortion and some ersatz right to “walk away” from responsibility to living children. If the right to refuse to be a parent to a living child is truly the cause you wish to take up, then at least make it clear that you’re arguing for something new, rather than proceeding from the fallacious assumption of an obvious and there-from-the-start kinship between C4M and pro-choice ethics.
Not to be unkind, but I’m having a hard time not reading into your words a passive-aggressive stance toward women’s reproductive freedom. It shows up in your “sauce for the goose” comment, as well as your characterization of abortion as an “evasion of responsibility,” an oft-used anti-abortion talking point. It’s as if you don’t really think C4M will gain any legal traction any time soon, but if in the meantime one can delegitimize pro-choice discourse through the specter of would-be deadbeat dads taking up the same rhetoric, and bully feminists into dropping everything they’re doing just to deal with that possibility (even backing away from their strident pro-choice-ism, if that’s what it takes) that’s not a bad consolation prize.
This comment was written by Imani.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 3:09 pm
too obtuse to see the difference between the right to an abortion and some ersatz right to “walk away” from responsibility to living children.
I know I said I was walking away, but I want to clarify this.
I’m not talking about what happens after birth.
I’m talking about a fetus. I’m talking about a woman and a man who have together conceived a fetus, and whether they can each walk away from their present and future responsibilities from that point forward. Currently, the woman can do this via a physical abortion, and the man has no recourse. All a properly-formulated C4M law would do would be to enable either party to file a “paper abortion” declaiming rights or responsibilities to the child.
The fetus doesn’t become a child until the woman bears it; if she has knowledge that the man doesn’t want it and bears it anyway, then I have no problem with the idea that caring for and supporting the child is then her problem. Responsibility for problems is the logical consequence of having all power over the decision that leads to the problem. (Rape is a male problem for that very reason.)
(To answer Bean’s query in #70, if a woman doesn’t inform the father of the existence of the child, then that would also seem to be her problem; if he decides to step up voluntarily, great.)
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 3:24 pm
Rob: so the below named woman is a slut, but the man in your scenario is just a man? That frankly speaks volumes about what you think of women.
It would be wonderful if laws were written with the interests of children at heart. They are not. Laws ensure reproductive freedom for women. Why not for men?
he should have used a condom, if he didn’t want a baby, so he should support any children resulting.
I agree with this statement.
The slut should keep her legs together, so she should not be allowed to get an abortion and support any children resulting. Compare and contrast.
Yes, lets.
Clearly women who have sex are sluts. Men who have sex are just men though. Men should support their children, as should women. However, women should not be ALLOWED to decide what happens to their slutty bodies, once they’ve sluttishly allowed some MAN to put his penis in and wiggle it around. The sluts! She should close her legs… and that man should stop wiggling his penis around inside sluts. It occurs to me, that if allowing a man to place his penis in my vagina and wiggle it somehow turns me from a human being into a mere slut… why don’t we lock up all the penises? Clearly they’re the source of the evil.
It would be wonderful if people weren’t so shitty as to need laws to tell them to do that which is obvious and moral. But unfortunately, the shitheads reign.
Birth control for a slut:
Hysterectomy: An operation to remove my reproductive organs. Painful, with associated risks, and insurance won’t cover an elective hysterectomy (unless you’ve already had kids).
Tubes tied: great unless I get a tubal pregnancy, and that’s a bad thing. Costs, pain.
I pay $42.00 a month for the pill. I have an annual exam, subsidized by Planned Parenthood, which costs me $100.00 (providing I have no STD testing done). I must have this exam yearly to get the pill. My insurance doesn’t cover this. 42 x 12 = $504.00 anually + $100.00 = $604.00 anually for birth control. On the plus side, hey! Any opportunity for someone to see my vagina, because y’know… Slut.
My risks:
Pregnancy
High blood pressure
clotting disorders
cancer
To get my pills, I have to take the day off work, losing a couple hundred dollars for the day I miss. I then go to a pharmacy, where I risk being denied that pill because Jaysus says so.
A man’s birth control:
Vasectomy: a day surgery, requiring no hospital stay. Still costs money, heals pretty quickly, feels like a kick to the nads. Pretty damned effective. Makes you less of a man… uh… according to other men… who usually don’t want kids, but still want to be “virile.”
Condoms: $3-5 bux anywhere…. and I mean *anywhere*. Any gas station, convenience store, grocery store, the machine in the bathroom… and they protect against STDs.
I’m sorry, but wear a condom. I’m sorry if you get stuck with parental responsibility you didn’t want, but wear a condom. There is just not one logical or acceptable excuse for not wearing a condom, especially not the selfishness that is the usual reason. If you can’t wear a condom, then again, very sorry, but you’re responsible for supporting any child that comes from the sex. This doesn’t absolve women from maintaining their own birth control, but still, wear a condom for YOURSELF.
But who will BAKE the bread?!
This comment was written by Azzy23.Z… you actually think fobbing male irrisponsibility off on the states is a *good* thing? You are aware that every social program is getting it’s budget drastically cut under this administration, right…? And while I congratulate you on your impending motherhood, and sympathize with your childhood issues, I don’t consider either to be valid for any purpose, other than to push me to scroll through the personal anecdote to another commentor with valid, logic-based replies.
Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 3:30 pm
Ampersand:
So how do you feel about laws that prohibit people from inducing abortions in other people’s bodies, or providing drugs to other people for that purpose? I think that is what the laws were in my state. I really don’t think the state prohibited women from doing whatever they wanted with their own body, except for things like prohibiting them from doing things with their own bodies that affected other people.
This comment was written by John Howard.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 3:40 pm
I’m open (and somewhat favorable) to the argument that, given the realities involved, that making the biological parents responsible is the best practical solution, but I still strongly object to saying that the child has a right to that particular form of support.
The act that created the child involves 2 people. Both are responsible for the sperm and egg meeting and having their little merger. If a child has the right to support from a parent (be it biological, adoptive whathave you and that right IS enforced, ie you must school your child, feed your child, clothe your child ect or face charges of neglect) it has the right to support from both responsible for its conception. One is not more responsible for conception than the other.
From the resulting childs point of view, both are parents, both chose the act that resulted in becoming a parent, both had more by way of decision making and both owe the child, since without 1 or the other, the child would not exist. If the child does NOT have a right to both parents, custody would simply be a matter of who is in possession of the child. Fathers would be SOL at that point. FRA’s argue that fathers have a right to their children. They also argue children have a right to a father. Why does this change now? Children only have a right to fathers when the father agrees? Thats a bit contradictory coming from the fathers rights camp, who are behind this mans suit. If you’ve argued children have a right to fathers, then children have a right to fathers. Maybe Im being unreasonable to hold them to their arguments. *shrug*
Both women and men have access to birth control. Not using birth control implies a consent to face any and all possible consequences, through CHOICE.
You choose to forgo birth control and you are actively choosing several possible consequences. 1) pregnancy and parenthood for both 2) pregnancy and termination of pregnancy 3) pregnancy and miscarriage resulting in no parenthood for either. 4) pregnancy and adoption.
Not one of those possible outcomes changes before, during or after sexual relations.
I really don’t see why this is such a hard concept for some people.
Sex has several possible outcomes. Having sex voluntarily means you are conciously, actively and implicity choosing these possible consequences. You can either take measures to limit these possible consequences or not. Risk is always a factor, you’re aware it’s a risk and you’ve chosen to roll the dice.
This comment was written by pheenobarbidoll.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 3:44 pm
“Responsibility for problems is the logical consequence of having all power over the decision that leads to the problem. ”
But she did NOT have all the power over the decision that led to the problem, unless she had sex with herself and impregnated herself.
What led to the problem was a sexual act, not pregnancy.
The man has 100% control over his own penis and sperm.
The woman has 100% control over her uterus and ovaries.
