Abortion for Men!

I'm trying to get some support for this idea.

First of all, I'm a gurl, (and a sterile one at that) so it's certainly not self-serving.

I think the laws regarding reproductive freedom in this country are grossly unfair. Men are stripped of any choice except the choice not to have sex at all, which isn't reasonable.

Think about it: why should men be totally at the mercy of a woman's choices for herself?

If a woman becomes pregnant, she can choose to avoid pregnancy and motherhood via abortion. (I believe in a woman's right to choose, absolutely. No one, be it the state or the father, should be able to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body.) This is right and good. But the father cannot stop her if he wants to become a father. This is also right and good.

But what if she chooses to keep the baby? Can the father force her to abort it if he doesn't want it? No, and he shouldn't be able to. Yet SHE is able to force HIM to be a father even if he doesn't want it. If nothing else, she can force him to be financially responsible. And I think that blows.

The biological differences prevent perfect parity here, but I do believe we can get closer than we are now via a simple change in the law. Men should be permitted to legally reject fatherhood by making a declaration. Very simple. It would work the same way it does for women: they would have to make the declaration in say, the first 5 months of her preganancy. After that, it must be assumed that they are willingly taking on the obligations of paternity.

Furthermore, to prevent women from manipulating men by failing to inform him that she is pregnant until it is too late, the burden of proof would be on her if she claims he knew and failed to do anything about it.

Very simple, and as close to fair as is possible.

I believe that such a system would have a noticable impact on the number of single mothers. IF women understood that having a man's baby would NOT legally tie him to her forever, perhaps they would think twice about going forward with their pregnancies, or even allowing themselves to get pregnant in the first place. It wouldn't eliminate it, certainly, but I think it would help.

And why men haven't bitched about the inequity of this system up to now is beyond me. If I was a guy I'd be screaming bloody murder.

Prairie Rose: Hey, jsut because we disagree on one thing doesn't mean we would or should disagree on all things!

Handy: The baby only has rights if it is actually born, and whether it is or isn't is very much affected by the choices made by the mother. That is essentially a different topic. My argument begins with the law as it now stands, which is that women have the right to choose to have a child or not, and men are completely at the mercy of those choices.

Yepitsme: But you aren't addressing the disparity here. Let's say (assuming you are male for the moment, I don't know) that you and I have sex. And let's say we use a condom and it breaks, and I become pregnant.

You are now standing on the sidelines waiting for ME to decide how YOUR life is going to come out. I have complete freedom to decide not only MY future, but YOURS.

If I do not want the baby, no sweat: I have actually TWO legal options available to me: I can either abort, leaving us with no child at all and no future issues to deal with, OR I can choose to give that child up for adoption.

If I DO want the baby, I go ahead and have it. And not only that, I come after you for child support to boot!

And what are your choices?

You want the baby? No choice, you can only hope I want it, too. (Or, if I've elected to go the adoption route, you can contest and take custody yourself. Assuming you even know what's going on.)

You don't want the baby? No choice, you can only hope that I don't want it either.

Men have NO choices, NO control. The ONLY choice they have is to NOT have sex. WOMEN get ALL choices. Bottom line: NOT FAIR.

One thing I am not certian about, but it seems to me it would have come up in paternity cases if this was an option. Why can't men "give up" their children for "adoption" by the mother if they want? I don't believe this is possible, and it is in essence what I'm saying should be allowed.

Men should not be forced to take responsibility for children thay have made quite clear they do not want, right from the beginning. (This should not apply if a man has taken responsibility and then changes his mind later. No go on that one.)

And I have yet to have anyone make a good case to me about why our current system is fair.

------------------
Stoidela

so, essentially what your saying is that a man should be able to sleep around, not use protection and then just duck out of any responsibility? Sorry, but that just does not seem right to me.

I don't think our current system is fair. However, I don't think that the system you are proposing is any more fair. Indeed, I think that it will do more harm than good.

Hey, no one said life is fair (to quote my father). If you choose to have sex, then you had better think long and hard about the consequences and possible outcomes. Yes, your life will change. Yes, it will be harder. Things will happen that are beyond your control. Deal with it. If you are not willing and able to take responsibility for your actions, then you had better be damn sure that you are taking steps to ensure that pregnancy does not occur (I agree - that male b/c pill is a wonderful idea - I hope it becomes available soon).

I know that some women get pregnant in order to "keep their man" and I think that is very wrong. I'm not sure how to solve that, but greater access to birth control for men would be a good step (meaning the pill for them or a depo-type shot for them). But I just can't agree that letting them give up their personsibilities is a good solution.


btw, since everyone else said where they're coming from, I'll let you know where I'm coming from. I am a mother of two children. I was a teen mom, and the father and I were married for eight years. He still takes responsibility by paying child support and he is a wonderful father.

Bottom line here, folks:

WOMEN can shirk their responsibilities! Why are men expected to shoulder theirs?



------------------
Stoidela

And your answer is what? Responsibility for none? Everyone do whatever you want - there are no consequences - woohoo!

yah, screw the children - who cares about them? they aren't even born yet, so why should we worry about them?

It seems to me that Stoidela is taking issue with biology, which is beyond anyone's power to change. A woman can decide whether or not to have a baby because SHE is the one having the baby. We may talk about co-parenting and sharing pregnancies, but the bottom line is that only one person is the incubator and that's the woman. It's HER body and therefore her decision whether she wants to have the baby or not. You're right; men essentially stand on the sidelines when this decision is made, but there's no way around that -- the man isn't having the baby and no man (or government) should be able to force a woman to have a baby if she doesn't want to. I don't think this is particularly unfair to men in general; the man doesn't get to choose because the man isn't bearing the child.

But if the woman has the child against the man's will, should the man be held responsible for it? Hell, yes. Child support isn't for the benefit of the mother, it's for the benefit of the child and of society in general, because children whose parents don't support them are supported by the State. You may have a point that the mother, by choosing to have the child, is "forcing" the man into a position of parenthood that he doesn't want, but it wouldn't be fair to punish the child for the mother's actions by removing the child's right to parental support.

If a man doesn't want the responsibility of a child, he should excercise some restraint and responsibility in his sexual habits -- like using a condom, to start.

Stoidela is absolutely right, and has thought this all the way through, including the use of birth control measures.

The "What about the baby?" question is one for the mother-to-be, as in "What about having a baby that the father doesn't want?" Unfortunately, this adds another layer of difficulty to the choice for the pregnant woman, but, hey - she's in for a minimum 20-year emotional roller coaster ride if she goes full term. Better that she face this problem before she shares it with a baby.

What I find interesting is that the focus has been on how to get the I-don't-want-it father off the hook. I assume that this is because the I-do-want-it father is more problematic; how can he have his baby if she won't bring it to term?

If the medicine were there, could the law go in and get it and plant it somewhere else to grow?

Man, the way you guys are so completely willing to ignore that WOMEN BLOW OF FTHEIR RESPONSIBILITIES TOO absolutely amazes me!

Unless you are anti-abortion AND anti-adoption, it is not LOGICAL to say that men shouldn't have any option while it's perfectly ok for a woman to have the options. WHY WHY WHY???? Please, someone, present me an argument that amounts to more than "Just cuz".

By the way... I aint' saying there is anything admirable about anyone blowing off their parental responsibilities. HOWEVER...if I were Queen, I would force anyone who wanted to have children to be licensed, and licensing would involve getting an in depth psychological evaluation and passing it.

Too damn many unwanted kids being born as it is. Norplant for every woman the minute she goes through puberty! (I can be something of a fascist, which is okay, because I have no power.)

Better that than the physically, emotionally, spritually and psychologically beaten and scarred people we have now.



------------------
Stoidela

some women may "blow off their responsibilities", as you put it...

consider this though - who has to carry the baby in their womb for nine months and then give it up to a stranger if they choose adoption? who has to go through a major surgery and deal with the emotinal and/or physical scars of having an abortion if they choose to give up the baby? who has to raise the baby for at least 18 years if they choose to keep the baby? the mother - she has no choice - the baby is INSIDE her and she can not simply decide that she doesn't want to deal with motherhood and give up her claims to it. No matter what she chooses, it will effect her.

The way I see it, adoption and abortion are NOT about shirking responsibility. They are about choosing the best option. Often the above options are actually MORE responsible than keeping the baby.

What you are proposing in completely different, at least in my eyes. It does not have to do with choosing the best option for the parents and the unborn baby. It has to do with letting the father out of his parental duty. Not only does he not have to make the choice to give birth or not give birth - not only does he not have to face the option of having major surgery or giving away something that has grown inside him for nine months - he also does not even have to acknowledge that he is the parent or take any responsibility for the baby that HE helped create, according to your plan.

I'm having a really hard time seeing how this would be a good thing.

p.s. you say "Too damn many unwanted kids being born as it is"

how the heck do you figure that your plan will reduce unwanted children? The way I see it, it will only encourage ment o have irresponsible sex - after all, there are no consequences for them. Seems to me that we would have just as many unwanted births - only under your plan we would have more fatherless children.

Yep:

Well, first of all, keep in mind that I am a woman myself, so you don't need to clarify for me what reproduction means to my gender. I am a woman who has had an abortion, and I am a woman who elected to have my tubes tied rather than deal with the whole thing any more. *I* made those choices, because I saw it as MY problem. *I* didn't want to get pregnant, so *I* made sure that I wouldn't. And in the 20 years between the abortion and the tube tying, I made absolutely certain that I was protected from pregnancy.

However, had I been a different sort of woman, a more stupid one, a more manipulative one, I could have allowed myself to become pregnant through irresponsibility. Or I could have DELIBERATELY become pregnant while lying thorugh my teeth to the man I was sleeping with. Would it have been fair for him to be held responsible for the child I then had? Most particularly if he made it crystal clear that he absolutely did not want said child? No, no, and more no.

I do think the ideal solution is for a relatively foolproof male birth control device, but it won't be happening any time soon. And until it does, I cannot imagine why men must be forced to be parents when they dont' want to be.

No one here has addressed the adoption thing... what is different about a man declaring he does not want a child, and a woman giving her child up for adoption? Why can't HE be allowed to do that? Where is the difference? And why isn't it the best option for an irresponsible cad to give up being a father, if he's going to suck at it and resent it?

------------------
Stoidela

Women shirk responsibilty? Huh. That's not acceptable where I come from.
My ex husband left me 5 days before our son was born. The last (and only) time he saw him was at his first birthday and he virtually ignored him.
All these years, he has not ONCE asked about our son. I would get child support very sporadically. He would quit his job or get himself fired to avoid helping me out. I had to go on welfare (not on it anymore...i worked my butt off to get off it). *i* am the one clothing him, feeding him, making sure he has a roof over his head. *I* was there when I found out our son is autistic. *I* am the one making sure he gets help for that.*I* was the one there when he spent the night in the hospital in an oxygen tent. You get the picture.
WI sent him to court to make him start paying support. He decided that since he has to pay, he wants to see our son. He can't drive up here because his drivers license was taken away. He asked his mom if she'd come here and get our son and bring him to him. She refused. She told him that he wasn't there for him for 8 years and if he started seeing him now he'd destroy our son (he has a history of coming and going as he pleases with out regards for anyones feelings but his own. I didn't know that before I married him). I agree with her. i want him to stay away.
Now, suppose *I* left the 2 of them 5 days after I gave birth. Suppose I didn't come into contact with them at all for 8 years. i was out cavorting, doing as i pleased and leaving him to raise him. Now suppose I decided that I wanted to see our son. do you think society would accept that? NO WAY! I've heard of stories of just that...people would comment about how unfit she was and dare she think she can just come in out of the blue and expect everything to be all right!
I will be DAMNED if he will father a child and not have anything to do with raising it, then think it's ok to come over here and see him just because he suddenly decided to. He lost that priveledge when he left. But on the same token, if he gets away with not paying support, he is getting permission to be irresponsible. And that's what he did...i found out he fathered 4 other child after he left. And no...he never told me that he didn't want kids. he told me he wanted a lot of kids and when we found out i was pregnant I thought he was more excited than I was. To this day I have no clue as to why he left. We never fought...never had a disagreement...nothing! Even if all that didn't happen to me, you'd never convince me that the man should be able to not be responsible.

------------------
MaryAnn
Sometimes life is so great you just gotta muss up your hair and quack like a duck!

maryanne - you must be a really strong person for being able to go through all that and still have some sanity left. I commend you. =)

your story reminded me that no one has pointed out yet that, even with current laws, men still are able to (and do) shirk their respibilities as fathers.

I know of at least two fathers who refuse to pay child support, even though it is court ordered (for the record, neither of these men were *forced* to become parents or were tricked into fatherhood). In both cases, the man works "under the table" so that his wages can not be garnished and the court thinks he does not work and therefore can not pay. he gets the carefree lifestyle - his child gets screwed.

I know, me knowing two jerks doesn't mean make this type of irresponsibility a fact. but I am willing to bet that there are more where those two came from.

oh yah, one more thing - stoidela said, "However, had I been a different sort of woman, a more stupid one, a more manipulative one, I could have allowed myself to become pregnant through irresponsibility." so, are you saying that when you did get pregnant you were a different, stupid, manipulative and irresponsible woman?

Excuse me, but just where is the baby supposed to be in all of this? The baby has rights too and you aren't considering any of those rights!

sorry, but that has got to be one of the stupidest ideas I have ever heard in my life (ok, I've heard stupider, but I'm going for dramatic effect here).

If a man is going to take chances and have sex, he (just like the woman) must be prepared to deal with the consequences, be it pregnany, std's, or whatever. He is perfectly capable of taking measures to avoid these things (in other words, he can use a condom) (and yes, I know condoms fail, but not that often).

Giving men the chance to bow out of fatherhood and financial responsibility does not sound like a good idea to me. They are just as responsible for the pregnancy and the baby as the woman is. It took two people to create that baby. Why should men be able to completely avoid this responsibility simply by claiming that they don't want to be a father? Sorry, but if you don't want to be a father (or mother) then you ought to be more careful about sex. It's called taking responsibility for your actions. It's not fair to shove all the responsibility, both financial and otherwise, on the mother simply because the man decides he doesn't want to have kids.

Also, a child needs a father in their life. Allowing the father to disclaim fatherhood would do a great disservice to the child. (I know that many fathers already flake out of their childrens' lives, but I feel that what you have suggested would only cause it to occur more often).


I think that, rather than discouraging women from getting pregnant or from having the baby, the measure you have suggested would simply encourage men to be irresponsible. After all, under your system of things, there would be no consequences for their actions. They would get off scott-free and all the burden would be on the woman.

You have NO idea how queasy it makes me to agree, even a little, with Stoidela, but she may have a valid point. (see "people hunting" thread)

I've seen many women (especially younger women) have an "oops" as a way to get a guy to stay with her or marry her. Happened a lot in my HS, but I do admit to being born in sort of a "white trash" town (IMHO). Not fair to him, her, or especially the child! Kids are far too precious to be used as bargaining chips but immature, manipulative, pseudo-grownups...

I hope the male birth control pill comes out SOON! Then men can have some control over this sort of thing and then the argument will be moot.
Also, I agree totally with Stoidela that only a woman should have the final say over whether or not she has an abortion. I realize there are many issues to cover in this thread, I don't want a pro-choice vs anti-choice debate opening in this thread, so if you disagreeon this point, fine, just don't respond to this part of the post, ok?

FYI on where *I'm* coming from- I'm due June 22 (but pray for sooner please!), happily married, and this baby was lovingly planned by both of us.

Off to go swimming...if anyone laughs at me in my maternity suit I'm gonna thwack them! :)

PR

Maryann:

Wow. Your husband is an absolute prick, isn't he? I'm familiar with the breed - my mother raised 5 daughters pretty much alone, 2 husbands bailing late in the game.

This is obviously a hot topic for you. I'd just like to reiterate that I am not recommending or suggesting that men can come and go as they please, anymore than women do or can or should. Only that men be given a comparable opportunity to opt out of parenthood early in the game, just as women have.

Your husband was an ass, and under my scenario, he would not be let off the hook. You were married, you both wanted kids, he didn't decide to bail until the birth or damn near. Too late.

