BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Should pro-choice extend to men as well?

  
  

Page: (1)23

 
 
ShadowSax
13:13 / 09.03.06
I'm seriously only posting this because it's news. A lawsuit to be filed today in U.S. District Court in Michigan seeks to allow potential fathers (men who have fathered an unborn child) to opt out of the financial responsibility of raising the child.

The logic is that current laws give women the only right to choose in situations where a pregnancy forces a choice between having it carried to full term or aborted. The fact is that if women make the choice to have the child, men are then immediately obligated under the law to provide child support for the next 18 years. And since child support isnt determined by how much it costs to raise a child but rather by assessing and then dividing incomes between the parents, the father thereby owes a percentage of his income to the mother.

Currently, men have no choice in the matter. Should they? Should the child support laws be rewritten or should men be able to simply opt out entirely? What other issues does this bring up?
 
 
ShadowSax
13:14 / 09.03.06
sorry, here is the link to the article:

Article
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
14:34 / 09.03.06
I notice they give no idea what form this agreement might take and running through the options in my mind I can't see a form that would work. Verbal? Obviously not, but some sort of pre-nup contract would be very difficult to see working in practice. There's also the scenario that either partner could lie about their use of birth control or sabotage it in order to drop the other person involved in it.
 
 
ShadowSax
14:54 / 09.03.06
this is where it's addressed:

Feit doesn't advocate an unlimited fatherhood opt-out; he proposes a brief period in which a man, after learning of an unintended pregnancy, could decline parental responsibilities if the relationship was one in which neither partner had desired a child.

just like abortions arent predetermined, the father deciding he doesnt want to have a child wouldnt necessarily have to be predetermined and could, like abortions, be decided after the fact.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
15:24 / 09.03.06
Well, I would be more inclined to consider it if abortion were equally available to all women, which it is clearly not. Say this were to apply in South Dakota - what would happen to a woman whose sexual partner refused to accept parental responsibility and who did not want to carry the child under such conditions (or indeed any conditions)?
 
 
ShadowSax
15:28 / 09.03.06
Well, I would be more inclined to consider it if abortion were equally available to all women, which it is clearly not. Say this were to apply in South Dakota - what would happen to a woman whose sexual partner refused to accept parental responsibility and who did not want to carry the child under such conditions (or indeed any conditions)?

arent you sort of allowing yourself to avoid having an opinion with a contrived scenario? yes, south dakota has banned abortions. this actual lawsuit is taking place in michigan. can we look at the issue considering all other things to be equal or at least one other thing being equal, namely, that abortions are an option for the women that would be affected by any law that would support this lawsuit's position?
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
16:04 / 09.03.06
Well - ye-es - except that I am reluctant to consider it in a hypothetical context, because (and I should say that I don't know to what extent the success of this case would set a precedent, or whether if Roe v. Wade were to be reconsidered abortion would become unavailable in Michigan, etc.) from what I can tell, in many places in the US, abortion is not freely available to all, and in the current climate it seems likely that increasingly women will have less access to abortion, the morning-after pill, and even prescribed contraceptives.

If that were not the case, then yes, this would seem more palatable, though of course (as Flowers says above) there are many undefined areas that could give rise to disputes and distress (though this is sadly probably always going to be the situation with such cases).
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
16:20 / 09.03.06
I think you have to accept that this issue is somewhat complicated by the impending removal of women's right to abortions if those in power get their way.

In fact I do feel a lot of sympathy with the man in the situation described by the article. Assuming that the information provided is true (that he took reasonable steps to ascertain that pregnancy would not result from intercourse with the woman, that he made it clear he was not interested in fathering a child and wished to avoid this, ect.) then he has been placed in a very unfair situation. However, I'm unclear as to whether the mother decieved him deliberately or made a good-faith mistake, which surely ought to have some bearing on the case.