At no point does that change. It’s still equal.
This comment was written by pheenobarbidoll.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 3:59 pm
What led to the problem was a sexual act, not pregnancy.
This is quite clearly not true. A person can engage in sexual acts for twenty years and never run into this problem. Therefore, it is obvious that the problem is not predicated on “sexual acts”. The problem is predicated on an unwanted pregnancy - or on a pregnancy that one party wants and the other does not. No pregnancy, no problem.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 4:00 pm
Oh and just an aside
Unless child support is now being determined by taking the sum total of expenses needed to raise a child and divided by 2, the father is NOT being held to equal responsibility in support. So the claim ” Im having to share EQUAL responsibility in a decision I didnt have EQUAL say in” is still erroneous. He does indeed have equal say in engaging in sex and equal control over his body and organs just as she does. BUT his income support and responsibility do NOT reflect an equal obligation after a birth.
So it evens out rather nicely as is. She had slightly more decision making ability (though truthfully, its the exact same amount of decision making ability he has over his own body, but Im being generous) and has more responsibility as a result if she keeps the child. His never drops to zero because he still retained 100% of power of his body and 50% responsiblity for conception.
This comment was written by pheenobarbidoll.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 4:05 pm
“This is quite clearly not true. A person can engage in sexual acts for twenty years and never run into this problem. Therefore, it is obvious that the problem is not predicated on “sexual acts”. The problem is predicated on an unwanted pregnancy - or on a pregnancy that one party wants and the other does not. No pregnancy, no problem. ”
No sex, no pregnancy.
As I said, it’s a risk people ARE aware of. The possible consequences are clearly known before sex is had. They dont change afterwards. Every single possible option, outcome and possibility are all present before, during and after sex. You choose sex, you choose the whole package that comes with it. And you do so fully cognizant of every single possible outcome, you know your options and limitations beforehand.
This comment was written by pheenobarbidoll.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 4:11 pm
No sex, no pregnancy.
Empirically untrue.
And you do so fully cognizant of every single possible outcome, you know your options and limitations beforehand.
Absolutely. So if a man tells a woman before sex, “I am not going to provide any support for any baby that results from this - it’s not my problem, it’s yours” and she agrees to sex under those terms, she knows the options and limitations and there should be no question of whether she or anyone else would seek support from him. Glad we settled that!
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 4:25 pm
Empirically untrue.
Barring in vitro fertilizations and the like…and the remote chance of immaculate conception, what leads to pregnancy ? Sex. If you do not engage in sex, pregnancy will not occur. (and dont even try to introduce the stolen sperm strawman, we’re discussing 2 consenting adults)
“Absolutely. So if a man tells a woman before sex, “I am not going to provide any support for any baby that results from this - it’s not my problem, it’s yours” and she agrees to sex under those terms, she knows the options and limitations and there should be no question of whether she or anyone else would seek support from him.”
The child did not enter this contract and the child is to whom the support is owed. Not the mother.
The child.
The child enters into a new contract, and since it had absolutely ZERO contribution to the contract between mother and father, its not subject to the terms of the agreement.
This comment was written by pheenobarbidoll.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 4:59 pm
The child did not enter this contract and the child is to whom the support is owed.
I concede your point.
Very well. I have a question. At what identifiable point in time does this “child” entity, the one whom a debt of parenthood is now owed, come into being?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 5:08 pm
“As I said, it’s a risk people ARE aware of. The possible consequences are clearly known before sex is had. They dont change afterwards. Every single possible option, outcome and possibility are all present before, during and after sex. You choose sex, you choose the whole package that comes with it. And you do so fully cognizant of every single possible outcome, you know your options and limitations beforehand”
And some would believe this is why abortion and other means of dissolving parental rights for women should not be legal. Barring medical emergencies.
Women know choosing sex is to choose an outcome that could possible result in a embryo.
And what if she knowing has sex with a man that she knows is irresponsible or unable to provide for himself let alone a child, should she be penalized and forced to have the child and raise it? I don’t think so.
This comment was written by Z.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 5:17 pm
Birth? Do you mean the beginning of the birthing process, or when the baby is 80% out of the woman’s vaginal canal, or what? I’m not trying to be pedantic, I really want to know.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 5:42 pm
I would say when the child takes it’s first breath and the doctors declares “time of birth.”
Oh. So it would be OK for the father, or his paid assistant, to swoop in right before the child breathed, and kill it?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 5:50 pm
“And some would believe this is why abortion and other means of dissolving parental rights for women should not be legal. Barring medical emergencies. ”
The fact remains that it IS legal and IS one method of controlling birth and procreation. It is still a consequence one has to face, regardless of what one chooses. An abortion is a possible consequence of sex. So until it’s taken out of the equation AS a consequence, you have no excuse not to be aware that it could be a possible outcome stemming from your direct actions.
This comment was written by pheenobarbidoll.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 5:53 pm
Bean - technically I agree with you.But with few things
1. Fathers should be given a way to opt out with restrictions. Perhaps resolved to showing intent before or within a certain time period after.
2. Fathers should receive welfare and other program assistance if they are willing to support their child but for whatever reasons are unable
3. Women whom do no put a birth fathers name on a birth certificate thereby acknowledge no existence of a father and assume sole responsibility for the child financially and emotionally. If father pops up and decides he wants to be a part of the childs life then he becomes legally responsible for the child just as the mother is.
Maybe even DNA test at birth should be done routinely, and filed, in case proving paternity in a child support case, adoption proceedings, medical issues, etc. But I don’t know how much that would consist of a violation of privacy.
This comment was written by Z.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 5:58 pm
I would say it becomes an entity owed the second its no longer subject to legal abortion. From that moment on, you’re either preparing to be a parent, preparing to act as a form of support, or preparing to find suitable replacements.
This comment was written by pheenobarbidoll.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2006 at 11:50 pm
Why is it a ludicrous question? It’s OK for one parent to kill the entity in question ten minutes or ten weeks or thirty weeks before it draws breath. I assume on equity grounds that the other parent has a similar right to killl, and based on the definitions you’ve offered of when it’s a child (when it breathes) and when it’s operating solely under the mother’s right to kill (when it’s inside her). That seems to leave a window of opportunity, not a very long one, but perhaps long enough. Is that not the right window?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
August 2nd, 2006 at 1:30 am
Robert,
Give it up, this is just dumb.
You are smearing distinctions and making grandiose equivalences that just don’t make any sense.
The responsibility to care for the created child is not identical with the responsibility not to kill a fetus or a child. No unconnected third party has the right to kill the fetus (except as the selected agent of the pregnant woman) or the child, even though they don’t have a responsibility to pay for its care, so the fact that the expectant father has to pay for care of the child after point x doesn’t mean he is free to kill it before point x. Likewise, a pregnant woman can both have a legal obligation to seek proper prenatal care for her unborn child, and a right to kill her fetus, so you can see that the responsibility to the child, should it be born (and once it is born) is a separate issue from the right of the mother to have an abortion. No child, no responsibility of care.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
August 2nd, 2006 at 4:25 am
After reading all the comments on the thread, I’m left with one idea: Unless fraud can be proven as in a man or woman has deliberately lied about the status in regards to conception both parents are and should be required to support any child born from their decision to have sex.
Yes, women have more choices in regards to how to handle an unwanted pregnancy, and that comes down to biology. However, once the child is born and drawing breath it is going to need both financial and emotional support and guidance. I know many men who pay child support, and yet do not fully support thier children. I know several women that want the money from their child’s biological father but want no involvement for him in the child’s life.
In regards to welfare for single mothers: My mother was disabled and after her divorce she raised us on public assisstance and his child support. Even now, a family of three can get up to 700 per month in food stamps, section 8 housing assisstance, and medicaide for the kids. As fare as welfare (cash assisstance) I believe that a person is exempt from having to work until the child reaches school age, or unless the state pays for daycare services in your area.