Yepitsme:

I did not mean to lump all those attritbutes together. I was unquestionably stupid and irresponsible and foolish. I knew better, but like many (most?) kids, I was convinced I was somehow immune to such things happening to me. Duh. I was not manipulative, however.

------------------
Stoidela

to Stoidela

Quote
I do think the ideal solution is for a relatively foolproof male birth control device, but it won't be happening any time soon. And until it does, I cannot imagine why men must be forced to be parents when they dont' want to be.

It would appear to me that there is, in fact, a completely foolproof method of male contraception. As a matter of fat, it works for women, too, and requires no equipment or supplies. This is commonly known as abstinence.

I realize that this would interfere with people's rights to whatever pleasure they desire, while requiring the rest of our society to bear the consequences, but I think that this would be a simple and elegant solution.

I am a male, who in his younger days exposed himself to the risk of unplanned pregnancy, but escaped by good fortune. By way of background, I also do not believe in any abortion except those in cases of rape and danger to the mother's life. I believe that aborting a baby, which I feel is a person, no matter what age, for a moment of pleasure should be considered murder.

Please excuse me if this post doesn't come out as planned, this is my first time.

Jvanhorn:

Well, it was only a matter of time before someone jumped in from this angle.

Actually, abstinance is not foolproof: it requires that people actually practice it. Which, aside from a small percentage of the population, will never, ever, ever happen. Never. Ever. Not ever.


Never.


Aside from hunger, sex is the strongest drive we experience, and being the weak-willed, pleasure-loving, self-indulgent (in other words, perfectly normal) species that we are, we will always be driven to satisfy that drive. Sure, a teeny-tiny percentage of people don't care, a larger, yet still tiny percentage have very strong wills and will wait forever if necessary, a slughtly larger percentage will wait a long time, then give in, and everyone else will have at it.

This being the case, we must find and implement the most effective means possible of preventing unwanted pregnancy.

And if you consider abortion the murder of innocent children, then you should not make an exception in cases of rape. Children conceived in rape are just as innocent as children conceived in love or lust.

Just as a matter of curiosity, since I do not feel as you do and have always had a hard time understanding it, may I ask: at one point does a fetus become a person? How many cells must it have before it is a person? must they begine to differentiate into actual organs and body parts, or will a blastocyst do?

I'm not being a smartass, I'm genuinely curious about your thinking on this. I've seen footage of a fertilized egg, as I'm sure you have, and there is nothing remotely person-like about it to my eyes. Given time and the correct conditions, it will certianly become a person eventually, but the fertilized egg is not a person.

And frankly, from my point of view, it doesn't qualify as a real person until it has reached a stage of development that would permit it to live outside the mother's womb if it had to.

But again, I'm curious about your thinking on the subject.



------------------
Stoidela

As I see it, discussing the man's or the woman's options AFTER she becomes pregnant is the root of the problem with this discussion. Once a bad situation is created, there is very rarely a fair and ideal way to clean up the mess. That is life. When you screw up (no pun intended) there are consequences, and they are not limited to your own little space in the world. Virtually every mistake we make, every bad decision, has an effect on other people. If you want everything to be fair and just, then walk on that path from the beginning. Don't rob the liquor store and then complain about unfair sentencing. It puts you in a bad position to argue. If you are not prepared to have a child, don't have sex! I absolutely refuse to buy the argument that it is some sort of travesty if a man who doesn't want a baby has to refrain from sex. I have absolutely no pity in this regard. It is akin to saying, "I stole the money because I REALLY wanted to buy a motorcycle, and because I REALLY wanted it, you should excuse my theft". Hardly. You say that a man's only option is to not have sex. You're right. So what? That is his option. It makes absolutely no difference how many options someone else has.
And, while I certainly don't intend to male-bash here, I would like to point out that it is very likely that giving the man the option to legally bail would result in more father-less children and destitute single mothers. Why do I feel confident in saying this? Because if woman were chosing to abort or adopt and the father's of these children had any interest in the future of these children, they would be demanding their rights to the children. It is a very rare thing that a woman decides to give up a baby for adoption and the father jumps in saying that he wants the child. It is my experience that men are generally quite relieved to be free of their responsibility and I don't think they need any further encouragement to do so.


------------------
"I think it would be a great idea" Mohandas Ghandi's answer when asked what he thought of Western civilization

Lucky:

But what of the many married couples who do not want children ever (for any one of many reasons)? Should they have to be celibate for life?

I think in this society we need to strike a balance between those that think of sex as a totally spiritual thing and a mere appetite. In a healthy marriage (or any other relationship) it is usually somewhere in between.

Surgical sterilization is an option of course, but that is not foolproof! My dear husband has a work associate who did just that and now has a child. (Yes, they tested for paternity and it is his!) They did not want kids because of a genetic problem of theirs. Luckily, the child is okay. And they did not want to abort- they just wanted not to conceive in the first place.

MaryAnnQ, your story made me go though a half box of tissues. I admire your strength and love for your son. For what it's worth, my thoughts and prayers are with you. What a woman!

PR (still pregnant...and the air conditioning is on the fritz till Tuesday! Yikes!!)

We went all through this on the old board a few months ago, and I should KNOW better than to jump in again. ::sigh::

There's an old saying about how you gotta pay the piper if you wanna call the tune. You wanna have sex? Great, but be prepared to pay the consequences, even if they aren't what you wanted. That's what being grownup is all about. That's what accepting responsibility is all about.

Y'know, the REASON that sex is such a strong drive is because of babies.

Once you've had sex with someone, and made a baby, you've got consequences to deal with. Mom didn't make that baby all by herself, y'know? Biology being what it is she's the one who decides whether to have the baby or abort it. If a man doesn't like that idea, that's kinda tough. Life is tough, and life is full of consequences of our actions -- or the actions of others around us that affect us -- that we have to deal with, whether we like them or not, and whether we would have chosen them or not.

I have very little use for any man who fathers a child and doesn't live up to that responsibility, and no, I have no personal experience with that. Well, except I've thrown a deadbeat dad or two out of my office when he's come to see if there's some legal loophole out of paying now that he's been caught and is years behind in support.

Grow up, people. Think of someone other than yourselves. The whole concept proposed -- being able to walk away without accepting any responsibility -- is selfish and immature. It's a reflection of the "Me" generation, and it is both disappointing and repulsive to think that someone would even make the argument.

-Melin

------------------
I'm a woman phenomenally
Phenomenal woman
That's me
(Maya Angelou)

Thank you all for your support. I'm doing ok. I so glad that my family was there for me. My mom babysat while I went back to school and still babysits while I work. They let me move back home until I'm on my feet again. because of bills that he stuck me with (the bill collectors don't know where he is so they bug me), it took a long time. I'm happy to say that i will be out soon. I console myself with the fact that i don't live there for free (I pay rent, utilities, babysitting, etc.).
I'm lucky, too in that his family is on my side. I see a lot of them because my sister married his brother (he's the total opposite of my ex). They find out his job/paying support status and report him.
Sorry that i went on like that. I guess that I wanted to see in writing that things are looking up for me!

------------------
MaryAnn
Sometimes life is so great you just gotta muss up your hair and quack like a duck!

Melin -

Grow up? Selfish and immature?

Actually, the concept being discussed is more mature than our culture's current take on reproductive rights. What's culturally immature is dragging out an old saw about paying the piper when faced with a new question.

When two people willingly engage in safe sex and one accidentally gets pregnant, the pregnant one is the only one with choices. This is the inequity that Stoidela is attempting to address.

Obviously, what we need is the most effective birth control device ever concieved: a four-part no-carbon-required form completed, signed by both parties, witnessed, notarized and on file in the district courthouse prior to the unlocking of either chastity belt.

If a woman becomes pregnant, she can choose to avoid pregnancy and motherhood via abortion. (I believe in a woman's right to choose, absolutely. No one, be it the state or the father, should be able to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body.) This is right and good. But the father cannot stop her if he wants to become a father. This is also right and good.

I will never support abortion. I think it is the most cruel, coldest "choice" to make, and to me is the most disgusting form of murder on such a helpless human. If a woman does not want the baby, adoption is the best answer, I say this because I am adopted, I was placed in a good home with loving parents. My biological mother knew she could not properly care for me, and gave me away to a couple that could not make children of their own. I got to go to school, make friends, grow up and get married, and now I have a baby son of my own. I never would have had this chance if some young girl made the "choice" to abort me. I still do not know who my biological parents are, but they gave me the greatest gift of all... life.

But what if she chooses to keep the baby? Can the father force her to abort it if he doesn't want it? No, and he shouldn't be able to. Yet SHE is able to force HIM to be a father even if he doesn't want it. If nothing else, she can force him to be financially responsible. And I think that blows.

A woman cannot force a man to be a father, she can only make him pay for child support. There is not a thing wrong with that, if you are willing to have sex, you are also willing to take responsibility for anything resulting from sex. Kind of like robbing a bank, you are willing to face the consequence of prison for that, which is why most of us are not bank robbers. Sure, sex feels great, but it was never intended as a form of entertainment, humans made it that way. Its true function is to procreate, and nothing more, so dont be suprised if pregnancy is a result. The only time I would think it is unfair for the man is if the woman (assuming she is some conniving trash, looking for an easy life) intentionally tried to get pregnant by him, say by means of drugs, so as to collect a check from some poor guy. (that goes both ways)

Stoidela:

I feel that fertilized egg is entitled to the same consideration as a near-term baby. I hardly think that because I, at one point in my development, did not resembled the person that I am now, that I was eligible to be killed. There are plenty of circumstances to cause unintended abortions, without looking for more to make our lives more convenient. I understand that you see an inconsistency in my opinion in cases of rape. It is my opinion, though, that the woman did not make the choice to have sex in that case, and therefore should not bear the consequences unless she is willing. It goes without saying that the father is not likely to provide for his child.

Yes, I will agree that the sex drive is one of our most powerful and basic instincts. But the control over our basic instincts is what sets us apart from other beasts. If you can control yourself from having sex on the floor in a busy supermarket, you should be able to further control yorself, enough to think about the fact that sex means babies.

I don't really disagree with your basic premise, that things are not equal for both sexes in the determination of what happens to the results of a sexual encounter. What you propose may indeed be a fine idea. But there are enough babies born now to people who know to use protection, but don't because they just can't be in control of themselves. I hardly think that these people will take the time to fill out a form to indicate their preferences before jumping in the sack.

Men have less choices? Then let them take more care. Why is it the woman who seems any more to be the one to carry the condoms? Why can't these men act like men, and take responsibility for their own action, or inaction?

The only ones I feel sorry for in these cases are the unwanted children. I know, that could be turned against my arguments concerning abortion. But I hardly feel that we are competent to guess which unwanted child is going to be a valuable addition to society, and which is not.

Prairie Rose;
Married people? What are you talking about? The question was if a man fathers a child he doesn't want, should there be a legal means for him to abandon all respnsibility for it. Are you suggesting that this be permitted within the context of marriage? "Well OK, Honey, I'll feed the first two but you're on your own with this third one".
Many people on this thread have mentioned the scenario wherein the man is manipulated somehow by the woman and tricked into becoming a father. Lying and manipulating people is reprehensible, but people do it. This is a good reason to be VERY CAREFUL about who you decide to jump in the sack with.
We all make our choices. The consequenses of bad choices most often really suck. Because of this, it is good policy to think things through before you take action. If you are not ready to live up to the possible consequences, don't do it.
Sometimes I get so fed up with our society. If people would put half the effort into fulfilling their responsibilities as they do into trying to avoid them we wouldn't have these problems.

------------------
"I think it would be a great idea" Mohandas Ghandi's answer when asked what he thought of Western civilization

Neobican:. I never would have had this chance if some young girl made the "choice" to abort me.

Nor would you ever know you hadn't, because you would never have existed, so there's really no comparison, so who cares?

Melin:Women shirk responsibilty? Huh. That's not acceptable where I come from.

Again, who cares what is and isn't "acceptable" where you come from? It happens. Susan Smith ring any bells for you? Hell, we don't even need to get that drastic--I can point to my sister, who at one point signed over custody of her 7-year-old son to his father, so she could leave town with no responsibilities with her drug-dealing boyfriend. It happens. Women are not made perfect through the process of pregnancy, and I've seen you post long enough, Melin, to know that you know that.

Jvanhorn:By way of background, I also do not believe in any abortion except those in cases of rape and danger to the mother's life. I believe that aborting a baby, which I feel is a person, no matter what age, for a moment of pleasure should be considered murder.

So, following your thought through to its logical implications, you are willing to state that you favor life imprisonment or execution both for mothers who have abortions and doctors who perform them? (I would assume an abortion would be considered first degree murder.)

Melin:I have very little use for any man who fathers a child and doesn't live up to that responsibility, and no, I have no personal experience with that. Well, except I've thrown a deadbeat dad or two out of my office when he's come to see if there's some legal loophole out of paying now that he's been caught and is years behind in support.

I assume you are equally hostile towards deadbeat moms?

Grow up, people. Think of someone other than yourselves. The whole concept proposed -- being able to walk away without accepting any responsibility -- is selfish and immature. It's a reflection of the "Me" generation, and it is both disappointing and repulsive to think that someone would even make the argument.

I think there are moral middle grounds predicated around the idea that we as modern humans are capable of controlling our reproductive activities and that it is immoral to force one to assume the mantle of parenthood against his orher wishes. To state that men must either abstain from sex or be made parents against their wishes is silly. Reproductive choice and freedom is either available to all, or it is not a right.

consider this though - who has to carry the baby in their womb for nine months and then give it up to a stranger if they choose adoption? who has to go through a major surgery and deal with the emotinal and/or physical scars of having an abortion if they choose to give up the baby? who has to raise the baby for at least 18 years if they choose to keep the baby? the mother - she has no choice - the baby is INSIDE her and she can not simply decide that she doesn't want to deal with motherhood and give up her claims to it. No matter what she chooses, it will effect her.

The day I see discussion of the emotional scars on the male when the female opts for an abortion is the day I'll seriously consider this as an argument.

We all hear about how traumatic a decision it is for the female, and I don't dispute that. But, just as the male gets screwed out of any real input into the decision-making process, he also gets completely shoved to the side when the discussion turns to how painful the decision was. Think of all the times you've heard this topic discussed, and tell me if you've ever once heard the male side of the story - except, of course, for the typical male-bashing, stereotypical, "Yo, man, I tol' dat bitch to go get an abo'shun" crap you see in child-support propoganda.

That said... I don't think the male should be allowed to claim irresponsibility after the fact. I do, however, think he should be able to before the fact. By that, I mean concrete, documented evidence that a sexual relationship has been entered into, in which the male refuses any responsibilty (as well as any paternal rights) in the event of a pregnancy, and in which the female explicity agrees that she's entering the relationship, accepting those terms.

Don't get me wrong. People need to be responsible. But there is a gender-based discrimination in this area; the male effectively has no rights. Remember that the support-paying parent (regardless of gender) must continue payments, even if the support-receiving parent illegaly refuses to allow court-ordered visitation, or spends that money on heroin, or the kids still starve anyway because they're using that check to buy stereo equipment... and then remember who wins most custody cases.

Best bet, really, is to just keep your pants on...


------------------
~jon

Now there's an intelligent way to get single mothers off the welfare rolls and to reduce the number of impoverished children.

You are basically giving men permission to screw around without responsibility. To hop into the sack with as many women as they can get without protection, because after all, he can have all that hot sweaty fun and then make the choice not to contribute a penny toward supporting a child that may result from the union.

Yep, this will help clear up those welfare lines, you betcha. This will ensure that little tummies of those whose daddy had the "right" to shirk his responsibility, won't go to bed hungry.

It's not a perfect world. Everyone is not as responsible as you are, Stoidela. It's a sad fact that the children are the one's who will suffer the most. However, I think your plan sucks from yet another point of view. I, as a taxpayer, am not too thrilled at the concept of paying even higher taxes to support the children whose fathers won't. Enough of my hard earned money already goes to support the welfare programs that are picking up the slack from the low-life fathers who have turned their backs on their financial duties.

Are you willing to pay increased taxes to help raise the kids whose father made the choice not to contribute? I sure as hell don't want to.