I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the ideas expressed in the article. I do not see the situations of a woman pregnant with an unplanned baby and the father of that baby as directly comparable. I don't believe that, simply because a woman could have chosen to have an abortion, this means that the father of her child should likewise be able to choose to reject the child and refuse to support it. Having an abortion isn't like getting a flu jab. Although I'm fervently pro-choice, although I support and affirm women who have made the decision to terminate a pregnancy, if I were to find myself pregnant I would be unable to have an abortion. For reasons I'm not sure I can even articulate, it would simply be be beyond me to terminate a pregnancy except under certain very extreme circumstances (such as a severely impaired fetus doomed to a brief and painful life if brought to term).

I'm even less comfortable with the idea that a woman who can't support a child on her own should simply give it up for adoption rather than seeking financial support from the father. A baby isn't a pot-plant, something that can be painlessly transplanted from one site to another. Can you imagine the pain of a mother forced to give up a child she would otherwise have kept, simply because she can't afford to support it? Yet this is what the article seems to suggest.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
16:26 / 09.03.06
Thanks for articulating that - I was grasping for it in my head...
 
 
Dead Megatron
17:02 / 09.03.06
I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the ideas expressed in the article. I do not see the situations of a woman pregnant with an unplanned baby and the father of that baby as directly comparable.

Yeah, but do they have to be directly comparable? Those are clearly different choices (have an abortion, not have an abortion - accept fahterhood, not accept fatherhood), but they are choices nonetheless.

personally, I'd consider a guy who does not want to take care of his own child a complete asshole, but being an asshole is a human being's right, ain't it?

I know of a case of a guy who was told by his girlfriend that she was unfertile, so they had unprotected sex for about a month and she got pregnant. Turns out, the woman lied on purpose on a plot to "entangle" the guy and force him into continuing their relationship (he was about to break up with her). In such cases of ill-intent, I'd agree with the proposition above, but, IRL, how rare are they, really?

(btw, although the relationship ended anyway - obviously - he now is the happy and proud father of a very beatiful 7 year old boy)
 
 
*
18:05 / 09.03.06
personally, I'd consider a guy who does not want to take care of his own child a complete asshole, but being an asshole is a human being's right, ain't it?

Not always. There are precedents for when we as a society take a certain kind of complete-asshole behavior and make it illegal— when it endangers a life, for instance, or when it harms another person's property.

It so happens that by a quirk of biology, most men do not bear children, they sire them. Most men do not have to carry a child for nine months, which also frees them to abandon mother and child if they choose to (be a complete asshole, as you put it). Consequently, in the past, there has been less emphasis (which is not to say none) on the father's role in preventing unwanted pregnancies than on the mother's. Child support was designed to be a mechanism of equalizing this, so that responsibility rested more equally with both people whose participation is required to make a child.

Now, if I were having sex with a woman (which could happen, despite my affirmed poovisheness), it so happens that I literally could not get her pregnant. This is not true of most men who are simply infertile or who have had vasectomies— in these cases there is often an outside chance of pregnancy. Similarly, in the case of women who have had sterilization procedures, or who are infertile; this doesn't mean there is NO chance of pregnancy, only that there is much less. I happen to think, based on these biological realities, that it's incumbent upon men who really really do not want the responsibility of paying child support to take extra precautions even if the woman they are with has been diagnosed as infertile or has had sterilization procedures. I would advise men who are not going to do this to prepare a signed statement with the woman which states that she has undergone sterilization or has been diagnosed as infertile, and that they have agreed not to have a child, but that the possibility was discussed and the following contingency agreed upon (the father will be released from child-support, the child will be given up for adoption, etc.; depending on what has been agreed upon as acceptable).

I'm not sure about situations where a man has been manipulated into siring a child. I think it would be dangerous to generalize based on isolated incidences, but I would think that a suit for fraud would cover it, and I imagine this is this fellow's next step if, as he suspects, he's ruled against in this decision.
 
 
nyarlathotep's shoe horn
18:10 / 09.03.06
there was a case in Quebec (maybe Montreal), where the mother wanted to abort the embryo, whereas the father wanted her to carry the baby to term. they were not married, and I'm unsure how long they had been together. I was under the impression it wasn't particularly long.

the case went to court.

all moot, because the mother aborted the child in secret. the case was dropped.