No, my Mom didn’t get rich, but we also didn’t do without either. I wasn’t easy, but she did it just like I did it for two years until I got my present employment. What I see most of my friend’s children missing isn’t the financial contribution of two parents, but the emotional support and involvement of their absent fathers.
Not really sure where I was going with this, but it’s early and I’ve only had one cup of coffee.
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
August 2nd, 2006 at 7:08 am
The “use a condom every time you have sex” argument is about as valid as abstinence only IMHO. It’s a nice fantasy to pretend that men have good birth control options, but we don’t. We can pretty much use a condom, which makes sex less fun/intimate/etc or have surgery to permanently prevent us from impregnating. Please stop with the “it’s selfish to not use a condom every single time you ever have sex” stuff.
This comment was written by plunky.Report this comment to the moderators
August 2nd, 2006 at 8:25 am
The responsibility to care for the created child is not identical with the responsibility not to kill a fetus or a child.
What responsibility is there not to kill a fetus?
the fact that the expectant father has to pay for care of the child after point x doesn’t mean he is free to kill it before point x
Well, of course not.
His right to kill it derives from the principle of reproductive autonomy.
…you can see that the responsibility to the child, should it be born (and once it is born) is a separate issue from the right of the mother to have an abortion.
Well, yes. That’s why I was trying to nail down when, exactly, we have a “child”. You can’t kill a child, so if you want to absolve yourself of responsibility, you have to kill the entity before it reaches that stage.
No child, no responsibility of care.
Exactly.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
August 2nd, 2006 at 9:38 am
“The “use a condom every time you have sex” argument is about as valid as abstinence only IMHO. It’s a nice fantasy to pretend that men have good birth control options, but we don’t. We can pretty much use a condom, which makes sex less fun/intimate/etc or have surgery to permanently prevent us from impregnating. Please stop with the “it’s selfish to not use a condom every single time you ever have sex” stuff. ”
Not only is it selfish (thats what claiming its less “fun” means btw) it’s foolish. Condoms don’t just protect you from an unwanted pregnancy, they protect you from many diseases, some of which last a lifetime or end a life too soon. A huge number of those diseases show no symptoms and a great deal of people have no idea they’re infected.
Thats like saying ” dont tell me driving drunk is selfish”.
Men DO have good birth control options. Not only do mens BC options have a higher chance at preventing pregnancy, they prevent diseases. Other than the female condom, womens BC only protects against pregnancy to a lesser degree. And to do THAT, they have to have their hormones jacked with or stick a piece of rubber inside them.
grow up.
This comment was written by pheenobarbidoll.Report this comment to the moderators
August 2nd, 2006 at 9:50 am
“We can pretty much use a condom, which makes sex less fun/intimate/etc or have surgery to permanently prevent us from impregnating. ”
And the “minor” inconvenience of birth control to women:
The pill can create all sorts of problems; this is in the news a lot, and I’m sure I don’t need to detail it, but keep in mind words like “stroke” and “embolism.”
The IUD causes menstrual periods to be heavier and more painful. It can also perforate the uterus.
The diaphragm? Women can be sensitive to spermicide used with these, causing vaginal irritation and itching. When I used a diaphragm, I got a bladder infection every single time.
ALL of these side effects can decrease a woman’s pleasure in sex greatly.
But of course, those minor issues are so much less important than the reduction in “fun” that would be caused by his using a condom.
Cry me a river.
This comment was written by Broce.Report this comment to the moderators
August 2nd, 2006 at 6:06 pm
Child support is by definition about a born child. But if you read the judgement you’ll find ‘paternal’ obligations go beyond this. The act requires men to share equally in the ‘reasonable and necessary’ expenses of the confinement/pregnancy. So they can be made to contribute to the cost of bringing about the birth of the child and the survival of the mother (with her veto on adoption) even if what they want is for one or both of them to die.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
August 2nd, 2006 at 6:50 pm
bean,
This was some 15 years ago, and as I said my mother was disabled and so she got SSI in addition to Housing assistance, food stamps, and medicaide for us. I currently live in Louisiana, and I’m not sure about other states. I just knew that when I was drawing food stamps during my first marriage only one of us “had” to work until the kids were school aged. Of course this was me, because my ex was too lazy to work to help support the family.
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
August 2nd, 2006 at 7:44 pm
Implications
People are really terrible at arguing. The biggest thing, by far, that happens in my experience is that people see implied assertions (implied positions) in others’ posts that the posters didn’t see, and attack the others based on those pe…
This comment was written by Metablog.Report this comment to the moderators
August 2nd, 2006 at 11:09 pm
But “these guys aren’t stepping up to their responsibility!” is a laughable position from people whose entire gender philosophy is predicated and centered around ensuring that women are able to sidestep their own responsibilities.
Robert, liberals do not define themselves by their opposition to you. (I assume the bit about women’s responsibilities represents your own philosophy.) And while people may use the word “responsibility” as a rhetorical device when talking about child support, this does not seem logically necessary. I imagine voters’ thought process goes something like this, if we put it in more neutral terms:
1. We want to protect children. This goal trumps all other moral values.
2. In order for children to survive, someone has to pay their cost of living. [Unlike the concern about same-sex marriage, this involves a scientifically proven and indeed rather obvious fact to balance the desires of adults.] I don’t want to do it, though I will if I see no alternative.
3. Parents traditionally fulfill this role. If we can make this system work in a particular case, we can move on to the next child (who may have no parents).
4. I’ll therefore vote for laws that require parents to pay to keep their children alive. Because I can. See #1.
At what identifiable point in time does this “child” entity, the one whom a debt of parenthood is now owed, come into being?
I should probably ignore this, but I’ll try to respond briefly. According to Amp, a child might exist after the 28th week of pregnancy. But of course we’d have to look at a particular case to find out, for example, if the “child” has a head or if the pregnancy went wrong at some point. If you can prove that 28th week abortions involving a viable pregnancy even happen in the USA, and that we’ve made a reasonable effort to avoid such situations by providing earlier (and thus morally unambiguous) birth control — at a minimum, removing any State or “pro-lifer” produced barriers — then maybe we can talk about balancing concern for a possible child against the rights of the mother.
This comment was written by hf.Report this comment to the moderators
August 3rd, 2006 at 6:38 am
So they can be made to contribute to the cost of bringing about the birth of the child and the survival of the mother (with her veto on adoption) even if what they want is for one or both of them to die.
If you read the judgment, then you’d know that this obligation is imposed on the mother as well as the father. Regardless of whether she wanted to be pregnant, or had an opportunity to abort.
The law is very simple If there is a child, both parents are responsible for that child, whether or not either parent wanted that child, meant to conceive that child, or was able to get an abortion, or in any way wanted to be a parent.
What C4M does is to create an escape hatch for men only. There is nothing in the law now that says “If you couldn’t terminate your unwanted pregnancy, Mom, you have no legal or moral obligation to the child when it’s born.” Arguments about abandonment and adoption are red herrings meant to obscure this fact.
And, again, I find it rather telling that the arguments are all about child support. Forget the huge legal and moral burden of being the biological parent of another human being; it’s the money, honey.
Robert, what you really believe is that women should not have the right to terminate support of their child while it is still in the womb.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
August 3rd, 2006 at 7:00 am
This thread got way too odd for me when the castration comments started :) so I mostly dropped out.
Myth, the arguments are only about child support because that’s, well, what the c4m movement is about. Child support is a separable issue which (in theory, though apparently not in practice) can be be discussed without getting into abortion, castration, where in the birth canal a baby’s head needs to be to be alive, etc etc.
Similarly, the prochoice movement usually isn’t about child support, either. And it need not be, as abortion rights and child support are not necessarily required to come up simultaneously in every conversation. And the immigration rights movement isn’t about food stamps. And the….