I could not care less if the woman has 100 choices and the man has none. Life ain't fair and it certainly isn't equally divided in any area. (Should we get into glass ceiling or equal pay issues?)

If two people have sex there are certain responsibilities that come with it. The woman has the greater responsibility in that she must accept that consequences that might come with a pregnancy, whether than means raising the child, abortion, or adoption. None are easy choices. The man has the responsibility to contribute towards raising the child that may result from the sexual encounter, or at least provide monetary support.

If neither are willing to accept their responsibilities, then for the sake of any future babies and for the sake of my wallet, they should keep their legs closed and their pants zipped up.

If that is too much to ask and they can't control themselves any better than a couple of pigs in heat, then for hellsake, get the "snip".



------------------
>^,,^<
KITTEN

He who walk through airport door sideways going to Bangkok. - Confucius

Hey Phil, go back and reread the post I wrote and then apologize to me for the misattribution, huh?

And yes, I have no use for ANYone who shirks their responsibility to their child, whether male or female, married or single. However, basic biology says that it is the woman who gets pregnant and therefore has the greater choice about whether that child is coming in to the world. Biederman, Stoidela, you think that's unfair, go complain to Mother Nature. What's also "unfair" is the fact that it is so easy for a man to disappear from a child's life, and shirk that responsibility, and less so for women to do so. I understand that there are exceptions to every rule, but the numbers bear me out. Yes, there are "deadbeat" moms out there, but check out the statistics before you come back and tell me about them; the most recent report from the L.A. County child support enforcement division of the District Attorneys office suggests that there are -- and I'm generalizing this figure because I don't have it directly in front of me and am going by recall -- something like 999 deadbeat dads for every 1 deadbeat mom.

Everything in life carries risk, Phil. You could die in your own bathtub, y'know? When you get in the car you assume the risk of accident. You take all the precautions you can against it, and you do the mental cost-benefit analysis and figure that the odds are with you, and you drive to work, or school, or wherever. You go swimming at the ocean you assume the risk of an undertow, or cramps, or the jellyfish or the shark. Same thing with everything we do. Why should sex be any different?

-Melin



------------------
I'm a woman phenomenally
Phenomenal woman
That's me
(Maya Angelou)

Jvanhorn:

I understand that you see an inconsistency in my opinion in cases of rape. It is my opinion, though, that the woman did not make the choice to have sex in that case, and therefore should not bear the consequences unless she is willing.

This attitude slays me. It lays bare the truth underlying your concern for the "child" - which is horseshit - and shows what your true issue is: those sluts that open their legs! If they are going to willingly have sex outside of marriage, let them PAY THE PRICE! An unwanted pregnancy carried to term is evidently the punishment such women deserve for being so wanton. "You CHOSE to have sex WILLINGLY? Then no way are you going to abort that precious innocent life within you! Oh, you were FORCED? Oh, okay, go ahead and kill that thing growing in your belly."

The fetus is innocent, it is life, it is human...the means by which it came into being don't matter IF your real concern is to protect life. What you are saying here is the only life worth protecting is life that came about because the woman wanted sex. So your claims of wanting to protect innocent life don't wash. You want to punish what you perceive to be slutty women.

And as for men taking more care...in a perfect world, that might be true. But we all live in THIS world, and in THIS world, the woman is the one who ends up pregnant. She should do what is necessary to protect HERSELF if she doesn't want to be. That's what I did.

Lucky:

This is a good reason to beVERY CAREFUL about who you decide to jump in the sack with.

And how would one be very careful about this? It's easier to be careful about avoiding diseases...at least you can ask to see an AIDS test or inspect the person's body for suspicious sores. But dishonesty and manipulativeness don't reveal themselves until it is too late, as a rule.

PLdennison:

:)

Diane:

You are basically giving men permission to screw around without responsibility. To hop into the sack with as many women as they can get without protection, because after all, he can have all that hot sweaty fun and then make the choice not to contribute a penny toward supporting a child that may result from the union.

Men who want to do that do it already. Except the way things are now, some women think they can change that by getting pregnant. Stupid women, but they believe that anyway. Perhaps if the law didn't let her, SHE might think twice.

I give you as evidence all the "deadbeat dads" in the NBA. There was alot of press abotut hem last year. Some of them are total assholes who have fathered multiple children with one woman, and have taken off long after the fact. Screw them, they are completely out of line and should be dealt with harshly. But what about the guys who blew into town, took the babe up on her offer, and now have her knocking at the door for some of those basketball millions for her and her poor baby? It's a story that happens every day, and if I was a man it would righteously piss me off.

Enough of my hard earned money already goes to support the welfare programs that are picking up the slack from the low-life fathers who have turned their backs on their financial duties. Are you willing to pay increased taxes to help raise the kids whose father madethe choice not to contribute? I sure as hell don't want to.

Ya know, I get really sick of hearing this. It's such a bunch of crap. Do you have any idea how much of your hard earned money goes to welfare of the kind you are objecting to? A few cents, maybe a couple of bucks. The anger and outrage over our taxes going to single mothers is so completely out of proportion to what it actually costs that it's infuriating. If you don't like paying for welfare, worry about the welfare that is REALLY costing you, in the form of corporate welfare, and entitlements to people who dont' need them.

It's easy to focus our anger on the poor, the uneducated, the irresponsible welfare moms. They have no power base. They don't contribute to the politicians coffers, and most of them probably dont' vote. So let's go after them! But it's an illusion. Welfare is a truly minute portion of the federal and state budgets.

So yeah, I'm happy to have my taxes go to illiterate, unemployable moms who were stupid but human and have now brought children into this world. I'd like to see more money spent on programs to help these women and their kids.



------------------
Stoidela

Diane:

I'm gonna ask this one more time, and maybe you can give me an answer:

What is the logical, moral, ethical, emotional and legal difference between a woman saying, upon the birth of her unwanted child:

"I don't want this kid. I can't pay for it, I didn't plan on it, and I don't want it in my life. Here, State, take it off my hands and give it to someone who cares, cuz it ain't me. Bye!"

And a MAN saying the same thing?

Hmmmm?



------------------
Stoidela

Melin, I don't believe I misattributed you; I quoted both you and Neobican in the same post. Whoops--found it--that was yepitsme, not you. Sincere sorriness.

Yes, there are "deadbeat" moms out there, but check out the statistics before you come back and tell me about them; the most recent report from the L.A. County child support enforcement division of the District Attorneys office suggests that there are -- and I'm generalizing this figure because I don't have it directly in front of me and am going by recall -- something like 999 deadbeat dads for every 1 deadbeat mom.

I'm going to trust your recollection of the figures as an attorney, but suggest that there may be a greater number of deadbeat moms and that there is some enforcement bias that skews the figures slightly. Slightly And let's not forget the recent rash of young mothers dumping their newborn infants in trash cans, something fathers obviously don't have the opportunity to do and a state of affairs much sadder than nonpayment of support.

Everything in life carries risk, Phil. You could die in your own bathtub, y'know? When you get in the car you assume the risk of accident. You take all the precautions you can against it, and you do the mental cost-benefit analysis and figure that the odds are with you, and you drive to work, or school, or wherever.

So if you are in an accident, are you morally required to lay there and die, because, hey, oh well, that's the risk you take? Or are you permitted to take steps to alter the situation?

You go swimming at the ocean you assume the risk of an undertow, or cramps, or the jellyfish or the shark. Same thing with everything we do. Why should sex be any different?

Part of the beauty of life is that we are not always required to accept only one choice among sets of consequences.

Realistically, the only thing a woman can "force" on a man if she chooses to have a baby that he doesn't want is some financial support to the child. (And good luck getting it.) Well, sexual intercourse is about having babies, folks. You would think we'd have gotten used to this idea by now.

Someone suggested that all men have to do is abstain to avoid this, and the reply was that abstinence is pretty much impossible, at least for most of the people some of the time. I propose that there are plenty of ways of obtaining a reasonable amount of sexual gratification without risking pregnancy. So, really, all men have to do avoid any risk of an unwanted child is to avoid intercourse. If they can't even do that, the small risk of someone coming after them for child support is just one they will have to take.

Stoidela's argument is that women can have all the intercourse they want, and if they get pregnant they can "just" have an abortion. On what planet is this a safe, easy, casual choice with no physical, financial, or emotional risks or consequences? She has to kill a baby to "reject motherhood." That hardly compares with signing a piece of paper saying "I'm outta here."

Stoidela's argument is that women can have all the intercourse they want, and if they get pregnant they can "just" have an abortion. On what planet is this a safe, easy, casual choice with no physical, financial, or emotional risks or consequences? She has to kill a baby to "reject motherhood." That hardly compares with signing a piece of paper saying "I'm outta here."

This is where the "oh well, tough luck!" argument applies. Men can't help it that just saying no to parenthood isn't enormous hassle and burden to them that it is to women. So therefore they don't get to say no at all?

I sure wish someone would answer my adoption question and quit saying "keep your dick in yoru pants or tough!". We've heard it already.

And by the way, in case you missed it, I have actually had an abortion. And while I would never dare to think that my experience represents every woman's experience, I can tell you that for me, it was not the huge trauma that you would have it be. It was physically uncomfortable for about 10 minutes. No emotional scarring, no bad dreams, no regrets years later, no nothing. I didn't even have cramps afterwards! It was just an enormous relief.



------------------
Stoidela

I'm gonna ask this one more time, and maybe you can give me an answer:
What is the logical, moral, ethical, emotional and legal difference between a woman saying, upon the birth of her unwanted child:
"I don't want this kid. I can't pay for it, I didn't plan on it, and I don't want it in my life. Here, State, take it off my hands and give it to someone who cares, cuz it ain't me. Bye!"
And a MAN saying the same thing?
Hmmmm?
------------
Stoidela

If you were paying attention, you would have seen that your question has already been answered by me and a number of other posters.

Again -

There are certain risks that a man and woman take when they have sex. The woman takes the risk that she may become pregnant and have to make a choice to raise the baby, abort, or give it up for adoption. The father takes the risk that he may impregnate the woman and have to face the result of her decision, including financial support.

In answer to your question, "What is the logical, moral, ethical, emotional and legal (BTW - There are MAJOR legal differences) differences between a woman saying. . . . ." the answer is simple. It was the *man’s* decision to take *his* part of the risk, now he must face the consequences that came from *his* decision. She is dealing with the results of *her* own risk. It is biological differences that make the results different between the two. You may not think they are equal or fair, but life isn’t equal or fair.

Let me turn things around and ask you your own question using a different scenario:

What is the logical, moral, ethical, emotional and legal difference between a man saying, upon the abortion of his wanted child:

"I want this kid. I can pay for it, I didn't plan on it but I will accept it, and I do want it in my life. Here, mom, you can’t abort. Carry this child to term and give it to me, someone who cares."

So, according to you, which is it? Does the man have rights to not accept his child but no rights if he wants the baby? You’re talking out of both sides of your face.

And by the way, in case you missed it, I have actually had an abortion. And while I would never dare to think that my experience represents every woman's experience, I can tell you that for me, it was not the huge trauma that you would have it be. It was physically uncomfortable for about 10 minutes. No emotional scarring, no bad dreams, no regrets years later, no nothing. I didn't even have cramps afterwards! It was just an enormous relief.

Nine years ago, I sat in the abortion clinic filling out the paperwork to have an abortion. After talking about all of my options with the father, I made a personal decision to have the baby. Thank God for the 48 hour waiting period or I would have aborted that day. I now have a wonderful 8 year old son.

Being inside that clinic, making the choices that I had to make, was extremely emotional and traumatic even though I didn’t follow through with the abortion. I know that had I followed through, I would carry that decision with me for life. I have a few close friends who have gone through this experience. Although their abortions were the best choice, and they realize this, there are still some emotional scars that will never disappear.

Your callus attitude is just what the pro-lifers like to quote when they preach their "abortion birth control" accusations. It is the type of attitude pro-lifers like to paint of women who get abortions when in reality, it is an emotional, traumatic time in their life.

If you were paying attention, you would have seen that your question has already
been answered by me and a number of other posters.

Again -

There are certain risks that a man and woman take when they have sex. The
woman takes the risk that she may become pregnant and have to make a choice to
raise the baby, abort, or give it up for adoption. The father takes the risk that he
may impregnate the woman and have to face the result of her decision, including
financial support.

That isn't really the answer that I'm looking for. All you are doing is stating the situation as it currently exists. Neither you or anyone has yet JUSTIFIED IT. And you apparantly dont' even see the gross injustice of it: she gets three decisions, he gets to be at the mercy of hers. That's just the way it is. Yeah, I know that, but WHY?????????????????????????????

I think it's because we've all simply be trained to think that it's ok and no one has ever really stopped to examine the injustice and illogic of it.

You may not think they are equal or fair, but
life isn’t equal or fair.

But we can work towards making it MORE so, can't we? Isn't that what our system of laws is all about? Creating more fairness, justice, balance? Protecting everyone's rights as much as possible?


What is the logical, moral, ethical, emotional and legal difference between a man
saying, upon the abortion of his wanted child:

"I want this kid. I can pay for it, I didn't plan on it but I will accept it, and I do want it
in my life. Here, mom, you can’t abort. Carry this child to term and give it to me,
someone who cares."

So, according to you, which is it? Does the man have rights to not accept his child
but no rights if he wants the baby? You’re talking out of both sides of your face.

This is easy. This is where biology really does count and makes a difference. In order for him to do this, she would be required to put her body through something she isnt' willing to put it through. And each of us has absolute dominion over our own bodies. Period.

Your callus attitude is just what the pro-lifers like to quote when they preach their
"abortion birth control" accusations. It is the type of attitude pro-lifers like to paint
of women who get abortions when in reality, it is an emotional, traumatic time in
their life.

So I should fake things I don't feel so as not to give the pro-lifers ammunition? I know alot of women who have had abortions, and the no-muss, no-fuss, no-regrets types far outnumber the anguished, tormented, it-was-the-most-horrible-experience-of-my-life women. (As a matter of fact, I dont' know any of the latter. Some women are a little sad, but still no regrets. Even among those who have since become mothers. And excellent, loving mothers.)

For those of us who know ourselves, know what we want, what we are willing to do, to tolerate, to give, abortion is a no-brainer. I aborted at 7 weeks. I never think about "my baby that I killed". And it's unfortunate that this offends you, but it happens to be the truth. I never wanted to be a mother, even for a second. So there was no sorrow in cancelling my one opportunity.

------------------
Stoidela

Phil, thank you for your sincere apology. I don't mind being argued with when it's my own words, but don't want to have to defend someone else's words as well as my own. :-)

Your comments about choices in dealing with the consequences of the risks we take strike me as better applied to the abortion debate. (Let's not argue abortion here, since we both know that we are on opposite sides of that debate. :-)) Seems to me in the debate at hand what Stoidela is saying is that the man should have the choice of not dealing with the consequences at all, but of simply walking away.

The pregnancy is the potential consequence of the sex; nobody should be able to just walk away from it by saying "I didn't want it!" Nobody wants the broken leg or broken neck either, but you can't just walk away from it by saying that you don't want it, you have to deal with it. If you aren't prepared to accept the (however slight) risk that something is going to bring you consequences you don't want to deal with, then don't risk it. Be mature enough to accept the consequences and deal with them if they do happen. And "deal with them" doesn't mean just walking away and leaving your offspring to fend for itself. I stand by my opinion that it would be a selfish, gutless thing to do, a path walked only by the lowest of the low.

Incidentally, as an aside (and not as a troll!) I'm curious about something. This isn't directed to Phil; I don't want to attribute opinions to him that I'm not sure that he has! <g>

So manny times in discussions of monogamy and of evolution, etc., we've heard comments to the effect that, "naturally," men want to spread their seed around and impregnate as manny women as possible (thus explaining a perceived male tendency to, um, sleep around), versus the woman's desire to keep the man around and have him help provide for their child. Both gender's actions are supposedly spurred by evolution and a desire to populate the species. Thus, arguably, a man has maybe half an hour (if that!) initially invested in any given seed that he plants, and perhaps each individual seed is not as important as is the idea of spreading it and lots of its friends around, but a woman has nine months invested before she gets to a single child, and realistically cannot expect to give birth to as manny children as a man can sire.