I'm not sure what I think about this. He has his say, but the mother has more of a say(?)

anyone?
(I'll try to dredge up the original article)

--Not Jack
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
18:18 / 09.03.06
ShadowSax this is where it's addressed:

Feit doesn't advocate an unlimited fatherhood opt-out; he proposes a brief period in which a man, after learning of an unintended pregnancy, could decline parental responsibilities if the relationship was one in which neither partner had desired a child.

just like abortions arent predetermined, the father deciding he doesnt want to have a child wouldnt necessarily have to be predetermined and could, like abortions, be decided after the fact.

But what I was trying to reach towards I don't see this being managed effectively. Like, for example, what's to stop a man from impregnating a woman, insisting beforehand that yes, should anything happen, of course he'll support her, then standing back once the stick turns blue and saying "actually, I didn't want anything to do with this child and she told me she was on the Pill and..." I realise this is a very crude example but this article gives the impression of allowing men to wash their hands of the whole affair and not giving wronged women the right of redress, unless they've got the money and resources to spend a lot of time arguing in court after the fact over 'he said... she said' which benefits no-one but the lawyers. Will everyone be canvassed as they enter puberty as to what they want?

I'm not sure this is an area where parity is possible. My view of human nature is to jaundiced to be sure that it's even desirable.
 
 
ShadowSax
18:33 / 09.03.06
i will respond in more detail when i have longer to read the responses, but just to get this out there:

in terms of abusing the process or the man doing something that will later affect woman and/or child, isnt that what the woman has complete control over already? granted, most women and most men are reasonable, but there are cases where anyone might take advantage of the system, so i dont want to categorically rule out this idea simply because a father might go back on his word. right now, (in states where abortions are legal - most states by far), the mother has all control. she can have a child where she previously told the father that she wasnt going to. she can abort a child without the father knowing, she can abort the child despite the father perhaps wanting to raise the child on his own. she can even have the child in order to earn a guaranteed paycheck for the next 18 yrs. (if we say that men are doing this to avoid having to pay, then we must also say that some women only want to raise their chidren in order to receive the child support, which is based NOT on how much it costs to raise a child, but on how much the father makes.) so those multiple scenarios can have parallels in a new law that gives the father more financial freedom (for lack of a better word), but dismissing the idea based on factors that already exist with abortion laws doesnt seem fair to me.

as far as a man who doesnt want to financially care for his child being an asshole, can we say the same for women who want an abortion so as not to have to nurture a child? i dont think so. it might be a challenge (for all of us), but we might do this topic the most justice by trying hard to stay away from double standards.
 
 
*
19:36 / 09.03.06
right now, (in states where abortions are legal - most states by far), the mother has all control.

I don't think this is as evident as you might imagine; in fact I disagree. But I do agree that hypothetical abuse of the process is not the main thing we should base our arguments on. No process is foolproof. The aim should be to make the process as fair as possible, and provide appropriate recourse for cases in which it has been manipulated.
 
 
ShadowSax
20:43 / 09.03.06
even though there are new threats to abortion laws, i dont think that means we put off any related issues. after all, even if we're going to take a stance on abortion, i think the issue raised by this article are valid. after more than all, this lawsuit is only applicable in situations where there are abortions. so let's assume that there are legal, available abortions and that discuss the lawsuit in that realm.

I don't believe that, simply because a woman could have chosen to have an abortion, this means that the father of her child should likewise be able to choose to reject the child and refuse to support it. Having an abortion isn't like getting a flu jab.

indeed, it's not. but why should a woman's choice affect a man's when a man's choice doesnt affect the woman. a man right now can pretend to choose not to pay child support for a child if he's in a situation comparable to some of those women who have abortions (too young to support a child, perhaps addicted to drugs - unable to hold a job, perhaps the child was the result of an adulterous affair, or perhaps the man was simply hoping that the birth control would work), but pretending to have that choice means nothing, because it's only the woman's choice that counts. despite any objections from the father, if the mother decides on her own to keep the child, the father is bound to that decision. the mother is not bound to the father's decisions. if the father leaves, moves, quits his job, etc., he's still legally obliged, for the next 18 years, to provide for that child.

we need to stay away from classifying abortion as mother's choice being an issue of "choice" (like a flu jab), and classifying abortion as father's choice being an issue of "responsibility" (like a life within society). a fetus is either one or another and for different arguments, the debate may focus on one or the other, but not both. we cant say that bringing a life into the world is an inherent choice for women without saying that bringing a life into the world is the same for the father. can we?