BTW: you say “Forget the huge legal and moral burden of being the biological parent of another human being; it’s the money, honey.” For a noncustodial parent, the “huge legal burden of being the biological parent of another being” you talk about IS MONEY. It’s not custody, it’s money. And you’re right: It can be a huge burden. That’s why people talk about it.
Which is a very interesting topic. And a normal topic to discuss–in theory. But it sure as heck doesn’t seem possible to discuss it here, so I’m dropping back out again.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
August 3rd, 2006 at 7:18 am
But it sure as heck doesn’t seem possible to discuss it here, so I’m dropping back out again
Sorry, but I don’t play the ‘no tagbacks’ game. If you don’t want to discuss an issue, don’t bring it up. “I’ve said my piece, now everybody shut up”? Nah.
For a noncustodial parent
Exactly my point, Sailorman. The arguments aren’t about how unfair it is that the father might have to have some custody, or spend every other weekend being Daddy to a child he doesn’t want. They’re not about the mother abandoning her child and leaving the man the single parent of a child she claimed to want, but he doesn’t.
If you really think money is a worse burden than parenting, you haven’t spent much time rearing children. Which I suspect is also true of the C4M crowd.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
August 3rd, 2006 at 7:39 am
[Rude comment deleted. Sailorman would like it to be known that he has three children. --Amp]
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
August 3rd, 2006 at 9:01 am
Even is if C4m was lega?!?! Alot of us would still choose parenthood.
I don’t see how this is any different to a women supporting legal abortion, even though she would never have one herself.
This comment was written by Beste.Report this comment to the moderators
August 3rd, 2006 at 9:28 am
Then I find it very strange that Sailorman appears to agree that money really ought to be the central issue in this debate.
After all, nobody frames Roe in terms of the impact of pregnancy or childbirth on the mother’s income.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
August 3rd, 2006 at 9:40 am
I also have three children, with whom I am deeply involved. Just for the record.
You are quite right, btw, that I don’t think women should have this right. But since they do, I want to see:
a) the universal application of the principles of reproductive autonomy and gender equality
or
b) an abandonment of “equality” and “autonomy” arguments, and an admission that female reproductive supremacism is the actual agenda
or (best-case)
c) an acknowledgement that “equality” and “autonomy”, actually applied, do not serve the interests of children, and are not the appropriate criteria on which to base reproductive policy
They’re feminist principles; feminists should either actually believe them, or stop using them.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
August 3rd, 2006 at 10:11 am
mythago wrote:
Choice-for-men, as choice-for-men advocates frame it–and I don’t think Sailorman is quite a C4m advocate; what he seems to want to do is argue it out to see where it goes–is about whether or not they should be obligated to spend money on a child they did not want. They do not, or at least I have not heard anyone who advocates C4M talk about the emotional difficulties that attend finding oneself the parent of a born child one did not want; they do not talk about how we might think about C4M in terms of the male body and male sexuality and reproductive biology prior to vaginal intercourse, something I wrote about here. What they are worried about is the money, and while I don’t have much sympathy for this complaint, precisely because it is not placed in the larger context of what it means socioeconomically, culturally, politically and personally to help to conceive a child, I think it is wrong to dismiss the fact that, given women’s reproductive choice and the way our society structures the meaning of sex-for-pleasure and the responsibilities of child-rearing, it is a woman’s choice to give birth that “activates” a man’s financial responsibility to the child they conceived together, whether or not he wanted that child to be born. I also think it is wrong to dismiss the impact that this “activation” will have on a man, whether he is a man who wants to “do the right thing” or he is a man who wants to try to get out having to pay.
Ah shit–just looked at the clock and I have to go. I will try to finish this later.
This comment was written by Richard Jeffrey Newman.Report this comment to the moderators
August 3rd, 2006 at 10:13 am
Women have *some* rights when it comes to reproductive autonomy but it is no where near enough.
Other than legalised C4m I also want to see no restrictions on abortion, an opt in/out policy for women and more available clinics .
This comment was written by Beste.Report this comment to the moderators
August 3rd, 2006 at 12:34 pm
what do you mean by an opt in/ opt out policy?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
August 3rd, 2006 at 6:09 pm
Should the father want the child and the mother doesn’t. A opt out/in policy would allow the mother to irrevocably relinquish her parental rights and responsibilities by filling out an affidavit..Therefore giving the father full single parent status.
This comment was written by beste.Report this comment to the moderators
August 3rd, 2006 at 7:01 pm
it is a woman’s choice to give birth that “activates” a man’s financial responsibility to the child they conceived together
And yet again: financial responsibility is “activated” for both parents regardless of whether the woman chose to give birth, much less whether she chose to get pregnant.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
August 3rd, 2006 at 8:32 pm
Mythago: You are, of course, correct that a woman’s financial responsibility to the children she bears is “activated” by her choice to give birth no differently than that of the man with whom she conceived the child. My point was not to deny that the woman has financial responsibility, but simply to acknowledge the fact that the choice which “activates” the man’s responsibility is, if he doesn’t want the child, not his and that the fact that the choice is not his is going to have an impact on him–I did not define the impact I was thinking about in the post you are quoting from, but what I had in mind is that it is not unreasonable for a man in that position to be quite resentful of the woman, and I was going to go on to say that I think what C4M really is at some level is an attempt to politicize that resentment. As such, it is an essentially immature position, whiny and childish.
The reason I wanted to acknowledge the validity of the man’s resentment towards the woman was simply that I think it makes it easier to distinguish between his relationship to her and his relationship to the born child and to point out that any contractual negotiation a man might want to engage in in terms of his future responsibilities towards that child–I don’t know why but I am still sort of picking away at why the whole contract-thing bothers me–would need to be with someone whose job was to represent the best interests of the child, independently of the mother and the father, and that negotiating with the woman who is the child’s mother does not meet that standard.
And now that I have said what I meant, I have read your comment again and I realize I might have misread you: when you say “whether or not the woman chose to give birth,” are you talking about a situation in which she had an abortion or in which birth was the only option and so she didn’t really have a choice, or is there another possibility that I am missing?
This comment was written by Richard Jeffrey Newman.Report this comment to the moderators
August 3rd, 2006 at 8:42 pm
The contract thing probably bothers you because child support is an obligation to a third party–the child. It’s not a mutual agreement between Mom and Dad.
By “didn’t have a choice” I mean that the law pays absolutely no attention to whether Mom was able to have an abortion in determining her obligation to her born child.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
August 4th, 2006 at 9:19 am
Beste: Sure. To the best of my knowledge this already exists. If one parent wants to raise a child entirely solo and the other parent wants nothing to do with the child, there’s generally no barrier to that deal. I have a feeling that the rules may be slightly different for welfare parents of either sex (I suspect that, as with medicare, you are not “allowed” to decline a benefit available to you such as child support while simultaneously receiving government welfare assistance to cover that benefit) though I am not positive and do not have the time right now to research the laws.
I’m not a “c4m” advocate; I’m a “free will contract” advocate. The crucial distinction is that the free will contract theory applies to both parties, while the traditional c4m movement is primarily aimed at enhancing only male rights. So long as both parties are not coerced, incompetent, etc, I prefer laws (or lack thereof) that enhance BOTH of their abilities to make their own decisions so long as they are morally defensible.
Sigh. This blog is absolutely fascinating and is KILLING my hours this month. Oh well.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
August 4th, 2006 at 11:46 am
I admire your willful refusal to admit the obvious, but the mother’s obligation to pay for expenses which she incurs is not created by this law. It would exist even if this law did not though ordinary contact law. This law modifies that so that both parents share in the expenses, it’s daft to say the obligation to pay bills which she incurs is imposed upon her by this law.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
August 4th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
Let’s try to dial down the snark level a bit, please.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
August 4th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
Personally, I don’t think it can be reduced to wallet vs uterus. It’s really more than about just money.