This is pure speculation, mind you, but wouldn't such a theory be consistent with a finding that MOST (not ALL) deadbeat parents are the dads? And that MOST of the single parents are moms? (Again, not all! I know about the anecdotal cases where the dad is single parent and the mom is the deadbeat, okay? But statistically the signigicantly greater numbers of single parents are moms and deadbeats are dads.) From such a standpoint, the male is most interested in spreading his seed as far and wide as possible, without necessarily giving thought to any individual seed, whereas the mom is most interested in the small number of children she gives birth to.

Just a passing thought.

-Melin

------------------
I'm a woman phenomenally
Phenomenal woman
That's me
(Maya Angelou)

Stoidela wrote:

{{{"I'm gonna ask this one more time, and maybe you can give me an answer:

What is the logical, moral, ethical, motional and legal difference between a woman saying, upon the birth of her unwanted child:

"I don't want this kid. I can't pay for it, I didn't plan on it, and I don't want it in my
life. Here, State, take it off my hands and give it to someone who cares, cuz it
ain't me. Bye!"

And a MAN saying the same thing?"}}}


Y'know, I'm gonna go out on a limb here for a minute. Putting biology aside (which is kinda foolish in a discussion like this), I will point out that, from a legal point of view, once that baby IS born the man and the woman are in the same position. She can give up her parental rights to it, but she can't necessarily eliminate her legal and financial obligations to it strictly on her own whim. If the father wants, he can take custody of the child (may have to have a court proceeding, but he can do it), and then the MOTHER will be paying child support, even if she was hoping to be able to give the kid up for adoption and never have to deal with it again.

-Melin

------------------
I'm a woman phenomenally
Phenomenal woman
That's me
(Maya Angelou)

Hrmmm ... my question is if a woman can choose NOT to parent a child by aborting her pregnancy, why can't a man choose NOT to parent a child by abaondoning the mother? some of you may say he can, but most courts would say otherwise. :( very interesting topic hahaha ... ethics and morales skew things sooo much don't ya think?

Personally i feel this is an decision that needs to be made on an individual perspective. I myself would never dream of such a thing (abondoning the mother of my child, unwanted or not) so that is all that matters to me. I could care less what others choose to do (until it starts affecting the lives of others ie the childs, OR making me have to pay higher taxes.) Needless to say if it get's to this point, something has to be done. Not by me however .. i'm a fence sitter :)

Melin:

And that sucks equally. I simply do not undrstand why if ONE parent wants to keep the kid, BOTH parents must.

I wonder if anyone has ever tried challenging this?



------------------
Stoidela

Stoidela;

I said that people ought to be VERY CAREFUL about who they jump in the sack with. You said that by the time one finds out the true nature of a person, it's usually too late. This is pretty much my point. If you're doing the matress mambo after a couple of weeks courtship, you clearly will not know enough to make a decision about that person's character. How about waiting several months, meeting the family, having them meet your family, etc, etc. Every time someone says, "I didn't know he/she was like that", I'd love to ask them how much time and effort they spent trying to find out what kind of person he or she was before they went at it. No doubt it was far less time than they spent swooning.

------------------
"I think it would be a great idea" Mohandas Ghandi's answer when asked what he thought of Western civilization

Lucky:

Think about how many women didn't know their true loves were into beating the shit out of them until after they got married.

hmm.



------------------
Stoidela

just wanted to respond to some hostility toward something I wrote.


"The day I see discussion of the emotional scars on the male when the female opts for an abortion is the day I'll seriously consider this as an argument.

We all hear about how traumatic a decision it is for the female, and I don't dispute that. But, just as the male gets screwed out of any real input into the decision-making process, he also gets completely shoved to the side when the discussion turns to how painful the decision was. Think of all the times you've heard this topic discussed, and tell me if you've ever once heard the male side of the story - except, of course, for the typical male-bashing, stereotypical, "Yo, man, I tol' dat bitch to go get an abo'shun" crap you see in child-support propoganda." - Jon


first of all, though I realize that legally the male has no real input in the process before the baby is born, in reality the male does have input. I am willing to bet that in many cases the decision to abort, to keep the baby, or to give the baby up for adoption is one that is made by both parents, or is at least discussed by both parents. I am also willing to bet that if a man vehemently argued for the baby to be kept so he could help raise it he would not go completely unheard. Again, I know this is not always the case and I don't contend that it is. But I have a hard time buying the idea that a man has absolutely no say in the matter.

And I do not think for a moment that the decision made won't affect both the man and the woman. That is not what I was trying to say. A child is a creation of both the parents, and any decision regarding its fate can and should involve and effect both parents. However, ultimately, due to the fact that the child is growing inside the mother's body, the final decision rests with her.



"And I'm sorry, I realize I'm not a woman, but for all of you who contest that a man doesn't feel it when a woman choses to give up, or abort, his baby, fuck you. That's as sexist a statement as they come. You have no clue what another person feels or believes, and its ridiculous that one would follow such a sterotype. Talk about ignorant." - Larsy

First of all, if that "fuck you" was directed at me....well...no thanks, I'll pass.

Again, I was NOT trying to say that the decision made does not affect the father-to-be. It does. However, there is no way on earth that a man can feel the SAME feelings as a woman does, or that it will affect him in the same way. When he has to go through the surgery and deal with the after-effects of it maybe he can claim the same feelings and scars. When a man can carry a baby in his body for nine months, and then go through the physical exertion/pain of labor, then I'll believe that.

Before you jump all over me and tell me how ignorant and sexist I am, let me again clarify that I am not saying the decision made does not affect the man. I am just saying that it can not possibly affect him in the same way it affects the woman. This is not to say that his pain/joy/fear/whatever is any less - it's just different.


(btw, Stoidela - I too had an abortion when I was younger. Not everyone is as passive about it as you. Though it does not haunt me, nor do I regret it, it did and does affect my life, though in subtle ways - just as any decision of that magnitude would impact my life. I don't think it's good for you to assume that just because something hasn't impacted your life at all that it won't/doesn't impact anyone else's)

anyway, this has been interesting, but I have the feeling it is simply another one of those arguments where each side has its fixed views and nothing the other anyone says or does will change those views. In other words, it's pointless to continue arguing (at least for me it is).

I don't think it's good for you to assume that just because
something hasn't impacted your life at all that it won't/doesn't impact anyone else's

And I didn't.

Here's the quote from me:

And while I would never dare to think that my experience represents every woman's experience, I can tell you that for me,

------------------
Stoidela

ah....must have missed that part.

Sorry - been a long day/week/month/life =)

Stoidela wrote:

{{{And that sucks equally. I simply do not undrstand why if ONE parent wants to keep the kid, BOTH parents must.

I wonder if anyone has ever tried challenging this?}}}


We're not talking about "keeping" the kid, we're talking about accepting responsibility for the consequences of your own actions. This isn't some universe of "it feels good, I'm gonna do it, and I'm not going to account for anybody or anything that gets hurt as a result of it." The woman and the man BOTH made that baby. Both the woman and the man have a moral, ethical, and legal obligation to provide at least the basic necessities of life for that child.

As I said several posts back, the entire evolutionary point of sex (which was described by -- was it you? -- as the strongest natural urge or drive humans have, with the exception of hunger) is to make babies. You don't wanna run the risk of making a baby, don't have sex. If you think you're mature enough to have sex, then be mature enough to accept the possibility that you are going to have a child, and may run the risk that you have to abort, adopt out, or support that child. Your choice comes at the point BEFORE you conceive that child, not after. Whether you are male or female.

This attitude of "I can do whatever I want and shouldn't have to ever have to account for it" really pisses me off. It's the cause of a great deal of evil and sorrow in this world, and of TRUE injustice, not the "poor little whiny old me" scenario of the man who wanted to get laid and now doesn't want to pay child support that you have set forth. "I'm bored -- entertain me." "I'm horny, fuck me." "We did it together, but I don't want to have to deal with it so you deal with it, it's not my problem." Y'know what? I'd just as soon people like that didn't reproduce anyway.

-Melin


------------------
I'm a woman phenomenally
Phenomenal woman
That's me
(Maya Angelou)

You know what really pisses ME off? Kids being raised by people who don't really want to be doing it, resent it, and aren't very good at it. Kids being made to feel as though they are a burden instead of a joy. Kids coming into this world as a "price" someone has to "pay".

Like I mentioned earlier, Norplan for all the women at puberty, and licensing before you can have it removed!!

H

------------------
Stoidela

You know what really pisses ME off? Kids being raised by people who
don't really want to be doing it, resent it, and aren't very good at it.
Kids being made to feel as though they are a burden instead of a joy.
Kids coming into this world as a "price" someone has to "pay".

You do realize the difference between "raised by people who don't want to be doing it, resent it, and aren't very good at it" compared with "providing financial support", don't you?

If either parent decides to keep the baby, the other should be responsible to help support him financially. Afterall, there are two people who made this child. Two people should be responsible for taking care of it. I sure as hell didn't knock up the woman, why should my tax dollars be increased to cover additional public assistance programs that would come from the surge of deadbeat parents who are given the chance to back out of their duties.

Instead of the "Perhaps if the law didn't let her, SHE might think twice." mentality, why don't we tighten down the child support laws and make the MAN think twice. Same concept but a lot less damaging to the child and to the welfare system. Again, if this isn't an option the man can live with, he shouldn't take the risk.

(BTW Melin, you took the words right out of my mouth and made them sound so much better than I would have. Deadbeat parents are scum.)

Let's put a little twist on the topic. Say that a parent is given the right to turn his back on his responsibilities and then 10-15-20 years down the road after contributing nothing to the raising of this child, that parent decides that mid-life is kind of lonely. He wants to come back into the life of his kids. Then what? Does he get a new set of rights?


------------------
&gt;^,,^&lt;
KITTEN

He who walk through airport door sideways going to Bangkok. - Confucius

You know what really pisses ME off? Kids being raised by people who
don't really want to be doing it, resent it, and aren't very good at it.
Kids being made to feel as though they are a burden instead of a joy.
Kids coming into this world as a "price" someone has to "pay".

You do realize the difference between "raised by people who don't want to be doing it, resent it, and aren't very good at it" compared with "providing financial support", don't you?

If either parent decides to keep the baby, the other should be responsible to help support him financially. Afterall, there are two people who made this child. Two people should be responsible for taking care of it. I sure as hell didn't knock up the woman, why should my tax dollars be increased to cover additional public assistance programs that would come from the surge of deadbeat parents who are given the chance to back out of their duties.

Instead of the "Perhaps if the law didn't let her, SHE might think twice." mentality, why don't we tighten down the child support laws and make the MAN think twice. Same concept but a lot less damaging to the child and to the welfare system. Again, if this isn't an option the man can live with, he shouldn't take the risk.

(BTW Melin, you took the words right out of my mouth and made them sound so much better than I would have. Deadbeat parents are scum.)

Let's put a little twist on the topic. Say that a parent is given the right to turn his back on his responsibilities and then 10-15-20 years down the road after contributing nothing to the raising of this child, that parent decides that mid-life is kind of lonely. He wants to come back into the life of his kids. Then what? Does he get a new set of rights?


------------------
&gt;^,,^&lt;
KITTEN

He who walk through airport door sideways going to Bangkok. - Confucius

Lucky,

My apologies for not making my post clearer. My point was that babies should not be considered the price to be paid for having sex. Sex should not always have to result in conception. I know that the sex drive exists to perpetuate the species, but there are other drives that we humans had that once were useful for survival that we now are trying to eliminate in order to further improve.

Stoidela, are you sure about what you said about Norplant? Some of us (me) experienced some bad side effects (in my case, a 50 lb weight gain that was hell to lose!) and big problems with removal. How about just better access to contraceptives, like making insurance companies pay for it (after all, they currently pay for Viagra!!).
And licensing before you get it removed? So what criteria does one have to pass before they can get pregnant? Just as I don't (and shouldn't) have any say over who gets an abortion, no one should have the right to decide if someone is ready to have a baby.

PR (ok, I'm ready to have this baby, but little guy isn't taking the hint...arrgh!)

Sure I'm sure...but what difference does it make? I don't make the rules....



------------------
Stoidela

Ya know, I really try to be nice to everyone, even when I am debating, but this was a low blow.

Neobican:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. I never would have had this chance if some young girl made the "choice" to abort me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nor would you ever know you hadn't, because you would never have existed, so there's really no comparison, so who cares? (pldennison)

There is ALL the comparison, did you know that at just 2 months you were already forming bone, arms and legs, and a beating heart? What happened to yours PL? Just because you are not out of the womb, does NOT make you any less human or have any less right to life, at that stage you are developing and most vulnerable. I cannot believe any woman would willingly make such a cold decision just because she simply did not want to be saddled with a child. I did not know that murder was legal for the sake of convienence. In the future do not insult my origin, I think your comment was very rude and uncalled for.

Neobican, would it make you feel any better if we all pretended that there is no debate over when life begins? Sorry, no go. The fact that you find differing opinions about reproductive rights surprising in a forum such as this astonishes me.

------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter Thompson

Oddly enough, I'm about to start arguing against my personal beliefs, or rather, what I would hope I would personally do in a similar situation. I do this because of the theory of equality. I'm sorry the words "Life isn't fair" don't wash with me. Hell, what would have happened had the north said that to the slaves in the south. We have a history, and a proud history at that, of fighting inequality and injustice.

I'm sorry, I must have missed something. When was it, exactly, that sex became a one sided thing. I'm just asking because the number one argument against this idea is the root that it gives men a "right to be irresponsible." I contest that if a man is not going to use a condom, the woman should not sleep with him or find an alternate means of control, hey...now that's novel.
The whole point of this, in the first place, was that the woman has total control.

Aside from that, as many personal examples conclude, men who are going to be irresponsible in as much as support goes, are going to do it no matter what laws exist. Why not create a law that gives the woman the knowledge that this will happen before hand, instead of the guy just up-and-leaving some day. Not only that, but a law of this nature would certainly dissuade those who would attempt to trap a man by getting intentionally pregnant.

And I'm sorry, I realize I'm not a woman, but for all of you who contest that a man doesn't feel it when a woman choses to give up, or abort, his baby, fuck you. That's as sexist a statement as they come. You have no clue what another person feels or believes, and its ridiculous that one would follow such a sterotype. Talk about ignorant.

Implementing a law of this nature puts a man on equal footing with a woman, what is the problem with that? Logically, any other argument doesn't make sence.

Larsy

I give you as evidence all the "deadbeat dads" in the NBA. There was alot of press abotut hem last year. Some of them are total assholes who have fathered multiple children with one woman, and have taken off long after the fact. Screw them, they are completely out of line and should be dealt with harshly. But what about the guys who blew into town, took the babe up on her offer, and now have her knocking at the door for some of those basketball millions for her and her poor baby? It's a story that happens every day, and if I was a man it would righteously piss me off.

Yeah, except for the fact that those "basketball millions" is not reality. Child support payments are computed using the income of both parents, and very seldom "millions".

Men who want to do that do it already. Except the way things are now, some women think they can change that by getting pregnant. Stupid women, but they believe that anyway. Perhaps if the law didn't let her, SHE might think twice.

Oh come on. . . .

Sure, there are those men who are doing that already, but you know and I know that the minute men are given free-rein from responsibility, that number will increase dramatically.

On the other hand, I have great doubts that the number of unplanned pregnancies came from anything more sinister than uneducated couples or mere accidents. I would be interested in seeing you post some stats or cites showing a large number is due to "stupid" women trying to tame their man.

Ya know, I get really sick of hearing this. It's such a bunch of crap. Do you have any idea how much of your hard earned money goes to welfare of the kind you are objecting to? A few cents, maybe a couple of bucks. The anger and outrage over our taxes going to single mothers is so completely out of proportion to what it actually costs that it's infuriating. If you don't like paying for welfare, worry about the welfare that is REALLY costing you, in the form of corporate welfare, and entitlements to people who dont' need them.

No - it isn’t the fact that my tax dollars go to support these programs that pisses me off. What pisses me off is the increased strain on public assistance that will be needed if your idea is implemented. You do realize that these programs are subsidized by tax dollars.