This is not true of most men who are simply infertile or who have had vasectomies— in these cases there is often an outside chance of pregnancy. Similarly, in the case of women who have had sterilization procedures, or who are infertile; this doesn't mean there is NO chance of pregnancy, only that there is much less. I happen to think, based on these biological realities, that it's incumbent upon men who really really do not want the responsibility of paying child support to take extra precautions even if the woman they are with has been diagnosed as infertile or has had sterilization procedures. I would advise men who are not going to do this to prepare a signed statement with the woman which states that she has undergone sterilization or has been diagnosed as infertile, and that they have agreed not to have a child, but that the possibility was discussed and the following contingency agreed upon (the father will be released from child-support, the child will be given up for adoption, etc.; depending on what has been agreed upon as acceptable).

you shift here, i think. first you say that there are similar situations for men and women in terms of what they can expect from their respective attempts at birth control or sterilization, then you say that it would then be the man's responsibility to prepare something in advance. would you also say that the woman should bear responsibility for telling the man whether or not she would keep a child if she were to get pregnant?

Like, for example, what's to stop a man from impregnating a woman, insisting beforehand that yes, should anything happen, of course he'll support her, then standing back once the stick turns blue and saying "actually, I didn't want anything to do with this child and she told me she was on the Pill and..." I realise this is a very crude example but this article gives the impression of allowing men to wash their hands of the whole affair and not giving wronged women the right of redress, unless they've got the money and resources to spend a lot of time arguing in court after the fact over 'he said... she said' which benefits no-one but the lawyers. Will everyone be canvassed as they enter puberty as to what they want?

I'm not sure this is an area where parity is possible. My view of human nature is to jaundiced to be sure that it's even desirable.

i happen to have a pretty good view of human nature myself. i think that all people are generally good people, but that they sometimes make mistakes. you present a situation where the father can back out after the fact...how is this different from a woman getting an abortion? i think the most simple way to manage this situation would be, as the article says, to give the men, say, within the first trimester, presuming that the mother is diligent about informing him of her pregnancy, to opt out. to make a decision for himself that he does or doesnt want the child. in many ways, this might help the mother come to a decision about the pregnancy.

we cant ignore the very real fact that it is currently ENTIRELY the mother's decision about what to do with an unplanned pregnancy. not that men and women dont discuss it, but, legally, the decision rests with the mother. and we cant ignore the very real fact that child support laws are based on what the father makes, not what it costs to raise a child. and the support can be modified at any time - any time the father gets a new job or a raise or a promotion, he is bound to up the money going to child support. this ALSO means, in MANY cases, that the father is bound to an income level. so if he's laid off, he is still responsible for child support payments. if he takes a lower-paying job, he's still responsible for what he paid originally. child support very rarely ever goes down, it only goes up. and so many unplanned pregnancies happen to young parents, so while the mother can make a choice at 18 about whether or not to raise a child, the father has no choice, and at 18 can be locked into a financial situation that affects his life as much or more than the mother's choice affected her life.
 
 
Nakkurusu
20:47 / 09.03.06
Can women take advantage of certain laws in certain cases involving pregancy? Yes, at least in the U.S. justice system. See: Kanye West's dissertation in this area. (I'm not citing the song as actual evidence, I'm joking.) However how many women actually do this? Is it high enough that people who be willing to put innocent mothers at a disadvantage. I'm personally not willing do that.