In my opinion it isn’t so much that men shouldn’t have to financially support their children, it’s about how that’s imposed. If, for example, the father of a child was simply compelled by law to pay 17% of his income in support of the child, I’d find that to be arguably fair and acceptable.
But the problem is that he’s not just compelled to do that — like, say in the way the IRs claims taxes — he’s compelled to pay a fixed amount and then beg to have that modified if his life circumstances change. He has in effect lost the ability to freely make very basic value choices about his life that most of the rest of us take for granted.
For many fathers, the way child support is imposed is utterly brutal and unforgiving. One can cite anecdotes of losers who’ve skated their whole lives without paying a dime, but for a middle class man who mostly conscientously does what he can to make something of his life, they’re a direct and extreme incursion into basic aspects of his life most people take for granted.
I find often in threads like this one, a willful refusal to acknowledge that fact during the course of argument.
Amp has another thread around here about how it’s a myth that child support awards are insanely high. They’re not necessarily “insanely” high when they’re set, but what I would add is that the price to very reasonable personal freedoms is beyond “insanely high.” That cost will not appear in any balance sheet or statistic.
There is a middle ground wherein people can be expected to live with the consequences of choices they make and the children that result. The choice for men case has emerged because so many wrongly find that middle ground to be unreasonable.
This comment was written by craichead.Report this comment to the moderators
August 4th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
has been heard and decided in the lower court. No surprise here: the man lost. I must say, this guy really wasn’t the best test case to create some of the limited rights I argue for here. Hat-tip: Reader Bart Motes via Alas. I guess now that I’ve just had a baby of my own, I’m not following the news cycle very carefully. I missed this story by a few days.
This comment was written by PrawfsBlawg.Report this comment to the moderators
August 4th, 2006 at 10:32 pm
the mother’s obligation to pay for expenses which she incurs is not created by this law
nik, yet again: the mother is obligated whether or not she ‘created’ her expenses. If she is raped and locked in a basement for six months, then turned loose after it is too late for her to obtain an abortion, I think even you’d admit she did not become or remain voluntarily pregnant. Yet the law obligates her to pay the expenses of the pregnancy, as well as having legal obligations to the child.
I don’t know how many repetitions it takes for this to be clear: The law does not care if you wanted to be a parent or how you became a parent. You have a kid, you’re responsible until you can get somebody else to take those responsibilities (and the kid) off your hands. This is true of women as well as men.
they’re a direct and extreme incursion into basic aspects of his life most people take for granted
That would happen to be true of parenthood in general, and of the costs of childrearing in general. I do believe that rather than bicker about child support, we ought to put more energy into making men equal, and even primary, caretakers of their children. That tends to put the ‘incursion’ of child support into perspective a bit.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
August 5th, 2006 at 3:31 am
Mythago-
First let me say that I absolutely agree with the idea of making men more equal in terms of being primary caretakers. And yes, it absolutely puts child support in perspective — in all of its facets aside from financial. It’s a re-education of both men and women, but I suppose that’s a thread unto itself.
Myth said, “That would happen to be true of parenthood in general, and of the costs of childrearing in general. ”
Right, but there’s also an important point to consider that’s being missed, I think. When a parent is a primary custodian, they must consider their child in all of the decisions they make. If the primary parent considers changing jobs or careers, she’s got to sit down and do the math to figure if it’s do-able. Is this what you’re getting at?
I’m not saying “let men out of child support” or “let men opt out of responsibility.” I’m saying make the enforcement system less brutal.
I simply think that setting support based on a fixed point in time and making it highly improbable to change it is unjust.
This comment was written by craichead.Report this comment to the moderators
August 5th, 2006 at 10:52 am
I agree with your last point, but do consider that it might not have the results you want.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
August 5th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
The problem with variable support is that there are plenty of guys out there who will self-impoverish, reduce their income, etc., go to the judge and poormouth to get a minimal support payment, and then re-up their income on the side or under the table to regain their standard of living.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
August 5th, 2006 at 3:48 pm
Robert,
You hit the nail on the head. My ex-husband flat out stated to my ex-father-in-law that he’d rather go to jail than pay me one penny in support for his children. I knew he felt that way long before we divorced, and so there was no judgement made for child support in our custody papers. I’ve been told repeatedly that I need to take him to court to “force” him to pay support. My thought is that he never supported the family while we were married why should he start now? The answer is , of course, that he won’t and I’d rather spend my time and energy in raising my children to be healthy well adjusted human beings rather than getting caught up in a legal game of “make the turnip bleed”.
I do think that when it can be proven that mothers recieving child support aren’t in fact using that money to support her children that the father ought to have some recourse. An example would be a woman that has remarried since her divorce and uses the support money to make take a carribean vacation. (This is a true anecdotal story of a woman that I work with). Her new husband earned twice what she did and had no children of his own, so she said that she used to money to “do the thinks her ex wouldn’t let her do while married”.
I am all for child support, when that money is indeed used to support the children. I feel that in most cases the money is used to support the kids in the form of housing, clothes, school, childcare, and medical care. However, there are exceptions and in those cases the father has very little recourse.
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
August 5th, 2006 at 6:33 pm
Robert-
yes your’e right there are. That’s the same sort of reasonoing behind the patriot act — there are people out there who’ll do bad things, so we have have to monitor everyone without just cause.
And Ai guess that’s the gist of it. Where’s the just cause?
Is what you’[re saying that you think a guy should have to beg a judge’s permission to change his income or line of work? Personally I think someone should have to do something wrong first before we decide to get the judge involved. If you feel differently that’s your perogative, but that’s also pretty tyrannical in my opinionn.
This comment was written by craichead.Report this comment to the moderators
August 5th, 2006 at 7:30 pm
“Beg a judge’s permission”? If by that you mean petition the court to have a support order modified, then yes, that would seem to be the necessary step. What’s the alternative? Having NCPs unilaterally modify their support as they deem appropriate under the circumstances? I can envision that working out really well.
I understand the frustration felt by non-custodial parents who have to have their lives under a judicial microscope every time they turn around. That’s the tragedy of divorce, and parents of both sexes who decide that divorce is the answer to their problems should probably be aware of the fact that their private lives just became the property of the state.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
August 5th, 2006 at 8:15 pm
a guy should have to beg a judge’s permission to change his income or line of work?
Where on earth did you get the notion that a non-custodial parent (”guy” or not) has to have permission to change jobs? The court determines levels of support–not where you’re allowed to work.
Her new husband earned twice what she did and had no children of his own
Since money is fungible, and you didn’t say that the children’s standard of living went down, presumably both you and the mother are a little confused here; if she’s able to afford a Caribbean vacation because of her husband’s money, then really the vacation is being paid for by Mr. New.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
August 7th, 2006 at 5:30 am
Robert said, “What’s the alternative? Having NCPs unilaterally modify their support as they deem appropriate under the circumstances?”
That’s a pretty pointedly gross exaggeration of what I was saying, don’t you think?
“I understand the frustration felt by non-custodial parents who have to have their lives under a judicial microscope every time they turn around.”
That’s not really apparent from most of what you say.
This comment was written by craichead.Report this comment to the moderators
August 7th, 2006 at 7:16 am
That’s a pretty pointedly gross exaggeration of what I was saying, don’t you think?
Not at all. You mischaracterized the ability of either parent to seek a support adjustment as “a guy should have to beg a judge’s permission to change his income or line of work” - that’d be a distortion, not an exaggeration, by the way. Robert asked whether, as seemed to be the case, you would prefer a system where a non-custodial parent could say “I’m just going to go ahead and decide how much I should pay, because my job changed.”