I don’t care if it cost me a few cents or a few hundred dollars, the fact that I, as a tax payer, will be the one given no choice in the financial duties to raising the additional kids that would come onto the welfare rolls if you take away their responsibility that came from their careless sex. I want to see more responsibility, not less.

It is outrageous to think that letting these men be irresponsible is going to teach dem stoopid gals a lesson and learn them to keep their legs closed. Yep, this will clear up the welfare rolls.

Here’s a novel idea.

Why not make BOTH parties 100 percent responsible for their action? Enforce the child support collection laws so that the custodial parent is able to adequately provide for the kids without relying on the State to fill in the financial blanks that the absent parent doesn’t fill. (Shall I tell you the nightmare my brother has had to go through TRYING to get child support from his 9 year old’s mother? He has yet to see a cent.)

If the guy is so opposed to financially supporting a child, then there are ways to get around it.

1 - Keep it in his pants.
2 - Double bag.
3 - Have surgery.

If he doesn’t then that is a risk he takes upon himself and he should be forced to provide assistance if a pregnancy results.


------------------
&gt;^,,^&lt;
KITTEN

He who walk through airport door sideways going to Bangkok. - Confucius

Neo:

I think what he meant was that since you would never have existed, you could not regret not being born.

And maybe you are a little too delicate for the BBQ?



------------------
Stoidela

I'm having mixed feelings about the father's right to/right to not discussion, but I'm pretty certain that I don't agree with licensing in order to have children. The rules on ADOPTING a child are ridiculous enough considering how many orphans (is that the proper term these days?) there are, and the number of people who, aside from not being wealthy, are perfectly capable of loving and raising these children and want to do so. To incur a licensing procedure in order to be allowed to have children would be, IMHO, the same as to censor someone's right to speak freely or own land (these are the first things that came to mind) There just can't be anyway to determine whether or not someone is "ready for parenthood" or "capable of taking proper care" of a child legally. I say this especially because these factors are used to describe whether or not said person is financially capable. I do realize that you specifically said "psychological examination", but who determines the psychological aptitude of someone to care for a child? Knowing the people that we tend to put in authority over such situations, I don't think I trust someone else to make that decision for me.

Stoidela, you stated that you already knew that "that's the way it is" and that all you wanted to know was why it is the way it is, and you are absolutely right in stating that we've just all been conditioned to accept this type of thing as it is. I've never heard of any woman carrying a child that she didn't want just because the father of that child did want it. I don't know of any more profound answer to "why". I don't think anyone really does.

I understand where you're coming from regarding the whole "man's right to not be a parent" thing, but I think we have something like that already...last I knew, anyone who didn't want to be a parent, male or female, signed over his or her legal rights to be a parent to a particular child. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't quite know how this works, but I would assume that once you do that, it absolves you of any rights and responsibilities to the child in question. Regarding the mention of the man's right to be a parent when the woman does not wish to be a parent, now that's a little more difficult. It seems to me that the only person who doesn't have a choice in the matter is the man who DOES want to raise the baby that's being carried by the woman who doesn't. I feel really sorry for that guy, but I can't come up with any easy solutions. It was probably useless for me to have even posted anything, since I didn't say anything really meaningful or deep, but I suppose I just needed to open my big mouth. You stated in your first post that you were trying to get some support for your idea, but unfortunately, this group that is usually so easily, evenly divided on whatever topic we happen to be discussion, is seemingly unanimous (or nearly so) regarding this one. Sorry about that.

For Slythe and Stoidela-

No, I am not to "delicate" for the pit, I can type all the "fuck yous" but I choose not to use such language as it is not necessary. The rudeness I was referring to was the "who cares?" comment on PLs part. I happen to care a great deal about my life, as do many others. I hold everyones opinion with respect and I refrain from calling them stupid or blatantly disregarding it. I have an idea of what he was trying to say, he just phrased it wrong. To that end, my post was responding to PL, and not to you guys. I happen to really enjoy SDMB and I hope everyone can talk about issues in a more adult manner. I am not trying to "bitch", but it just seemed PL was hitting me on a personal note.

For Stoidela:
Like I mentioned earlier, Norplan for all the women at puberty, and licensing before you can have it removed!!

I don't know much about the medicine, but this reall doesn't sound like that bad an idea, if it could be done without serious side effects. Or, something for the men?

You mention that my stand about abortion in cases of rape is inconsistent. I suppose it is, but you also mention that we have complete dominion over our bodies, and a woman that has become pregnant by rape has lost her dominion.

Things rarely fall into clear cut categories. How about your statment about dominion over our bodies, and the one about Norplant for all the females at puberty?

I guess I shouldn't have put in my 2 cents here, I don't have time to follow the whole thing as closely as the rest of you seem to. I have to go to work to support the family that I adopted, the children of another man who had his fun and left to do it to someone else.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ya know, I really try to be nice to everyone, even when I am debating, but this was a low blow.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neobican:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. I never would have had this chance if some young girl made the "choice" to abort me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nor would you ever know you hadn't, because you would never have existed, so there's really no comparison, so who cares? (pldennison)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is ALL the comparison,

No, there really isn't. The point, which apparently went right over your head, was that if you had been aborted, you wouldn't be sitting off somewhere lamenting the fact that your mother had aborted you. No way around that fact. If you were never born, you never knew it anyway.

did you know that at just 2 months you were already forming bone, arms and legs, and a beating heart?

That's nice. And at some points you have vestigial gills and a tail, and all embryos start out as females, so again, who cares? What do you think you're proving with your anti-abortion propaganda? You think you and you alone are going to settle a difficult question of science, ethics and law? Please.


What happened to yours PL?

Yes, that's right, I have no heart. That's logical.

Just because you are not out of the womb, does NOT make you any less human or have any less right to life,

It sort of does, according to the laws and the wishes of most people in this country.



I was most vulnerable right after my parents split up.

[quote] I cannot believe any woman would willingly make such a cold decision just because she simply did not want to be saddled with a child.

Abortion is legal. Face it. Don't like it? Don't have one.

I did not know that murder was legal for the sake of convienence.

Abortion is not murder, and saying it is does not change that. You ready to deal with prisons full of doctors and women who had abortions? Or seeing them strapped to the gurney getting lethal injections? You ready to be responsible for that? If not, then please abandon your stupid, illogical, emotionally-charged language.

In the future do not insult my origin, I think your comment was very rude and uncalled for.

I think you missed the point, probably as a result of not being the sharpest knife in the drawer.

I can not BELIEVE the people who are suggesting mandatory Norplant. Especially Stoidela, since she has stated that she feels a woman has full dominion over her own body. The day the goverment forces me to have ANYTHING implanted in my body is the day I find a new country to call home. And Stiodela, what are you thinking? That all woman are so irresponsible and stupid that the government must take control of their reproductive system? Are you a socilaist?

As to chosing a decent partner in the first place, Stoidela said that this is not always possible, and that many woman discover too late that their man is a wife-beater. Many? Really? I'm sure this happens occasionally, but I don't believe it's the norm. Woman see signs of what's to come, but chose to ignore it. The abuse is often evident prior to marriage, but he apologizes and says it will never happen again blah blah blah we all know the story. But I'm getting off topic here.
I was thinking about this thread last night and it occurred to me that men actually have an additional option in this scenario which is not available to women. First, let's assume we're talking about after the baby is born (if the woman aborts, the support issue becomes moot). The woman may now either give the child up for adoption, forfeiting all rights and responsibilities to the child, or she can keep it and accept full responsibility on both counts. Of course, if she's lucky, she may get some finaincial help from the man, but we all know, court order or not, that this often doesn't happen. She must be prepared for the possibility of receiving no financial support from the man.
The man has more choices. If she does not want to keep the child, he can take full responsibility and opt to raise it himself. At the other end of the spectrum, he can completely blow off his responsibilities, never see the child and (though there are laws against it) avoid paying child support.
But he has another option that the woman does not have. He can opt for 'partial parenthood', meaning that he can legally live up to his responsibilities by just paying child support. Buying one's way out of one's responsibilities is not generally smiled upon, but doesn't seem to be a problem here. He can also opt for 'partial parenthood' with varying degrees of involvement. He can obtain visitation if he wants and be either deeply or peripherally involved in the life of his child. No such option exists for the woman. It's either give the child up completely or accept full responsibility. Frankly, I think the man has better options.
Stoidela, you seem to be advocating no accountability in chosing one's sexual partner and no accountability if a pregnancy results. What exactly do you think the benefits of this will be?


------------------
"I think it would be a great idea" Mohandas Ghandi's answer when asked what he thought of Western civilization

I guess I shouldn't have put in my 2 cents here, I don't have time to follow the whole thing as closely as the rest of you seem to. I have to go to work to support the family that I adopted, the children of another man who had his fun and left to do it to someone else.

If they were up for adoption, then obviously the mother isn't there either, so take your maile-bashing, attention-grabbing rhetoric elsewhere.

yepitsme,
I wasn't that offended by what you said. I phrased my responce in that manner to punctuate how ridiculous the assertion that men don't care what's going on is. Niether you nor anyone else could be quoted as saying it, but it was definitly implied, by several people. I also realize that it is different for men and women, its obvious. My point was that different does not mean less.
I think alot of people are missing the point of this argument. The argument is not over who should or should not be able to shirk responsibility, its about equality. Its about the fact that a woman can, and a man cannot. We all realize that unexpected or unplanned things happen in life, but why should a woman be given an out, while the man is not?
Alot of you are arguing that people have to owe up to their responsibilities. I couldn't be in greater agreement on this point. However, the fact reamins that its a one sided thing, and that's not right.

Larsy

Neo - I will repeat what I said to you in the Colorado Shooting Thread. If you can't handle the BBQ Pit, maybe you shouldn't ought to come in, eh?

------------------
&gt;^,,^&lt;
KITTEN

He who walk through airport door sideways going to Bangkok. - Confucius

I'm going to try to sum this up. We've conceeded that both people take a risk when engaging in intercourse, and that it is rightly the woman's choice whether or not to abort. So the question seems to be the adoption vs. raising the child choice. The argument is that if he would prefer to give the child up, but she choses to keep it, he is obligated to pay support. So what. If you reverse that situation, she is in exactly the same position. If she wants to give the child up, but he wants to raise it, she will have to pay him support. Where is the inequity here? They both have equal choice and equal responsibility.
I thought about why this hasn't come up before on this thread and I think I know the answer. It's because the men very rarely chose to raise the child themselves. The thought of HIM chosing not to give the child up was so foreign to us all that we didn't even consider it. I think this is a very good example of why we certainly should not make it easier for men to back away from their responsibilities. They are backing away as much as they can already.

**My apologies to all of the fine, upstanding gentlemen in the audiance who would never dream of abandoning their children. My 'they' doesn't refer to you.

------------------
"I think it would be a great idea" Mohandas Ghandi's answer when asked what he thought of Western civilization

Allow me to say a word on behalf of the indispensible third party in this scenario, which is the State. When you talk about child-support obligations, it isn't just father/mother, it's father/mother/state. And the government has a pretty clear (and pretty consistent in all jurisidictions) attitude about this, which breaks down as follows:

1. The government is not voluntarily in the business of raising children. That is the right (and the responsibility) of the parents who have the child.

2. The government is not particularly good at raising children, which is why it tries to keep families together and, if that isn't possible, strives to place as many children as possible to adoptive homes or foster homes.

3. The government will take on the resonsibility of raising a child only if the parents cannot or will not. They take on this social obligation because it is repellant to American society that children should be hungry, endangered, abused, or alone. (Yes, it happens, but the goal is that it will not.)

4. Providing foster care, institutional care, education, clothing, schooling, adoptive placement -- in short, caring for these kids -- as well as supporting all the infastructure necessary to keep a Department of Human Services running, is enormously expensive.

5. Society as a whole pays for the care and upkeep of children left to the care of the government. That's you, me, and every other taxpayer, none of whom are responsible for the creation of the child in question.

6. The government expects parents of children to provide support (financial and otherwise) for their children in order to limit the number of children in its care and to off-set the expense of taking care of other people's children. And I'm not talking about children not in at least one parent's care; I'm also talking about children who are welfare because their fathers (or mothers) will not support them.

Now you ask, why should a father be financially responsible for the care of a child he didn't want and clearly said he didn't want? Because if he won't be, who will? The government, that's who, through Aid to Families With Dependent Children, food stamps, foster care, and a million other programs that, in a perfect world, we would have no need for. And the government doesn't get it's money from out of the air; it gets it from us, the taxpayers. Why should this financial obligation fall to us instead of to the parents of the child? You talk about how "unfair" it is to expect a biological parent to financially support his or her child; I don't find this unfair at all. Better him (or her) than all the rest of us. And, expensive, enormous, and unwieldy as the system is now, imagine how much worse it would be if we just allowed people to walk away from their obligations to their children. It would be a nightmare, and society would be a lot poorer for it, in every sense of the word.

Allow me to say a word on behalf of the indispensible third party in this scenario, which is the State. . . . :::snip::: Jodih

AMEN!

This is the exact point I have been trying to make for days!!!


------------------
&gt;^,,^&lt;
KITTEN

He who walk through airport door sideways going to Bangkok. - Confucius

I'd have to agree with jodih. It is very expensive to care for children whose parents abandon them, and the degree of care can not match that given by loving parents.

I work in group homes for abused/troubled teens. Most of these kids have been in trouble with the law to some extent (such as refusing to go to school, stealing, etc). But the main reason most of them are there is because their home life is so completely messed up. I talk to some of them who say they have been "in the system" since they were ten years old, or even younger. Their parents were druggies, abusive, neglegent, absent, whatever.

Though the company I work for provides good homes for these kids (they have it better than my own kids in terms of the activities they get to do, they food they eat, the clothes money, tutors, etc), the kids still are missing something very important in their lives - parents. Sometimes I want to cry after talking to these kids. It's so sad haering them talk about their future and how scared they are. They have never had a normal life and are afraid or what will happen when they get out on their own.


I think that any law that enables parents to be even less responsible than they are now is a bad one. I really don't care if it's not fair. Sorry - too bad. Life's not fair (yes, I know - that pisses you off). We don't need the state encourage irresponsibility. It's already easy enough for a parent to be a dead beat.

Also, as a sidenote, the money that the government pays to take care of these institutionalized kids is only enough to provide them with the bare minimum of care (in fact, it's probably not even enough to do that). In order to provide them with decent living conditions, the company I work for (which is non-profit) must actively fundraise and seek other sources of income. This is not easy - right now they are in a budget crisis of sorts.


My point.....um....*scratches her head*....I know I had one, but I forgot it. Oh well *shrugs*


yah yah, I know - I wasn't going to say anything else on this topic, but this was something different =)

I can not BELIEVE the people who are suggesting mandatory Norplant. Especially Stoidela, since she has stated that she feels a woman has full dominion over her own body.

This is yet another example of talking out of both sides of your face.

Suggesting government mandatory implants of Norplant invalidates your pro-choice statement that woman have the right to decide what happens to their own body.

So, Stoid, which is it?

------------------
&gt;^,,^&lt;
KITTEN

He who walk through airport door sideways going to Bangkok. - Confucius

warning - the above message (written by me) is riddled with typos and other such nonsense

that's what I get for not proofreading before I hit send - sorry folks =)

I just found this thread. Stoidela, you certainly think outside of the box.

You have situation where two people take a risk, but only one can choose whether or not there are consequences. Not fair. But then the courts are not always fair to men who do want involvement (and I am talking about divorced dads who lose a disproportianate number of custody cases.)

But life is not "fair." You fool around, you face the consequences. If only Stoidela's model could be applied to distribut the responsibility in proportion to the amount of decision making power.

In insurance there is a concept called Last Clear Chance (bear with me for a moment, it is relevant.)

It arises from an auto accident early in the century. Farmer A used to let his mule roam around wherever it wanted. Farmer B was mad about this. One day farmer B is driving down the road and the Mule is standing there. So Farmer B hits the gas and smashes into the mule killing it.

Farmer B argued that it was not his fault that the mule got killed. After all, farmer A was negligent for allowing it to walk in the road. The court agreed that farmer A was negligent, however they ruled against Farmer B because he had the last clear chance to avoid the accident.