Shadowsax, I think many people are having problems with your choice of words. For example: I think when you use the word femenist politics, you are actually describing what most people would argue are individual actions. I may actually need to read more of your posts, I admit.
 
 
illmatic
21:29 / 09.03.06
I've only given a cursory reading to the thread, and am about to go to bed - will give it due consideration tomorrow.

I must say - and perhaps I'm misreading, I sure hope so - that the process of comparing women and mens rights in these situation "like for like" leaves me profoundly uncomfortable. Can we at least agree as a baseline for this discussion that a woman has absolutely sovereignity over her only body? I think womens' reproductive rights and men paying child support are situations that may be related but are not comparable. Each needs to be discussed seperately. They are not comparable - the former, as far as I'm concerned is not up for negoiation.

Shadowsax - I'm not trying to bait you here, and I hope you will say that its not your intention that the two should be thought comparable. As I said, I haven't read the thread closely. It's just that I think that in this discussion, on this board, where people when criticisng you for lack of empathy with woman, you need to nail your colours to the mast pretty early on.
 
 
*
22:02 / 09.03.06
you shift here, i think. first you say that there are similar situations for men and women in terms of what they can expect from their respective attempts at birth control or sterilization, then you say that it would then be the man's responsibility to prepare something in advance. would you also say that the woman should bear responsibility for telling the man whether or not she would keep a child if she were to get pregnant?

Sure. Every couple for whom pregnancy is the remotest possibility should discuss this. The decision is still ultimately hers, and should stay with her, I feel, but that's aside from the point. What I'm trying to say is that if two people have consensual sex and one of them gets pregnant as a result, it's still both people's responsibility. If one wishes to have sex with a woman and she says if she gets pregnant she will keep the baby, but not to worry because she's had her tubes tied, then a man must make a decision how much risk to take on. There's an outside chance that the procedure won't stop a pregnancy, like there's an outside chance that she's lying. What to do? Oral sex is lovely. There are some very nice condoms— both male and female— these days. Manual stimulation with cuddling, I have found, is very satisfactory. If these are not acceptable, there's always the option of not having sex with her at all. Or you can accept that you are taking a gamble— one where the odds are in your favor, but a gamble nonetheless. It is not the responsibility of the law to protect people from the consequences of taking risks. It so happens that the law has decided to take small steps toward equalizing the risks for men and women by levying child support payments, which is something I think we both agree with in general... am I wrong?

I left it unsaid that if a woman is even in doubt about a desire to get pregnant, she should also take responsibility to prevent such an occurrence, but please understand that I mean it. Of course, women may not have that option for much longer, but that's also aside from the point.
 
 
ibis the being
22:32 / 09.03.06
right now, (in states where abortions are legal - most states by far), the mother has all control.

Well, not really... what about in the case of rape (particularly marital rape), or perhaps the hazier area where a woman in an abusive relationship isn't able to fully exercise control over whether/when/how she has sex with her partner? I know people have said they don't want to discuss this in relation to abuses of the law or exceptions to the rule... but I don't see how you can talk about the hypothetical law without talking about this kind of flaw or loophole.
 
 
quixote
03:30 / 10.03.06
The biology is inherently unequal. Women get pregnant, men don't. Either the woman has the baby or she doesn't, so if the man is allowed to have a "say," either he gets to decide what happens—giving him control over the woman's uterus—or he doesn't. I assume that Barbelith doesn't have any troglodytes who think people shouldn't control their own bodies. The only control that men have is over their own bodies, and that control would have to be exercised before sex.
 
 
Sax
08:07 / 10.03.06
Having read this thread and thought about it, in my opinion the answer to the argument boils down to a simple statement: Where a pregnancy is concerned, women have rights and men have responsibilities.

Notwithstanding world population issues etc, and all other things being equal, I feel it is a woman's right to have a baby if she so chooses. Men who participate in any act of sex, whether under the impression that conception is never going to happen or not, must take a measure of responsibility if the pregnancy results in a child. Whether that is purely financial or taking a part in the upbringing of the child is, of course, dependent on the relationship between the two parties. But to my mind it is abhorrent that a man might consider not taking any responsibility, especially, as has been pointed out upthread, if his financial contribution might make the difference between the woman giving birth or terminating the baby.
 