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
August 7th, 2006 at 7:34 am
No he wouldn’t decide how much he should pay — guideline still prevails. It’s just that if he goes from working a $60,000 per year job to a $40,000 per yeat job, he pays 17% of his new pay scale. That’s all.
The custodial parent does not need a judge’s permission to do this. They simply have to decide if they’re willing to take the pay cut.
This comment was written by craichead.Report this comment to the moderators
August 7th, 2006 at 7:41 am
Maybe I should give a concrete example. I’m not divorced BTW.
Over the last 15 years, I’ve developed a pretty good career, but it’s in a field which is very definitely on the wane where I live. Most places are pulling up stakes or teetering on the brink of going out of business.
Combined with that, family obligations make it impossible for me to move right now.
So what I plan to do is begin over at a new career which promises economic stability well into the future. Problem is, inorder to make a pre-emptive move for financial security, I’ll have to take a fairly significant pay cut.
Now, if I was a divorced Dad, I would not be able to make that very basic and very necessary choice in my life. I couldn’t go and get a modification now, because I haven’t had a change of circumstance yet. And if I were to change firs, a judge could likely deem me to be willfully underemployed, not to mention that even if he were to offer a modification, I’d likely wait several months for it to come through.
So to Robert and Mythago, if you were a divorced dad in this situation, what would you do?
This comment was written by craichead.Report this comment to the moderators
August 7th, 2006 at 7:59 am
The custodial parent does not need a judge’s permission to do this.
The non-custodial parent doesn’t need a judge’s permission to do this, either. You keep saying that the ‘permission’ is to change jobs. It isn’t. A court has to approve a change in support, not a change in jobs. That’s true if income goes up, not just down.
if you were a divorced dad in this situation, what would you do?
I’d talk to my lawyer, rather than assuming there was no way to show a genuine change in circumstance or that I would be deemed willfully underemployed. And if I was going to have to wait until I take that pay cut, I guess I’d have to treat my child support the same way I think of other costs. The electric company, the grocery store, the car finance company don’t reduce what I am obligated to pay them just because I changed jobs.
As long as we’re making up hypotheticals, let’s say that you are the custodial parent receiving child support. Your ex-spouse tells you that they’re switching careers to something they perceive as more stable in the long run, but they will take a significant pay cut, so you should expect a big drop in support payments as they’ll be reducing payments to a proportional cut of their new salary. What would you do?
You see, what I’m not really hearing is an understanding that parenthood impacts your choices. “Should I tank my income for better stability in the long run?” is a question parents who aren’t divorced ask themselves. And “Geez, we could afford X if it weren’t for the kids’ medical bills and buying new school clothes” is something all parents probably consider at some point. So I’m not quite sure why the hard choices about jobs or recognizing the costs of parenthood are things that we should laud non-custodial parents for.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
August 7th, 2006 at 8:49 am
Myth said, “I was going to have to wait until I take that pay cut, I guess I’d have to treat my child support the same way I think of other costs. The electric company, the grocery store, the car finance company don’t reduce what I am obligated to pay them just because I changed jobs.”
One can easily change those costs without a judge or lawyer. You drive a used car, get rid of cable, Use less AC, buy cheaper groceries and don’t eat out. Those are how you’d adjust. Your child would adjust along with you.
“Your ex-spouse tells you that they’re switching careers to something they perceive as more stable in the long run, but they will take a significant pay cut, so you should expect a big drop in support payments as they’ll be reducing payments to a proportional cut of their new salary. What would you do?”
I’m assuming that if I’m the primary parent, I would have argued to be (in a situation such as this anyway. We’re not assuming Dad just ran out). Given that, I also in effect argued for primary responsibility. If I’m not willing to live up to that, I had no place arguing for it to begin with. But also keep in mind, Dad’s not asking to opt out of support, he’s changing careers and taking a pay cut. Families do this all the time and they adjust.
I’m not ignoring that parenthood impacts choices. In this case, he’s still going to pay his guideline. In effect, that still must be taken into account.
Child support may not be insanely high in dollar amount, but in today’s economy, the standard of holding someone to making the same amount of money and restricting their choices to do so is in my opinion an insanely high standard.
This comment was written by craichead.Report this comment to the moderators
August 7th, 2006 at 8:52 am
One can easily change those costs without a judge or lawyer.
I’m talking about existing debts, not future ones. But your argument is a good answer to the “how do I afford child support after my pay cut?” one.
Given that, I also in effect argued for primary responsibility. If I’m not willing to live up to that, I had no place arguing for it to begin with.
So you’re saying that primary physical custody means they have financial responsibility, and the non-custodial parent’s contribution is more of a ceremonial obligation?
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
August 7th, 2006 at 9:23 am
No. What I’m saying is that the purpose of child support is to help provide that the kid lives basically in the same standard of living as if her parents hadn’t divorced.
What CS enforcement does now is stop time at a little point in the past, but only with regard to the NCP. The NCP may have made the same career choice if the parents were together.
All I’m saying is that if the CP can’t weather a change in the NCP’s income, then they maybe weren’t well suited to be the CP.
This comment was written by craichead.Report this comment to the moderators
August 7th, 2006 at 9:34 am
craichead wrote:
Which makes it sound like financial status ought to be the primary criteria in determining which parent gets custody. Which, if you really mean that, says a great deal about what you value and why money is so central to your argument here.
I don’t think anyone would disagree that a noncustodial parent who is as straitjacketed in terms of her or his career and other choices as you seem to imply all NCP’s are would, all else being equal, be deserving of sympathy, but I wonder if you realize that this statement could be applied to all parents, i.e., if they can’t weather the changes in income that life brings, including the ways that having children changes the way one’s income must be used, then they shouldn’t have become parents to begin with.
This comment was written by Richard Jeffrey Newman.Report this comment to the moderators
August 7th, 2006 at 3:05 pm
Richard,
I have lost track of where you fall on the “sex is avoidable” issue: Given that pretty much all forms of BC other than sterilization will fail eventually, do you think “if they can’t weather the changes in income that life brings, including the ways that having children changes the way one’s income must be used, then they shouldn’t have had sex to begin with” (note my edit in bold)?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
August 7th, 2006 at 6:50 pm
Sailorman: I am not sure what the point of your question is. The original version of the statement you have edited is not something I agree with. Rather, I was trying to point out that craichead’s statement about custodial parents, with which I disagree, implies a general rule that could be applied to any set of parents. I realize my post was not entirely clear about my own position vis-a-vis these statements.
This comment was written by Richard Jeffrey Newman.Report this comment to the moderators
August 7th, 2006 at 9:50 pm
All I’m saying is that if the CP can’t weather a change in the NCP’s income, then they maybe weren’t well suited to be the CP.
So if the NCP’s income drops, making it hard for the CP to ‘weather’ this change in income, we should consider making the now-lower-income NCP the CP?
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2006 at 12:26 pm
Seems like a plan.
This comment was written by Sarah.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2006 at 2:12 am
Well Mythago, I’d say that a parent who’s handling covering expenses for taking care of the child at his place as well as a sizeable chunk of taking care of her at someone else’s place probably could handle it.
This comment was written by craichead.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2006 at 9:58 am
So, again, you’re saying that the NCP’s contribution is really more of a token, that the CP should be able to fully support the child without that contribution, and if a lack of child support causes hardship, the CP should lose custody?
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
I think what he means is that the most capable parent should get custody, if one parent cannot raise a child without assistance but the other can then the latter is the more likely candidate for CP, surely the NCP should indeed be a support rather than being the lynch pin?
This comment was written by Sarah.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
But this would be the NCP who can’t even afford a share of the child support. And, in craichead’s example, is switching to a new job–where you’d now be adding the stress of childcare on top of the expenses of support.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
So if the NCP’s income drops, making it hard for the CP to ‘weather’ this change in income, we should consider making the now-lower-income NCP the CP?