The Abortion for Men topic is about the same. There may be negligence/irresponsibility on the part of the man and woman for having sexual relations before they are ready to have a child, however the woman has the last clear chance to avoid the consequences (by whatever means.) If she chooses not to avoid the consequences, she should be liable for the results. If they guy says he isn't going to be a dad, then the woman should have to handle the consequences of keeping the baby.
The decision to have sex is 50-50. The decision to have the baby is 100% on the part of the woman.

(please remember that I am not the Thorleiflur from Iceland. I am not trying to piss people off -- just to engage in friendly debate.)

First of all, for those who are getting your panties in a tangle about my Norplant and licensing suggestions, those are not serious suggestions. That's just the fed-up fascist in me yearning to break free and straighten this sorry-ass world out. Fear not, it won't be happening. (If I were Emperor of the World, the first order of business would be to reduce the world's poulation by at least half. Many problems would then become far more managable.)

Thor:

Thinking outside the box is important to me. And not being afraid to say it, either.

And THANK you for that excellent analogy and summary of what I've been trying to say!



------------------
Stoidela

I just read through this entire thread - heavy going, I must say - and came across a possible logic error in the OP that nobody's addressed yet.

Stoidela raises the possibility that perhaps if a woman KNEW she couldn't automatically get child support from a man with whom she had sex, perhaps she'd think twice about getting pregnant. This logic, based on the assumption that if the law doesn't protect a certain behaviour, it will not occur so frequently, is faulty. This same logic was probably applied while drafting the Child Support laws that made men financially responsible for children they inadvertently fathered: If men know that there will be financial consequences for fathering children, maybe they'll take more precautions. Obviously, this didn't quite work.

Women who get pregnant and stay pregnant against the wishes of the father aren't likely to listen to logic or consider the legal consequences. More than financial support, they probably want an emotional tie, too. There is no way to legislate this. Prior to Child Support Laws, women did this all the time. The problem is ignorance, emotional neediness and lack of education, not whether or not a man has a legal responsibility for this or that.

What I really have a problem with is Stoidela's assertion that men be able to escape the consequences of their actions so easily. Others have objected to this already, so I'll leave it alone. The consequences of such an action would not be a significant drop in the number of pregnancies unwanted by men; the consequences would be a greater burden on the state.

As much as I'm pro-abortion, I can't see that financially forcing a woman to have an abortion or give a child up for adoption is right. This WOULD happen if men were permitted to "just say no" to parenthood. I would think that the emotional damage this would cause would far outstrip any benefits.

There is a kind of thinking here that I find interesting. A large number of people seem to feel that most men, or at the very least, huge numbers of men, would, if given the opportunity, free impregnate dozens of women, and flee their responsibilities afterwards. The thinking seems to be that (You can send an SASE if you prefer) same irresponsible, thoughtless, callous men are NOT doing this right now.

This is very similar to many people's thinking about keeping drugs illegal: that to legalize them will somehow unleash millions of potential drug addicts who up until now were restrained by their fear of the law, and once drugs became legal theyw ould go nuts abusing them.

Both ideas are perfectly ridiculous.

Butthead males who have no interest in being fathers or caring for their children in even the most perfunctory way exist already. And they already don't pay child support, laws notwithstanding. This number of them would not change significantly if there were a legal way for them to do this. There might be a few more. And, I believe, fewer kids to worry about...but I've already made this argument.

(And as for the drugs, same thing. IT's not like there are millions of people who WISH they could do drugs but don't because it is illegal. People who want to do drugs do them.)



------------------
Stoidela

Err... a little auto-typing booboo in the above. Sorry. hehehe

------------------
Stoidela

Err... a little auto-typing booboo in the above. Sorry. hehehe

------------------
Stoidela

I feel like many of us are saying the same thing, and saying it repeatedly, to no avail. Stodeila has made her argument several times, but she has never really responded to the arguments made against her position. So here we go again . . .

THOR -- The legal doctrine of "last clear chance" is totally inapplicable in this hypothetical. It says, if two parties are negligent but one had a "last clear chance" to avoid an accident, then that party will be held responsible, because their failure to take the last clear chance was, in effect, the superceding cause of the accident. Not only is it not applicable here, it isn't even applicable in your example, where one farmer INTENTIONALLY hits the other farmer's cow. In this case, both parties are equally responsible for the pregnancy -- the mother contributes the egg and the father the sperm. Neither is negligent, or both are equally negligent (depending how you look at it). You seem to be arguing that if the mother has the option to abort and she chooses not to, and the father wanted her to, then she should give up her right to expect him to support the child. You say:

If she chooses not to avoid the consequences, she should be liable for the results. If they guy says he isn't going to be a dad, then the woman should have to handle the consequences of keeping the baby.

The point many of us have tried to make several times is that a baby is not merely "results" or "consequences," it's a CHILD, and SOMEONE will have to pay for its support. Assuming the mother cannot pay for everything herself, who then should step in? The father or the State? I said -- and still say -- it should be the father. HE got her pregnant, it is HIS baby, and if it keeps one more child off welfare, by all means make him pay. The degree to which this is unfair to him is far outweighed by the benefit to the only innocent party to the transaction -- the baby. And, just to remind you, child support is not required to punish the father or to enrich the mother, it's for the benefit of the child.

STOIDELA -- Do you seriously believe that relieving men of their responsibilities towards children they create will lead to a DECREASE in the number of children created? The fallacy in this is self-evident to me. You say:

Butthead males who have no interest in being fathers or caring for their children in even the most perfunctory way exist already. And they already don't pay child support, laws notwithstanding. This number of them would not change significantly if there were a legal way for them to do this.

Maybe I have a higher opinion of men than you. My experience is that the vast majority of men who know they have children step forward and do their damnedest by their kids -- whether the kids were planned or not. And, sure, there are some who absolutely refuse to pay court-ordered child support, but it is a very, very small percentage. It's not as easy a thing to do as you seem to think; the courts can and do garnish the man's wages and bank accounts, seize his assents, and inhibit his right to obtain a license for any number of things from fishing to driving. And if he STILL refuses to pay, he can be (and often is) thrown in jail.

It seems like, in advancing your position, you want to leave the child out of it and you want to leave the governmnent out of it, but you can't. This isn't some project the two people made in shop class that one should have to keep. It's a kid. It must be supported, it must be raised, and the fact that the father doesn't WANT to do it is not, to me, a very compelling argument that he should not be forced to do so anyway for the greater good of the child.

I would like to ask you the following question: If the father doesn't want the child but the mother does, and the mother can't afford to raise the child on her own without financial assistance, who should provide the necessary financial assistance -- the father or the state? I have stated why I think it should be the father; I would be very interested to know why you think it should NOT be him, and how you would justify making the child the responsibility of the government.

i would like to respond to NEOPUBLICAN:


There is ALL the comparison, did you know that at just 2 months you were already forming bone, arms and legs, and a beating heart? What happened to yours PL? Just because you are not out of the womb, does NOT make you any less human or have any less right to life, at that stage you are developing and most vulnerable. I cannot believe any woman would willingly make such a cold decision just because she simply did not want to be saddled with a child. I did not know that murder was legal for the sake of convienence. In the future do not insult my origin, I think your comment was very rude and uncalled for.


First of all .. if you are looking for a calm, clean, well mannared debate you are definatly in the wrong forum. Secondly i would like to respond to your statements here. Just becaseu after 2 months you are forming arm's and legs and bones and such, does NOT make you a human being. The thing that makes us a unique species is the fact that we are SELF aware. I would say that at two months even though you have arm's and legs you are NOT self aware. I mean think of all the animals that are killed every day from environmental effects. What about insects that are continuosly thwarted as pests? they all have arm's and legs do they not? most even have bones and brains.

Simply put, my point is just becasue you are STARTING to develop features of a human being makes you no more a human being than losing those limbs would make you less of a human being. (pardon the pun). The real "BEING" in human being is self awareness .. something that does not develop until the 8th or 9th month when the brain becomes fully developed. Bleh .. just my 2 dollars and 58 cents.

--END RANT

First of all, for those who are getting your panties in a tangle about my Norplant and licensing suggestions, those are not serious suggestions. That's just the fed-up fascist in me yearning to break free and straighten this sorry-ass world out. Fear not, it won't be happening. (If I were Emperor of the World, the first order of business would be to reduce the world's poulation by at least half. Many problems would then become far more managable.) - Stoid

So in other words, we should not take anything you post seriously because you may change your tune as soon as someone calls you on it.

There is a kind of thinking here that I find interesting. A large number of people seem to feel that most men, or at the very least, huge numbers of men, would, if given the opportunity, free impregnate dozens of women, and flee their responsibilities afterwards. The thinking seems to be that (You can send an SASE if you prefer) same irresponsible, thoughtless, callous men are NOT doing this right now. - Stoid

What a crock of shit.

The world is full of irresponsible men who are not paying their child support, but there are numerous others who would not be providing support if Recovery Services was not garnishing payments from their paycheck. Then there are the others who are paying but given the choice would not.

Or maybe you really didn't mean what you wrote?


------------------
&gt;^,,^&lt;
KITTEN

He who walk through airport door sideways going to Bangkok. - Confucius

Jodih Said:

THOR -- The legal doctrine of "last clear chance" is totally inapplicable in this hypothetical. It says, if two parties are negligent but one had a "last clear chance" to avoid an accident, then that party will be held responsible, because their failure to take the last clear chance was, in effect, the superceding cause of the accident. Not only is it not applicable here, it isn't even applicable in your example, where one farmer INTENTIONALLY hits the other farmer's cow.

Actually, that was the actual case that spawned last clear chance. I think you synopsized it pretty well, so I am puzzled by your logic. THis case fits it perfectly. (and please don't take my use of the word damage here to mean that kids are damage. I love kids. What I mean is that an unwanted child born into poverty with one parent is not a good thing.)

Scenario 1:
Two people act irresponsibly. one has an opportunity to avoid the damage (an unwanted child). She decides not to avoid it. And you are saying that the person who chooses not to avoid the damage is not at fault? (true that intentional acts are uninsurable, but intentional acts are punishible by awarding damages to the defendant. In fact, if you intentionally caused the damages, tou would definitely be found at fault. The case is on point.)

Scenario 2:

Let's say You are backing out of a parking spot. I am tooling along in my truck and I see you backing out. But, I am a jerk and I feel that you should look where you are going. So rather than step on the brake, I just coast right into you. I couldv'e stopped, but chose not to. I knew you didn't want to get hit, but I didn't care. I felt that if you back up into my path, you deserve what you get. So in your world, we should split the damages?

The whole entire point about last clear chance is that regardless of prior negligence, when one person can avoid the damage and CHOOSES not to, or fails not to, for whatever reason, That person is at fault and pays. Stoidela's point was that the mother is the only one with the choice and CHOOSES the outcome. Prior sharing of negligence becomes irrelavent. But in the current system the costs are split.

I know this seems crappy to many women. I just am trying to get this into a logical framework.

And you are forgetting another option besides the father or the state paying. What about all of the people waiting to adopt? The baby can still have a home that can support him without using tax dollars or garnishing the wages of the father.

Responsibility lies with the person who makes the choice.

Someone way up at the top said:

I hope the male birth control pill comes out SOON! Then men can have some control over this sort of thing and then the argument will be moot.

Not to change the subject or anything, but I most certainly wouldn't trust a man if he said he was on the pill, and I don't know a single woman who would either. I don't want children, and the responsibility for making sure that doesn't happen is entirely mine. It is my uterus, after all, that the thing would be housed in.

Are there any single women in this thread who, if there were a male birth control pill, would trust a man if he said he was on it? It's like trusting a man who says he's clean. Sorry, but I want to see the test results first.

"Responsibility lies with the person who makes the choice." - Thor

You are absolutely right. Both the man and the woman make the choice to have sex. The responsibility for the outcome, therefore, belongs to both.

"And you are forgetting another option besides the father or the state paying. What about all of the people waiting to adopt? The baby can still have a home that can support him without using tax dollars or garnishing the wages of the father." - Thor

Surely you aren't suggesting that if a woman can not raise a child on her own (without the child support of the father) then she should give it up for adoption. This would mean that the father gets to give up his rights/duties to parenthood and the mother, due to financial contraints, is forced to give up hers. What a crock!

Drain Bead - heck no I wouldn't trust a man if he said he was on the birth control pill. I don't think a man should trust a woman who says this either. The point of the male birth control pill, in my opinion, would be for a man to be assured that he is protected from unwanted pregnancies, just as a woman on the pill is. (We have to take into account the failure rates, of course. And the pill doesn't do a damn thing for STDs, but that's another issue.)

THOR -- I think we can agree that the "last clear chance" doctrine applies to cases of negligence only. (Or I hope we can.) Where is the negligence in two people having sex and the woman getting pregnant? Who is at "fault" for that? Her alone? No -- both of them. So the doctrine is absolutely useless in this case, because there isn't any negligence. Unless you're saying the woman is negligent in not aborting or giving up the baby for adoption? Negligence is (loosely) defined as the breach of a duty that causes damages. She doesn't have a duty to the man (or to anyone) to do either of these. She can keep the child if she wants. Not fair? I don't think so -- it's her baby, and no one should have the right to take it from her if she has the desire and ability to raise it. The same is true of the father as well, BTW.

Your examples are equally inapposite because you are talking about accidents (negligence) that results in monetary damages. They are apples, and this is oranges. Here we are talking about the result being a child that must be supported. If the woman can't support it -- what? Tough luck? You say, well, she could put it up for adoption. But what if she doesn't want to? What if she wants to raise the child and lacks the financial ability to do so on her own? Are you seriously suggesting that she should have to put her child up for adoption because the FATHER wants to be financially free and refuses to kick in support? I find the very idea repugnant. If a baby comes into this world, intended or not, and the parents have the financial wherewithal to support it, totally or in part, then they have an obligation to do so. Period. You cannot put the entire onus of support on one simply because the other wants out, because that is not fair to the BABY. The BABY is entitled to the support of BOTH its parents, and neither has the obligation to give up his or her rights to the child just because the other would prefer to walk away. Are you seriously arguing that they SHOULD have this obligation, or am I misunderstanding you?

Jodih:

Maybe I have a higher opinion of men than you. My experience is that the vast
majority of men who know they have children step forward and do their
damnedest by their kids -- whether the kids were planned or not.

But that was exactly my point! Everyone keeps talking about how giving men the out will rip apart the fabric of our society because so many men will take it! And I don't think they will.

If the father doesn't want the child
but the mother does, and the mother can't afford to raise the child on her own
without financial assistance, who should provide the necessary financial
assistance -- the father or the state? I have stated why I think it should be the
father; I would be very interested to know why you think it should NOT be him,
and how you would justify making the child the responsibility of the government.

I wouldn't. I think if the mother isn't capable of caring for the child, she shouldn't have it. Or if she has it, she should give it up to someone who will take care of it.

Because here's another point that's been missed: often it matters not the intentions of the men involved, in practical fact they cannot make a significant contribution to their childrens' care. Lots and lots of men are dirt poor, in jail, whatever. It doens't matter whether they have any responsibilities to anyone, if they are not capable of meeting them.

And I have always felt (having been raised by a woman whose husbands bailed on her) that no woman should have a child she is not mentally, emotionally, and financially prepared to raise alone. Even married women. Men die. They leave. If you don't think you can do it alone, DON'T DO IT.

Diane:

So in other words, we should not take anything you post seriously because you
may change your tune as soon as someone calls you on it.

Uh, no, that would be incorrect.

Or maybe you really didn't mean what you wrote?

I always mean what I write, assuming I am not making a joke of some kind.

Oh I see... would it make everyone here fell better if I just said fuck off? You guys can whine all you want about what I say, that will not change the truth in my words. And no, PL, I know I cannot change abortion law but my opinion is still right for me. If you were as sharp as you seem to think you are you would have known that. Same goes for Diane, my views are just that - mine, which means to say they are correct just as yours are. You think you are right in your mind, I am right in mine, no amount of complaining on your part will ever change that.

I'm pretty sure an angel lost its job when Neobican slipped through the net.

------------------
If I had a nickel for every time I was right, I'd be bankrupt.

Neo:

you've got quite a thing for the term "fuck off", dont' you?