 
Tabitha Tickletooth
08:39 / 10.03.06
This case seems relevant to this discussion also - not because the issues involved are directly comparable, but because it is addressing the respective rights of male and female in relation to reproduction.

Listening to a radio report on this the other day (I'm sorry, but I don't have a link to the programme in question - it was just a news bulletin on Radio 4), a legal expert discussing the situation pointed out something which strikes me as fundamentally underpinning the issue: the responsibility of the man is not to the woman, it's to the child. This is something which I think gets a bit lost.

Say hypothetically, a male signs agreement with a female absolving him of all parental responsibility, financial and otherwise, for a child which he has sired but does not want. The child's not even born yet. What say did the child get? I feel like this is being couched as an argument about 'father' rights against 'mother' rights, which ignores that the entire issue should be about the child.

I hope I'm not in some way derailing this discussion by suggesting this perspective and I will have to think further on the broader issue of male reproductive rights before I can properly respond.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:26 / 10.03.06
the responsibility of the man is not to the woman, it's to the child

Very important, I think. The title of this thread - "should pro-choice extend to men as well" I think confuses the issue, as it directly equates a woman's right to control her body with a man's right to control his finances, by choosing to pay or not to pay child support. That's issue the first.

Issue the second is that, as id entity mentions above, men do have the right to choose. They can choose to do things which do not involve the risk of impregnation. That's a very big choice, pace the current discussion about women as sexual aggressors in the Head Shop, and we can say that in almost all cases a man has that choice, as in most cases does a woman. The consequence of that choice for the woman is the risk of pregnancy, the consequence for the man the risk of one's sexual partner becoming pregnant. The man does not, or at least should not, have the right to force the woman either to terminate or to bring to term the pregnancy. Once the child is born, the rights of the child are paramount, and at that point the question of child support (payments made to help the child's standard of living) becomes an issue. To tie it conceptually to abortion rights doesn't strike me as particularly helpful.
 
 
ShadowSax
12:58 / 10.03.06
Shadowsax, I think many people are having problems with your choice of words. For example: I think when you use the word femenist politics, you are actually describing what most people would argue are individual actions. I may actually need to read more of your posts, I admit.

i havent used the word "feminist" here. i'm not sure what you're referring to.

I must say - and perhaps I'm misreading, I sure hope so - that the process of comparing women and mens rights in these situation "like for like" leaves me profoundly uncomfortable. Can we at least agree as a baseline for this discussion that a woman has absolutely sovereignity over her only body? I think womens' reproductive rights and men paying child support are situations that may be related but are not comparable. Each needs to be discussed seperately. They are not comparable - the former, as far as I'm concerned is not up for negoiation.

Shadowsax - I'm not trying to bait you here, and I hope you will say that its not your intention that the two should be thought comparable. As I said, I haven't read the thread closely. It's just that I think that in this discussion, on this board, where people when criticisng you for lack of empathy with woman, you need to nail your colours to the mast pretty early on.

the idea of "absolute sovereignty over her only body" is one way of justifying abortion. but it's only one way (others include social advantages, concern for the child, etc.), so while i would agree that a person's financial viability is not parallel to body sovereignty, i wouldnt say that all arguments for abortion must include body sovereignty, and i'm uncomfortable using that argument in this case in order to remove other valid parallels.