To judge from my ex’s apparent logic, no, we should consider taking the children away from both parents.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2006 at 7:54 am
I think the reality being missed is that quite often — especially in situations where there is substantial visitation by the NCP — expenses for raising the kids can be similar.
In raising children, probably the biggest expense beyond secondary education is keeping a place for them. In my experience both parents, whether CP or NCP, have to have a home big enough for the family. Based in that experience, I often see quite often among middle class divorced dads, the situation of keeping up similar expenses at his home, while at the same time subsidizing a similar arrangement at another home.
I think some of you are extrapolating far beyond what I’ve posed. I’m not posing that an NCP should be let off the hook for child support or that he should be free to go from engineer to basket-weaver. What I’m getting at, is that if the CP can’t weather a change from 17% of $60,000 to 17% of $40,000, then there’s something wrong.
This comment was written by craichead.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2006 at 8:42 am
What I’m getting at, is that if the CP can’t weather a change from 17% of $60,000 to 17% of $40,000, then there’s something wrong.
And you have made it clear that the ’something’ that is wrong, in your opinion, is the CP’s fitness as a custodial parent.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2006 at 9:26 am
So lets say that the custodial parent pays about 20 000 dollars all in all for supporting their child (and usually the cost is actually higher for the custodial parent than the ncp - but for the sake of the argument I’ll make it the other way around here). Suddenly the non-custodial parent cannot pay their 10 200 (17% of $60 000) any longer but instead pays 6800 (17% of $40 000). The custodial parent, struggling with bills and the cost of childrens clothes, find this loss of 3400 difficult to take.
What in this scenario makes you believe that the person who can only pay 6 800 in child support suddenly will be able to pay 20 000 to support their child even if the other parent starts to pay support in their turn? And apart from the cost is the investment in time and emotional support that a child needs. How do you expect this person to handle that while looking for work?
It just seems to me that a lot of people fail to realise what it really takes to raise a child.
This comment was written by B.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2006 at 10:09 am
I’m not one of those people. I’m raising a child and I’m also responsible for about 90% of what it’s costing us as a family to raise her. I’m not divorced BTW.
You may be correct to state that it takes $20,000 per year to take care of the child. But that’s not an exclusive sum being used to ONLY support the child. It’s nearly impossible to separate the costs of supporting the child that are also shared by the needs of the parent, such as the home, the groceries, the utilities, etc. The NCP very often in middle class situations is covering much of that while also subsidizing that cost at the CP’s home.
So, yes, I’d say that if the NCP could cover that $20,000 cost since much of it is being covered already.
Incidentally, every NCP father that I know personally that I can think of right now, has his kids about 40% of the time and pays the full guideline in the way that a truly non-custodial parent does. It’s these guys really that I’m thinking of in this discussion since I see the cases of those living on the financial margins as a wholly different case.
Could you imagine doing that?
This comment was written by craichead.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2006 at 10:14 am
Here’s an actual real life concrete example.
I know a guy named Chris who was working two jobs when his marriage fell apart — a regular fulltime Mon-Fri job and a part time job on the weekends.
The judge set CS based on the income from both jobs.
So, now that he’s divorced, he needs the weekends for his parenting time since he was given every weekend for visitation. It’s now his only time with his son.
So he quit his second job and went to court to have his CS modified to pay the guideline for his fulltime job. The judge said no.
Last I knew, he had to give up his apartment and was living on his sister’s couch.
Now please answer this question:
This comment was written by craichead.Why should a person, with a solid several year record of taking financial responsibility for his child have to ask a judge’s permission to lower his income enough so that he can actually spend some time with his kid?
Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
Incidentally, every NCP father that I know personally that I can think of right now
I could hit back and say that every NCP father that I know personally that I can think of right now has seen his child a mere three times since that child was born, and then only because the custodial mother took the trouble to bring the child to where the father was going to be. What does it prove?
And my case might be some freakish outlier, but the biggest cost I’ve had to pay for being a custodial parent so far has been the money I couldn’t earn from the jobs I couldn’t take because I had a dependant child to take care of. How does that figure in your analysis?
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
Actually that figures prominently in my analysis since, having exactly the same experience, it sort of got me thinking, geez what if I was an NCP who had a child support order.
My story is that I had a pretty happening career in the biotech industry, but when I was laid off due to downsizing, I had two choices — move or give up the career I loved and had worked hard at for 15 years. At the time I got laid off I was making $70,000 per year and I had offers on the table in other states for about $90,000. There are no other biotech companies within 300 miles of me.
But my wife refused to move. So, second choice: pursue my career or be a father to my daughter.
The choice was a simple one.
But as a result, I’m starting over at 41 and I’ve taken a $25,000 per year paycut. If I was a paper NCP like most of the divorced dads I know, I’d basically be forced to move away from my daughter and would probably at best see her every other weekend. Beleive it or not, it probably would be as hard on her as it would be on me.
Honestly, I’d rather be a poor custodial parent than a wealthy NCP.
This comment was written by craichead.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
Here’s an actual real life concrete example.
So, again, you’re going to present anecdotes to argue exactly what Robert asked you–that NCPs should be allowed to unilaterally lower the amount of support they pay. CPs who complain should, in your opinion, have their custody re-examined.
Honestly, I’d rather be a poor custodial parent than a wealthy NCP
Plenty of wealthy NCPs disagree with you.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
August 11th, 2006 at 5:52 am
So, second choice: pursue my career or be a father to my daughter.
But that’s the thing: it’s a choice. Custodial parents don’t get to choose: they sacrifice or they cease to be custodial parents.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
August 11th, 2006 at 6:42 am
At some point did they not choose to BE custodial parents?
I mean, virtually every single NCP I know would much rather be a CP. They didn’t get to choose.
This comment was written by craichead.Report this comment to the moderators
August 11th, 2006 at 7:07 am
I mean, virtually every single NCP I know would much rather be a CP.
So are we relying on anecdotes for proof now? I don’t think you want to go that route.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
August 11th, 2006 at 7:50 am
Statistically, the vast majority of NCP - above 85%, iirc - never make any legal request to be considered for custodial parenting. See the book Dividing the Child.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
August 11th, 2006 at 7:57 am
Sure. And most people never run for President, either, but they wouldn’t turn down the job if it were offered to them. NCPs don’t make legal requests for custody because they know they wouldn’t win, and would just tick off the judge for wasting hisher time.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
August 11th, 2006 at 8:25 am
That’s a theory, but it’s a pretty incredible one, since you don’t seem to allow that there could any NCPs who don’t ask for custody because they don’t want it. (But maybe that was just careless writing on your part).
As Dividing the Child - which is, I should point out, a book frequently cited and considered reliable by MRAs, so I don’t think it can be dismissed as a biased feminist work - points out, there’s no evidence that there’s a widespread problem of NCPs who really want custody, but are afraid to ask for it for fear of judicial reprisal.
Nor is there any evidence that NCPs who ask for, but don’t receive, CP, wind up with less visitation or higher child support payments for their income than NCPs who never ask for CP. So if asking for CP does “tick off the judge,” apparently ticking off the judge has zero negative consequences - so why worry about it?
In my opinion, a more likely scenario is that typical judges aren’t actually ticked off merely because someone asks for custody.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
August 11th, 2006 at 8:30 am
I’m sure there are lots of NPCs who don’t want custody. I’m simply pointing out that “most don’t ask” doesn’t prove anything. Divorce proceedings are difficult and people are making tactical and strategic decisions; it isn’t always obvious what they want to have happen from just observing their actions.
Your third paragraph I take as some type of witticism. There isn’t evidence that something has negative consequences, and therefore nobody would ever avoid the something for fear of negative consequences. Because most people check the studies and the data before they make a decision. (Eyeroll.) There aren’t any studies that lighting up a big ol’ bong in the food court in the mall will get you in trouble, and yet everyone refrains from doing it.