------------------
Stoidela

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess I shouldn't have put in my 2 cents here, I don't have time to follow the whole thing as closely as the rest of you seem to. I have to go to work to support the family that I adopted, the children of another man who had his fun and left to do it to someone else.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If they were up for adoption, then obviously the mother isn't there either, so take your maile-bashing, attention-grabbing rhetoric elsewhere.
----------------------------------------

No, you made an assumption. I married their mother, and live with her. The fellow signed away his rights to the children to keep from having anyone after him for child support.

Why would I be a male basher? I am one!

(And as for the drugs, same thing. IT's not like there are millions of people who WISH they could do drugs but don't because it is illegal. People who want to do drugs do them.)

If you actually have some evidence that the presence of laws prohibiting an activity accompanied by harsh penalties does not deter large numbers of people from participating, post it; otherwise, I'll have to assume you're talking out of your ass.

Jodih, I am wasn't trying to jam the square peg of liability into the round hole of this debate. YOu raise good points on this. I think we would have some good discussions regarding General liability issues.

I was trying to show that there are two decisions. 1) to have sex and 2) what to do with the baby. The problem with the situation is that both partners have a choice in the first one. But only one partner has a choice in the second.

I can think of about a million different scenarios in which a child is conceived. From a planned pregnancy to two 14 year olds to Rape. I am not saying that a woman (except in circumstances of perhaps mental retardation or abuse) should be forced to do anything with her child be it abortion, keeping it or adoption. I am just saying that she ultimately has the sole choice and as with all things, choices have consequences. And the bottom line is that teh man doesn't really have a say in the second choice which is whether to keep and raise the baby.

I would like to add that my wife is a Dr. at a juvenile detention facility and there are many, many girls in their early teens who are with child. No means to support the child, dad is typically in his 20's or 30's and gone/in jail/good-for-nothing. The women for a myriad of reasons want to keep the child without the emotional or financial means to raise it. And, in fact, most of the kids in the jail were themselves born into these circumstances. Young tenn gang bangers produce a lot of young teen gang-bangers.

Okay, now maybe we're getting somewhere. We started off by talking about whether men should be free of a child support obligation for a child they conceived if they are clear and unequivocal that they do not want the child. I said (and say) "no," because once the child is born SOMEONE has to support it, and that someone should be the biological parents, not the state. Let's just run it through step by step:

1. Woman gets pregnant -- nobody's fault or the fault of both her and the man.

2. She can have an abortion. This is HER decision, not the man's, because it's HER body. The man cannot make her have an abortion just because he doesn't want the child. I assume we are all in agreement on this, at least for purposes of this argument.

3. She can have the baby.

4. Of those two choices, she decides to have the baby. Now she can keep the baby or put the baby up for adoption. She wants to keep the baby.

5. She lacks the financial ability to raise the child without assistance. The father has the financial ability to contribute to the child's care, but doesn't want to.

So here, in this hypothetical, is the situation: A woman has a child she wants to keep; the father is known; the father could financially support the child; but the father doesn't want to. Here are the possible solutions:

1. The mother can be compelled to put the child up for adoption based solely upon her lack of financial ability to support it. This appears to be the solution Stodeila advocates when she says:

I think if the mother isn't capable of caring for the child, she shouldn't have it. Or if she has it, she should give it up to someone who will take care of it.

As a solution, this is a non-starter. You cannot compel someone to surrender their children solely on financial grounds. If people are poor, our society doesn't take their kids away, it gives them public assistance to help them. And, remember, in this hypothetical, the father is known and could help support the child -- he just doesn't want to. Do you seriously believe it is fairer to make the mother surrender the child she wants to raise than it is to make the reluctant father cough up some support?

2. The mother can keep the child, but she lacks the financial ability to take care of it properly. Then there are three choices:

3. The government can take the child away based solely on the mother's poverty. A non-starter for the same reasons given in the forced-adoption choice.

4. The government (and, through it, the taxpayers) can pay to take care of the child or pay for the assistance necessary to enable the mother to take care of the child. The burden is then shifted to parties (the government and the public) who clearly are NOT responsible for the child's existence.

5. The father can be compelled to cough up support. The baby remains with its mother, who wants to keep it, and the taxpayers do not pay for a child that at least one of the biological parents have the desire and financial ability to support. (The mother has the desire, the father has the financial ability.)

Don't you see that your concern for the rights of the father are leading you to violate far more important rights of the mother? The father does not want a financial obligation; the mother wants to keep and parent her biological child. The father has no right to shirk an obligation he is clearly responsible for (however reluctantly); the mother has the Constitutional and moral right to keep and raise her own child without regard to her financial ability. Rather than make the financially solvent father support the child, you would make the mother surrender it. He gets to keep his money, she loses her child. I really, honestly do not see how anyone can advocate such a trade-off -- it seems so clearly unfair to me as to not even admit argument.

Stodeila also says:

Here's another point that's been missed: often it matters not the intentions of the men involved, in practical fact they cannot make a significant contribution to their childrens' care. Lots and lots of men are dirt poor, in jail, whatever. It doens't matter whether they have any responsibilities to anyone, if they are not capable of meeting them.

This is irrelevant. This thread started out discussing whether fathers should be relieved of their obligation to pay child support SOLELY on the basis that they did not want the child. No, they should not; every father should have the financial obligation to support the children he creates -- and every mother, too. If some of them, practically speaking, cannot do so -- because they are dirt poor or in jail -- that does not excuse removing the obligation from those who CAN pay.

Stodeila says:

And I have always felt (having been raised by a woman whose husbands bailed on her) that no woman should have a child she is not mentally, emotionally, and financially prepared to raise alone. Even married women. Men die. They leave. If you don't think you can do it alone, DON'T DO IT.

I agree whole-heartedly, but we have to recognize that it happens every day, and the question of the fitness or readiness of either parent is also irrelevant to the question of who should be financially responsible for a child. The fact that the mother (or father) is unfit may be grounds to take the child away; the fact that she (or he) is poor is not, especially when the other parent can contribute to the financial support the child but simply doesn't want to.

Thor says:

I am not saying that a woman (except in circumstances of perhaps mental retardation or abuse) should be forced to do anything with her child be it abortion, keeping it or adoption. I am just saying that she ultimately has the sole choice and as with all things, choices have consequences. And the bottom line is that teh man doesn't really have a say in the second choice which is whether to keep and raise the baby.

Yes, choices have consequences. They both chose to have sex and the consequence was a baby. She chose to keep the baby, but she cannot support it, so what do we do then? Make her give it up? Make the state pay for it? Or make the father pay for it? I've already said which of these is the only answer, and why. And, yes, it may be unfair to make the father pay to raise a child he didn't want, but it is far less unfair than making the mother give up the child for financial reasons alone or making innocent parties (the taxpayers) pay for the child's care instead.

Thor also says:

I would like to add that my wife is a Dr. at a juvenile detention facility and there are many, many girls in their early teens who are with child. No means to support the child, dad is typically in his 20's or 30's and gone/in jail/good-for-nothing. The women for a myriad of reasons want to keep the child without the emotional or financial means to raise it. And, in fact, most of the kids in the jail were themselves born into these circumstances. Young tenn gang bangers produce a lot of young teen gang-bangers.

I think we must be very careful to distinguish between taking a child away on the grounds that the parent is unfit (too young, negligent, in jail, whatever) and taking a child away on the grounds that the parent cannot raise it without financial assistance. The former is acceptable, indeed necessary; the latter is not. The fact that there are many unfit mothers in the world (as Thor points out) and many mothers who should never have had children in the first place (as Stodeila points out) is not relevant to the question of whether a father should be relieved of his child support obligation solely on the grounds that he never wanted the child. The government imp

Oh I see... would it make everyone here fell better if I just said fuck off? You guys can whine all you want about what I say, that will not change the truth in my words. And no, PL, I know I cannot change abortion law but my opinion is still right for me. If you were as sharp as you seem to think you are you would have known that. Same goes for Diane, my views are just that - mine, which means to say they are correct just as yours are. You think you are right in your mind, I am right in mine, no amount of complaining on your part will ever change that.

This is obviously going over your head, Neo, so I will try to explain it to you in simple terms.

1. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has got one.

2. If you post yours to a bulletin board, expect that there will be opposing views.

3. Expect that some of those views may be a little harsh, afterall, THIS IS THE BBQ PIT. (Please read this sites FAQ.)

4. Understand that it isn't so much your opinion that people are attacking, but your whining. If this board is too harsh for you, then leave.

5. Phil is as sharp as he thinks he is.


------------------
&gt;^,,^&lt;
KITTEN

He who walk through airport door sideways going to Bangkok. - Confucius

Very, Very good point, Melin. The child should receive the greatest consideration. As an innocent, i would accord him/her the greatest rights. However, given a situation where dad is not going to be a parent to the child, is it fair to the child to bring him into what is know to be a bad situation?

Let me ask this. If you knew that you were going to be born into a situation where mom is broke and dad is AWOL, would you choose to be born AND be raised in the situation.

Note: I am not saying that you would choose to be aborted! My question is would you want to be adopted or raised by this mom, knowing the increased risks and difficulties inherent in this situation?

Drain Bead:

I posted the comment about wanting the male birth control pill. I agree with you totally- I wouldn't trust a guy that said he was on it (and therefore I didn't have to worry) either! Instead I was thinking that both parties could use the Pill (and condoms, of course), which would really cut down the number of unplanned pregnancies.
It would be great if men had some form of family planning available to them other than condoms, abstinence, and surgical sterilization.

PR (still pregnant, dammit. )

But that was exactly my point! Everyone keeps talking about how giving men the out will rip apart the fabric of our society because so many men will take it! And I don't think they will.

You should have stopped at "And I don’t think. . ."

The words "rip apart the fabric of society" are yours, and yours alone. A few posters, including myself, have pointed out to you over and over and over. . . :::sigh::: that *someone* will have to support those children that the men turn their backs on if the mother is unable to do it herself. Do you understand who that *someone* will be? You and me and all the other tax payers. I would rather those dollars be spend on the education system instead of taking the responsibility of some guy who walked away from the results of careless sex.

Do you know the costs of raising a child?

Oh yeah, never mind.

My mistake.

I think. . .

Uhhh, nooooooooo. I have yet to see proof.

. . . if the mother isn't capable of caring for the child, she shouldn't have it. Or if she has it, she should give it up to someone who will take care of it.

If your arguments weren’t so full of contradictions, they might (Keyword: Might) be credible, kinda, sorta, but not really.

Would you like me to explain the contradictions in your statement "I believe in a woman's right to choose, absolutely. No one, be it the state or the father, should be able to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body" compared to your Norplant comments?

How about this statement "Isn't that what our system of laws is all about? Creating more fairness, justice, balance? Protecting everyone's rights as much as possible?" in comparison to your line of thinking that if a mother isn’t financially able to support her child alone she should give it up.

Why don’t we send the trucks into low income neighborhoods and gather up all the children whose parents don’t deserve them because they are not in a specific income bracket? Why don’t we post guards at the hospitals to rip the babies from the arms of low income parents?

Lots and lots of men are dirt poor, in jail, whatever.

What part of the previous posts did you miss that specifically stated that the majority of child support is based on income of both parents?

So in other words, we should not take anything you post seriously because you
may change your tune as soon as someone calls you on it.

Uh, no, that would be incorrect.

It sure appears that way.

Or maybe you really didn't mean what you wrote?

I always mean what I write, assuming I am not making a joke of some kind.

In other words, my assumption was correct. All of your posts have been jokes.


------------------
&gt;^,,^&lt;
KITTEN

He who walk through airport door sideways going to Bangkok. - Confucius

Thor:

My kinda guy. I was getting all impressed with Jodih's extremely well-done arguments (still am, nicely done, Jodih!) but I still found myself resisting. Then you pointed out why! Indeed! Why is it automatically assumed the state will take over?

I must confess, though, it's very trying having the heart of a liberal and the brain of a Libertarian. Sigh....


Hey Diane:

Partay!!



------------------
Stoidela

Why is it automatically assumed the state will take over?

Like I said, do you know the cost of raising a child in a one income household?

If the father doesn't contribute, who else is going to pick up the slack? You?


Hey Diane:

Partay!!

God I just love a thought-provoking, intelligent debate.

-----------


------------------
&gt;^,,^&lt;
KITTEN

He who walk through airport door sideways going to Bangkok. - Confucius

Okay, I haven't received what I consider a decent response to my last post, though at least one of the forces arrayed on the other side (Stodeila) has apparently read it. So I am going to ask a specific question, for Stodeila and for Thor, to which I'd appreciate a specific answer. (You may notice it's the same question I've asked before.) Here we go:

Mother gets pregnant. Mother decides to keep child, but Mother is not financially able to support child on her own. Mother is, however, in every other way qualified to raise the child. Father is known, is financially solvent, and could contribute to the support of the child, but notified Mother before the child was born that he wanted to disavow any responsibility for it. What should happen then? Choose one option (or tell me which option I've missed):

A. Baby is forcibly removed from Mother and placed for adoption.

B. Baby is forcibly removed from Mother and raised by the government (which will probably place it for adoption as well).

C. Baby is raised by Mother, with the financial assistance of the government (and, by extension, the taxpayers) through various government programs.

D. Baby is raised by Mother with the resentful and reluctant financial assistance of Father.

I don't what to make this a tenth-grade essay, but please explain which option you think is best, and why. Muchas gracias.

And Stodeila, thanks for the compliment. :)

THOR -- I see you DID read my post (I somehow missed yours) and responded with what I consider a truly wretched suggestion -- take away the government support (welfare) and take away the father's support. Well, that would certainly show the mother a thing or two, I guess, but what about the child? The mother can't afford to feed her baby. You say -- no help from the father or the government. Are you honestly saying that the child should be left to starve? Please, please tell me I have misunderstood you.

The overriding concern in this situation must be the best interests of the only truly innocent party (innocent in every sense of the word) -- the baby. The baby MUST be supported. I started my hypothetical from this assumption because it never crossed my mind that simply allowing a child to be raised in abject poverty -- to the extent, possibly, of starving to death -- would seriously be considered an option by anyone. Are you seriously saying that is a better idea than requiring the father or the government to provide support? If you are, I can only thank my lucky stars that the decision isn't yours, and I would respectfully suggest you might spend a little less time thinking about fairness and a little more thinking about simple humanity. If this seems insulting then I apologize, but I am truly appalled by your suggestion.

jodih - I don't think Thor is suggesting a baby be raised in poverty. Rather, if I am reading corretly, he is suggesting that the child be taken from the mother who can not afford to raise it on her own and placed for adoption.

to me, this suggestion is a frightening one. And I don't see how a person who claims they are for less government interference (Libertairians (sp?) ) can advocate the governemnt stepping in a taking children from mothers who can't afford to raise them on their own.

Okay, thank you, yepitsme, but if you're right and I'm wrong in the interpretation of his post, then we're back to the question of why the father's right to financial freedom should be elevated above the mother's right to parent her own biological child (assuming that the only thing preventing her is financial constrains and she is otherwise a fit mother). I haven't received a decent answer to that question, either. Instead, Thor keeps raising the "bad" mothers his wife sees in the course of her job, who seem to be unfit for reasons other than mere financial difficulties. As I said above, the fact that some mothers are not fit to parent is irrelevant to the question of whether a father's financial responsibilities should be removed.

Jodih:

You've managed to frame it in such a way that I find myself a bit stumped. It is indeed a hard question, and the answer isn't easy.

And I'm not ready to give one. I just wanted to acknowledge that you've given me pause.



------------------
Stoidela

I have been reading this thread with great interest, especially the part about giving the child up for adoption and not having welfare.
i realize that the taxpayers pay for welfare and it really isn't fair. but you know, not all people who go on welfare go on for the money. When I was pregnant, we could afford a baby based on our combined incomes. When he left, I suddenly couldn't afford it on my own. So should I have given Greg up for adoption? No way! Welfare is supposed to be there to help people get back on their feet, which is what *I* used it for (I was on it for under a year). There are so many people abusing the system that it has a bad name.
I'm grateful it was there for me. It helped me while I went back to school and made enough money to raise my child.
I, for one, will gladly help support that program. As a poster said (I can't remember who), it's not THAT much that you contribute. Don't misunderstand...I understand that taxpayers shouldn't pay for the irresponsiblities of others. i agree with that. But I'll be damned if the government would have taken Greg from me based on circumstances beyond my control!