It so happens that the law has decided to take small steps toward equalizing the risks for men and women by levying child support payments, which is something I think we both agree with in general... am I wrong?

i agree that both parents should bear financial responsibility for raising a child, and i agree that the child should benefit from some function of wealth sharing between father and mother. in a nuclear family, all the children as well as both parents benefit and suffer from the ups and downs of economy, career, good and bad fortune. in divided families, the parent receiving child support is removed from the downs of economy, career, good and bad fortune. the money that goes to raising a child within a 2-parent home, in other words, is an expense that is subject to the constant changes of demand and income. the money that goes to raising a child when the parents are separated from one another is not subject to those constant changes. i disagree in principle with this method of support distribution, but i acknowledge that it's a difficult thing to control. i also disagree with the idea that the law has taken small steps towards equalizing the risks for men and women by levying child support, because in this situation, where child support is fixed for the mother (as a recepient) and fixed but variable upwards for the father (as the payer) puts more risk in the hands of the father and nearly no risk for the mother. so i dont agree with the idea of "small steps", and i dont agree that it's created an equitable solution.

what about in the case of rape (particularly marital rape), or perhaps the hazier area where a woman in an abusive relationship isn't able to fully exercise control over whether/when/how she has sex with her partner? I know people have said they don't want to discuss this in relation to abuses of the law or exceptions to the rule... but I don't see how you can talk about the hypothetical law without talking about this kind of flaw or loophole.

i can say confidentally that any law passed that allows a father to opt out of child support would not treat a father who raped the mother to cause that pregnancy the same as a father who didnt rape the mother. if i accept those exceptions, can you discuss this further?

The biology is inherently unequal. Women get pregnant, men don't. Either the woman has the baby or she doesn't, so if the man is allowed to have a "say," either he gets to decide what happens—giving him control over the woman's uterus—or he doesn't. I assume that Barbelith doesn't have any troglodytes who think people shouldn't control their own bodies. The only control that men have is over their own bodies, and that control would have to be exercised before sex.

we seem to be leaning towards the idea that women naturally have more control over reproduction than men. i dont disagree with that biologically (how could i?), but this issue extends beyond biology and is a social concern as well. if we look at child support as something positive for society, then we have to look at financial aspects of raising a child as well, and we then have to start thinking about the details of that financial situation.

Having read this thread and thought about it, in my opinion the answer to the argument boils down to a simple statement: Where a pregnancy is concerned, women have rights and men have responsibilities.

thats sexist, no? if we sought abortion rights as a way to offset the balance of power between genders, then what you're saying it's actually done is give more rights to women than to men. in western societies there is a huge difference between rights and responsibilities, and making reproduction decisions for women a right and reproduction decisions for men a responsibility, we're really throwing the balance off in a big way. i dont think thats appropriate.

Issue the second is that, as id entity mentions above, men do have the right to choose. They can choose to do things which do not involve the risk of impregnation. That's a very big choice, pace the current discussion about women as sexual aggressors in the Head Shop, and we can say that in almost all cases a man has that choice, as in most cases does a woman. The consequence of that choice for the woman is the risk of pregnancy, the consequence for the man the risk of one's sexual partner becoming pregnant. The man does not, or at least should not, have the right to force the woman either to terminate or to bring to term the pregnancy. Once the child is born, the rights of the child are paramount, and at that point the question of child support (payments made to help the child's standard of living) becomes an issue. To tie it conceptually to abortion rights doesn't strike me as particularly helpful.

yes, men and women have the same choices prior to conception. what choices there are post conception are the issue, and i think this issue ties into abortion only to the extent that the article seems to suggest that there should be a period post conception and pre-birth where the man, just like the woman, have an option about their parental responsibilities. this isnt about making a decision after the child is born. it's about making a decision early on in the pregnancy, and after certain decisions were made (or not made) by one or both parties prior to conception. the issue is actually pretty precise in terms of timing.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
13:44 / 10.03.06
It's a bit negative though, isn't it? From the rights point of view. From what I can gather, it's only designed to allow an opt-out for men who don't want parental responsibility in the event of their sexual partner keeping the child. There's no way for a man to opt-in where his partner doesn't want to keep the child - i.e., the woman's decision is still primary there (and a good thing too), and a woman's reproductive rights are still privileged over a man's (and another good thing otherwise we'd all be back in the nineteenth century even before GW sends us there).