I doubt that a typical judge WOULD be ticked off at a mere custody request - but I also doubt that a parent whose entire life is in the hands of that judge is blithe about taking the chance, especially when the parent knows their chances are poor. Again, that doesn’t go to desire - it goes to strategy.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
August 11th, 2006 at 10:17 am
Bwahahahaha! Sorry I just had to let that out.
I guess maybe you didn’t know, but there’s an awful lot more to gaining custody of a child than “asking the judge” for it.
When you said this one, “Statistically, the vast majority of NCP - above 85%, iirc - never make any legal request to be considered for custodial parenting. ”
It helped me understand your perspective a lot better.
There are actually many legal requests out there for NCP’s to be considered for custodial parenting. There was one called Bill A330 recently in NY state that got voted back into committee.
Or don’t you consider lobbying for legislation to be a “legal request?”
This comment was written by craichead.Report this comment to the moderators
August 11th, 2006 at 11:03 am
No, you didn’t have to. You chose to do so, because you’re rude and you don’t treat people who disagree with you with respect. Please reread the moderation goals. If you genuinely feel that you “just [have] to” make comments like that, then please stop posting on “Alas.”
Asking for custody is a necessary, but not sufficient, step for gaining custody in virtually all contested custody cases. Your objection would make sense if I had ever claimed that asking for custody was a sufficient step, but of course I never made that claim. Therefore your objection is illogical.
As for your substantive point, I very much doubt that the majority of NCP are actively lobbying for A330 or similar legislation, or indeed for any other goal. (I don’t think NCPs are special this way; the large majority of Americans aren’t very politically active). Therefore, unless you can provide evidence that I’m mistaken about this, the existence of A330 does not logically refute my claim in any way.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
August 12th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
NCPs don’t make legal requests for custody because they know they wouldn’t win, and would just tick off the judge for wasting hisher time.
That’s one interpretation. Since we’re making these up, another interpretation would be that most people see childrearing as the woman’s job, and are just as happy to keep it that way after a divorce, leaving the mother with primary physical custody. “Do you want to be a single parent and have to juggle that life with childrearing?” is not exactly on the same plane as “Hey, wanna be President?”
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
August 13th, 2006 at 1:16 pm
Frankly this current argument is all about control: who gets to control whom, and responsiblity: how to avoid it. Currently, I have no sympathy for a man who voraciously claims he doesn’t want the responsibility of child support, but who hasn’t made the slightest effort to get a (reversable) vasectomy, and yet is somehow still entitled to consequence-free vaginal intercourse .
Cry me a river.
Yes, I know vasectomies sometimes fail to “take”, that’s why you go to your follow-up appointments to check for presence of sperm, and don’t have unprotected vaginal sex until you know the procedure was successful. Even after a successful procedure, continue to have periodic checkups to ensure you stay that way.
If you don’t want to take responsibility for your own reproduction, do you really have any reason to whine about unwanted child support payments?
This comment was written by tweedledum and tweedledee.Report this comment to the moderators
August 13th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
Perhaps you right….and what do we do about woman that tell the man “don’t use the condom honey I am on birth control pills….and doesn’t tell you she missed a few before the intercourse.
Than….what do we do when there is an unwanted child and the mother knew she wasn’t protected and she had sex and let you ejaculate into her causing the reproducing of this child?
Than….what do we do when the support payments are so high, because you have two children that live with you and support? Is it right for the two children not subject of the court proceeding to be evicted out of their home? Told they can’t go to religion anymore because the court said so? Do we tell people that have an unwanted and unplanned pregnancy that the other child is more important to the world then you are? Do we tell the other children they cannot go out with their friends or to the movies? DO we tell children not subject to a court proceeding the judge told them to go to hell?
Than….what about paying child support payments BEFORE the child was even conceived by a very vicious and mean judge who miscalculated after slamming you and telling you your children whom you brought into this would and wanted are now reduced to rubble becuase their father was lied too and thought the woman wasn’t as vicious as she turned out to be?
Then the woman takes off to Florida to live with her sisters and mother and doesn’t work anymore. The father is now a support machine for the two of them while trying to struggle to live….and now I add….I am 100 percent permanently disabled….where do I get money?
Even if I wanted this unwanted child in my life…I couldn’t have him because a judge said she can live in Florida and if I want to address it go there to fight….yeah…being 100 percent disabled and trying to find the next dollar to survive and feed my two children that live with me.
Why is the US Government allowed to terminate support payments at 18 and yet….other men are responsible for support payments to 21 and in some states 23 while their child is now gainfully employed?
Where is the justice and fairness to everyone else?
The resounding response is…there is none. The system is brutal.
Your right though…..I should have wore a condom….but I didn’t. So what about my two children?
This comment was written by AJ.Report this comment to the moderators
August 13th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
AJ, as I wrote at the end of this post :
If you’re describing your situation accurately, then that’s horrible, and I’m sorry that’s happened to you. And I’d support reforms to help NCPs in your situation. But getting rid of legally mandated child support entirely (but only for fathers), which is in effect what so-called “choice for men” would do, is not the solution. Fairness for non-custodial parents is important, but fairness to the other parties involved is also important.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
August 13th, 2006 at 8:34 pm
Sir:
I do agree with you.
This is my situation as I am living it and I as you can see are going through hell.
The only concern I have is that the courts did not take several factors into consideration:
1. My children before this most unfortunate situation….like their lives did not matter whatsoever and even if it meant for them to become homeless. The judge cited that I live in an affluent area. This is far from the truth. My area is considered middle income. Many of us are blue collar workers…..policemen, firemen, sanitation and many other state, city and federal workers. Are we upper class in our salaries? Of course not. Nor can we be. I worked 3 (three) jobs to support myself and my children (whom live with me) before I was very seriously injured that has left me 100 percent permanently disabled.
2. The gross abuse from the system is intolerable. There is no fairness to the non custodial parent. Even if I wanted to be involved in this child’s life I could not due to the fact she removed this child from NY to FL without my consent or with permission or authority to do so…and I went to court to prevent that. The judge did not care I am 100 percent disabled and cannot afford to travel to FL.
3. A custodial parent needs support. I agree with you. But they must take other factors into consideration. And there are no provisions that compel a support magistrate to do so. They [MAY] adjust the award but there is no outright provision as circumstances permit. So if a judge doesn’t like you, as in my case, its tough luck.
4. Other children MUST be taken into consideration if their wisdom is to be applied….in the best interest of the children. You cannot tell children to move, stop religious education, or any type of entertainment that normal, healthy children do.
Thank you for listening.
AJ
This comment was written by AJ.Report this comment to the moderators
September 16th, 2006 at 12:52 am
(If you are interested in reading the whole piece, go to this page on my website and you can either read a different excerot or download the whole piece.) I am posting it here in response to this discussion about reproductive rights on Alas, where Sailorman has posted a hyopthetical conversation that reminds me very much of this actual one that took place between myself and the woman who was my girlfriend when were in our early twenties: “But,” Beth leaned forward and whispered through clenched teeth, “you just said you were falling in
This comment was written by It’s All Connected….Report this comment to the moderators
March 4th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
[...] either read a different excerot or download the whole piece.) I am posting it here in response to this discussion about reproductive rights on Alas, where Sailorman has posted a hyopthetical conversation that reminds me very much of this actual [...]
This comment was written by Excerpt from “My Daughter’s Vagina” « It’s All Connected….Report this comment to the moderators
January 27th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
[...] a different excerot or download the whole piece.) I am posting it here in response to this discussion about reproductive rights on Alas, where Sailorman has posted a hyopthetical conversation that reminds me very much [...]
This comment was written by Richard Jeffrey Newman - Excerpt from “My Daughter’s Vagina”.Report this comment to the moderators