Snd, excuse my ignorance, I'd like to clarify something about child support as well: is child support meant to provide the whole upkeep of the child? Or is it a contribution towards? Because it does strike me that women who have primary custody (I presume) have to support themselves in some way, and would therefore be subject to fluctuating financial fortunes, which would also affect their ability to contribute towards supporting their children - in other words, child support might not be quite the cushion you suggest. But correct me if I am wrong in thinking this might be the case.
 
 
ShadowSax
14:00 / 10.03.06
It's a bit negative though, isn't it? From the rights point of view. From what I can gather, it's only designed to allow an opt-out for men who don't want parental responsibility in the event of their sexual partner keeping the child. There's no way for a man to opt-in where his partner doesn't want to keep the child - i.e., the woman's decision is still primary there (and a good thing too), and a woman's reproductive rights are still privileged over a man's (and another good thing otherwise we'd all be back in the nineteenth century even before GW sends us there).

well, it's just an unfortunate quirk of biology that a woman can choose to abort a child that the man might want. are we to say that the man is also bound to provide for a child he may not want in the event that the woman wants the child? if we have a method of providing choice to the father, do we avoid it?

is child support meant to provide the whole upkeep of the child? Or is it a contribution towards?

child support is meant to equalize incomes. there is usually a minimum level of child support, but from there, child support is determined based on the percentage of the paying parent's income compared to a percentage of the receiving parent's income. the actual calculations vary from state to state, and in some states, it is partly based on the amount of time the child spends with each parent. in general, you take the paying parent's income (noncustodial parent), determine the percentage of that income that the receiving parent (custodial parent) earns, and then the support serves to provide both parents with the same income level, but then taking from those equal portions an amount determined by the state to raise a child. so income is adjusted so that first both parents are equal, and then support is determined by taking some of the higher earning parent's income and giving it to the lower earning parent. it's not based on how much is needed to raise the child, no.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:27 / 10.03.06
It sounds pretty fair to me though. Surely a father who considered his child(ren) to the best thing ever would not think it excessive?
 
 
ShadowSax
14:33 / 10.03.06
It sounds pretty fair to me though. Surely a father who considered his child(ren) to the best thing ever would not think it excessive?

paying to support my children is one thing. having the law say that i could laid off and miss 2 payments and go to jail is another thing.

we're not talking about me anyway.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:43 / 10.03.06
Are we to say that the man is also bound to provide for a child he may not want in the event that the woman wants the child?

Way-ull.... I guess that a difference here is that there is a child, whose interests might also need to be considered, whereas if the pregnancy is terminated there is no child to be considered. That is, the judgement that it is good for fathers to support their biological children, at a minimum to a legally-mandated cash sum, has more implications than an argument between the father and the mother - the child's comfort and wellbeing is also a consideration.
 
 
ShadowSax
14:56 / 10.03.06
haus, please try to discuss this within the context of an unborn child. that a woman would then have more things to consider, like how she is going to raisee the child, instead of assuming that there is a legal system guaranteeing her 18 years of support from someone who might not want to have the child.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
15:03 / 10.03.06
Set my mind at rest, ShadowSax, and tell me you don't think that single mothers are calculating money-grabbers who get an easy ride from the state.
 
 
ShadowSax
15:06 / 10.03.06
i dont think they get an easy ride from the state, no.

why are we villifying men who dont want to raise a child and not questioning women who get abortions?
 
 
ShadowSax
15:07 / 10.03.06
(nor do i think that single mothers are calculating money grubbers.)
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
15:11 / 10.03.06
... which is more likely to lead to a woman terminating a pregnancy she doesn't necessarily want to terminate, or giving up the child for adoption even if she doesn't want to... Assuming she has access to termination and is within legal limits by the time the decision is made, etc. etc. Would there be adequate support for her and the child if she decided to keep it?

I dunno, it's very sticky. I can certainly see that there is a lack of options for a man in this unfortunate situation. It's hard to know what would be best to do. I have horrible visions of even more endless disputes than there already are. This solution seems to me to be likely to cause more women to terminate pregnancies - is that a good thing? would it be better than men paying child support for children they didn't intend or want to have?
 
  

Page: (1)23

 
  
Add Your Reply