------------------
MaryAnn
Sometimes life is so great you just gotta muss up your hair and quack like a duck!

A long ways back in this thread, Kells phrased the question thusly:

{{{Hrmmm ... my question is if a woman can choose NOT to parent a child by aborting her pregnancy, why can't a man choose NOT to parent a child by abandoning the mother?}}}


Phrased this way, the answer is simple: in the first place there is no living child who is totally innocent and who is the product of the both the man and the woman, whereas in the second instance there is. Stop focusing on the man and the woman, and their so-called "rights" and focus on the right of the born child to be provided for by both of its parents.

-Melin

------------------
I'm a woman phenomenally
Phenomenal woman
That's me
(Maya Angelou)

If we were having this discussion 100 years ago, or in a different country this conversation would be different. The outcomes that Jodih lists assume two things:
1) there is only a father and mother--no grandma's aunts, uncles, etc. (My experience living in poor neighborhood is that there are few dads around, but usually tons of femal relatives. Poor babies often have more caregivers than rich kids.)

2) that single moms should and will get state financial support for their irresponsible decisions.

I would never advocate that the state have the ability to take children from parents based on income. That is too much power for big brother.

On the contrary, the state should stay out of it financially as well. If you are pregnant and you know that you can't afford the child and you know that you wil be raising the child as a single parent, then go ahead. But be prepared to live with that decision.

I do not think that it is fair that the taxpayers who had nothing to do with the birth pay. And I do not think it is fair to have a father, who has no say in the decision to keep and raise the child (decision/choice number two from my above contribution) forced to pay.

Though if limited to these two choices, I would choose to have the father pay.

And it is certainly not fair to the child to start out with 50% of his parents not even wanting him to be there.

If the state pays, we all get shafted, if the father pays, he gets shafted, either way if mom keeps the baby, baby gets shafted.

If Stoidela's idea is put in place and welfare is removed, Mom is forced to make a decision that has heavier consequences: Can I raise this baby all by myself with no financial support other than what I can get from my family?

I admit, this is harsh. Those of us planning pregnancies make this same decision: Can we afford this baby? But this is about the biggest decision anyone can make. It should be a hard decision and it should carry consequences.

I say we get rid of welfare AND allow Stoidela's sytem to be put in place. It is about The freedom to choose AND the commensurate responsibility. You decide to go full term and create another human, you have the sole control of the choice, well then you also get all of the consequences. Not dad, not the state.

I wonder if those girls that my wife treats would make some of the same decisions they do were there no safety net.

MaryAnn - I too will gladly support the welfare program when it is used by it's recipients to better themselves to a point that they are self-supportive. Those who abuse the system is another topic altogether.

My objections were directed toward the increased number of women who would come onto the welfare rolls if men were not made responsible to support their own kids.

The idea that a father would have the choice to shirk his duties in supporting his child - THAT HE CREATED - but we, as tax payers, would have that right taken away, pisses me off.



------------------
&gt;^,,^&lt;
KITTEN

He who walk through airport door sideways going to Bangkok. - Confucius

Oh the difficulties of human communication! I obviously was not clear. A few points

1) I am not using the anecdotal evidence of my wife's experiences as the sole support for these arguments. Anecdotal evidence is crap.

2) I am not, and would never suggest that the state take away anyones baby or otherwise interfere in a family except in cases where the childs rights are being abused. I meant that if there were no welfare and no money from the father, the mother ON HER OWN, would make the choice of whether to raise the child or give it up for adoption.

3) I would never give the poor less rights than the wealthy. "we the people" means all of us. The mothers my wife sees are unfit for many more reasons than their poverty. But I admit that a 13 year old, crack addict, gang member, prostitute who has 3 STD's and a 1st grade education with no family support DOES have a right to have a child and keep it. I will not argue against it.

4) I did concede to Melin's point that the Child should get the most consideration. We have generally been ignoring the child. I will admit that the child should get the support from the father. Our question was flawed. It is not about the rights of the parents, but the rights of the child by proxy through the mother.

Now, Jodih Wrote:we're back to the question of why the father's right to financial freedom should be elevated above the mother's right to parent her own biological child (assuming that the only thing preventing her is financial constrains and she is otherwise a fit mother). I haven't received a decent answer to that question, either

The father's right to financial freedom has nothing to do with the mothers tright to to parent her child. You can give the father his freedom, and in his absence mother can still have and raise the child, albeit in abject poverty. The question is mis-phrased. I would phrase it:

1) Should a reluctant father be financial bound by the mother's decision to bear and raise his child, or does the mother have the right to bind him legally by having said child against his wishes?

The follow up question is:
2) does the child's right to the assets of the parents supercede the rights of the father?

And remeber that there are two ways to answer: philosophically and in the real world. Real world answer: dad will pay or we will. That is just the way it is in a quasi socialist state.

Now, my philisophical answer to 1 is NO. It is mom's choice, let her face the consequences of her choice.

to number two. Baby wins. Parents, you should be ashamed of yourselves, now live up to your responsibility to this new life.

And either way, no welfare.

Thor, I'm with you on your second point, but I still disagree with you on your first. I maintain that the choice doesn't come AFTER the pregnancy is conceived, but before. If he doesn't want to risk fathering a child that he legally, morally and ethically ought to support, then he has no business having sex.

-Melin

------------------
I'm a woman phenomenally
Phenomenal woman
That's me
(Maya Angelou)

Melin, On general moral grounds, I agree with you on this. My general rule is that people should not take an action if unwilling to suffer the consequences. I don't care if you want to run blindfolded down teh highway, Juggle rattle snakes and tattoo "fuck you" on your forehead. But dont' com[lain when you get maimed, poisoned or fired. So part of me really wants to agree with you on this.

But then I am a man. If I get drunk sleep with a stranges and she calls me three weeks later calling me dad, I feel different. SHe can take several steps to avoid being a mom if she wants to. But I can't do anything. I am completely powerless. She decides my fate for the next 18 years. That is not exactly fair. But I have aired my views on that already.

Melin, On general moral grounds, I agree with you on this. My general rule is that people should not take an action if unwilling to suffer the consequences. I don't care if you want to run blindfolded down teh highway, Juggle rattle snakes and tattoo "fuck you" on your forehead. But dont' com[lain when you get maimed, poisoned or fired. So part of me really wants to agree with you on this.

But then I am a man. If I get drunk, sleep with a stranger and she calls me three weeks later calling me dad, I feel different. SHe can take several steps to avoid being a mom if she wants to. But I can't do anything. I am completely powerless. She decides my fate for the next 18 years. That is not exactly fair. But I have aired my views on that already.

I saw a great cartoon where a man and woman are about ready to jump is bed and the guy has a contract tattooed on his back stating that he is not liable for a whole list of things.

But I like your idea. Seems that there are one or two guys out there who are full of promises until the EPT shows up positive. This might give 'em pause. Or the woman could wear a warning label that says "sexual intercourse could lead to pregnancy and the garnishment of your wages at 25% of gross income for 18 years"

No need to worry about trying to stay celibate.

Thor, the other problem I have, and which has been nagging at the back of my head throughout my participation in this thread, is that I have to take issue with the assumptions that are here.

Everyone who keeps saying that the woman is the one with the "choice" about whether to abort or keep the baby is operating on the assumption that abortion is a valid choice for every person. That's just not acceptable, and it violates the whole "choice" concept. There are those among us who really do believe, sincerely, that abortion is wrong. I don't want to debate whether it is or is not right now; I would simply like an acknowledgement that there are people who feel that way. And not everyone who feels they could never have an abortion has a personal prohibition on sleeping with someone they are not married to.

Thus, for a woman who cannot, consistent with her own moral beliefs, have an abortion, there really is no choice about whether or not to have the baby. The "options" that you give her are, in her mind "kill my baby, give my baby (whom I love already) away to strangers, or let my baby starve, or livei n poverty, (by not requiring the man to contribute to the support of HIS child)."

Adopting out isn't an easy decision either, you know. Most of the women I know who've done it, and those stories I've read about others, say it is the hardest decision that they've ever made in their life, and that they wish they hadn't had to do it. And nowadays that doesn't necessarily end it, anyway. Twenty years later there could well be someone knocking on your door saying "Mom?"

-Melin

------------------
I'm a woman phenomenally
Phenomenal woman
That's me
(Maya Angelou)

Thor;
I am absolutely appauled that you think "I was drunk" is a good enough excuse to relieve you of your obligations.

I've said this before on this post but maybe I wasn't clear as no one seems to be getting it. Many people have said this situation is unfair because the woman can 'force' the man into fatherhood. It is not unfair because the man can do exactly the same thing. If the woman doesn't want the baby and the man does, he can raise it and 'force' her into motherhood (e.g. paying support).

I would still, however, argue that unless she held a gun to his head and made him have sex with her, he chose his own path to fatherhood (as did she to motherhood). Everybody knows the risks before they engage in intercourse. If you are not ready to accept the possible consequenses, then don't have sex. And please don't whine at me as though I were asking you to give up breathing.

------------------
"I think it would be a great idea" Mohandas Ghandi's answer when asked what he thought of Western civilization

How you figger?

I never said that a man should get off the hook because he was drunk. you mis-read.

Quote: "It is not unfair because the man can do exactly the same thing. If the woman doesn't want the baby and the man does, he can raise it and 'force' her into motherhood (e.g. paying support)."

Now that is just silly. How can the father force the woman into motherhood? I am assuming that he would chain her in the attic for nine months? (assuming that she even tells him.)

But what about the situation when the man desperately wants the child and the woman decides to abort? Should the man then get reparations?

Any way you cut it, the woman controls the pregnancy.

How you figger?

I never said that a man should get off the hook because he was drunk. you mis-read.

Quote: "It is not unfair because the man can do exactly the same thing. If the woman doesn't want the baby and the man does, he can raise it and 'force' her into motherhood (e.g. paying support)."

Now that is just silly. How can the father force the woman into motherhood? I am assuming that he would chain her in the attic for nine months? (assuming that she even tells him.)

But what about the situation when the man desperately wants the child and the woman decides to abort? Should the man then get reparations?

Any way you cut it, the woman controls the pregnancy.

How you figger?

I never said that a man should get off the hook because he was drunk. you mis-read.

Quote: "It is not unfair because the man can do exactly the same thing. If the woman doesn't want the baby and the man does, he can raise it and 'force' her into motherhood (e.g. paying support)."

Now that is just silly. How can the father force the woman into motherhood? I am assuming that he would chain her in the attic for nine months? (assuming that she even tells him.)

But what about the situation when the man desperately wants the child and the woman decides to abort? Should the man then get reparations?

Any way you cut it, the woman controls the pregnancy.

How you figger?

I never said that a man should get off the hook because he was drunk. you mis-read.

Quote: "It is not unfair because the man can do exactly the same thing. If the woman doesn't want the baby and the man does, he can raise it and 'force' her into motherhood (e.g. paying support)."

Now that is just silly. How can the father force the woman into motherhood? I am assuming that he would chain her in the attic for nine months? (assuming that she even tells him.)

But what about the situation when the man desperately wants the child and the woman decides to abort? Should the man then get reparations?

Any way you cut it, the woman controls the pregnancy.

I will reply to the latest posts in order and hope I hit everyone -- or, rather, everyone's post. :)

THOR -- I'll respond to each of your points in turn:

1) I am not using the anecdotal evidence of my wife's experiences as the sole support for these arguments. Anecdotal evidence is crap.

Well, this is off the subject, but I don't think anecdotal evidence is necessarily crap in sociological debates such as this. What I said was that you're wife's experiences, while interesting and proof of a number of theses, are not relevant to this question as it was posted by Stodeila. But, like I said, that's off the subject . . .

2) I am not, and would never suggest that the state take away anyones baby or otherwise interfere in a family except in cases where the childs rights are being abused. I meant that if there were no welfare and no money from the father, the mother ON HER OWN, would make the choice of whether to raise the child or give it up for adoption.

Okay. There's no welfare. There's no money from the government. The baby is starving. The mother must then decide whether to keep the baby or not? What kind of choice is that? Any person with a shred of maternal feeling would turn their child over to another to save its life. That isn't a choice, it is another way of forcing the mother to surrender the child. It is unfair to put the mother in that position, and it is morally indefensible to risk the life of the child.

3) I would never give the poor less rights than the wealthy. "we the people" means all of us. The mothers my wife sees are unfit for many more reasons than their poverty. But I admit that a 13 year old, crack addict, gang member, prostitute who has 3 STD's and a 1st grade education with no family support DOES have a right to have a child and keep it. I will not argue against it.

A 13-year-old crack addict (etc.) does not have the right to have a child and keep it, because such a person is almost by definition unfit. I am not arguing that such women -- such children -- should be allowed to raise their kids. I am arguing that a biological father should not be relieved of financial resposibility for his children simply because he didn't want them to be born and doesn't want to support them.

4) I did concede to Melin's point that the Child should get the most consideration. We have generally been ignoring the child. I will admit that the child should get the support from the father. Our question was flawed. It is not about the rights of the parents, but the rights of the child by proxy through the mother.

Thank you. In the end, we apparently do not disagree. The rights of the child should outweigh the rights of the father, because while sticking the father with a support obligation may be unfair, leaving the child without a means of support or expecting the government to support it is more unfair.

I certainly do not object to your continuing to oppose institution of such a support obligation on philosophical grounds which might apply in some other, hypothetical world. But I believe we are in agreement that such obligations are a necessary evil in the real world, because the interests of the child outweigh the financial interests of the father. But I must tell you that if you got drunk, slept with a stranger, and she turned up pregnant, I would not overflow with sympathy for you. It is irresponsible to engage in promiscuous behavior while drunk; it is irresponsible to sleep with people you don't know unless you are VERY careful; and it is irresponsible to not take suitable precautions to prevent pregnancy. Sometimes irresponsible actions have long-term consequences.

YEPITSME -- You said:

I was thinking that it would be different if we give guys a chance to bow out of fatherhood before pregnancy occurrs. This would mean that both the man and the woman would have to sign a contract that the man relinquishes all rights and responsibilities to fatherhood should a pregnancy occur.

No, it wouldn't be any different because, as explained above, the whole reason to stick the father with the obligation is to ensure the baby is supported and doesn't lack for food, clothing, shelter, or any of the other necessities of life. The baby needs these things every bit as much even if its parents made the sort of agreement you suggest before the woman even became pregnant.

LUCKY -- Amen, sister (brother?).

The bottom line is that I would agree in 999 cases out of 1000 that it is wrong to make anyone pay for something they didn't order, so to speak. The reason we must do so in this case is that the result is an actual child, and the child must be supported by someone, and the people who should have to support it are the ones who created it.

sorry about the multiple post

Now that is just silly. How can the father force the woman into motherhood? I am assuming that he would chain her in the attic for nine months? (assuming that she even tells him.)

Well since you asked. . .

My brother and his ex-girlfriend had an accidental pregnancy. She did not want the baby but due to her religious beliefs, abortion was not an option. She was in the process of arranging an adoption through her church when my brother found out about the pregnancy.

He told her that he wanted the baby and eventually took court action to stop the adoption proceedings. He was awarded sole custody and has been raising my nephew solo for the last 9 1/2 years.

My brother is entitled to child support payments from this women who MADE THE CHOICE TO GIVE UP HER KID, although he hasn't seen a dime due to the fact that this woman can't keep a job.


------------------
&gt;^,,^&lt;
KITTEN

He who walk through airport door sideways going to Bangkok. - Confucius

I stand (partially) corrected.

Now you ask, why should a father be financially responsible for the care of a child he didn't want and clearly said he didn't want? Because if he won't be, who will? The government, that's who, through Aid to Families With Dependent Children, food stamps, foster care, and a million other programs that, in a perfect world, we would have no need for. And the government doesn't get it's money from out of the air; it gets it from us, the taxpayers. Why should this
financial obligation fall to us instead of to the parents of the child? You talk about how "unfair" it is to expect a biological parent to financially support his or her child; I don't find this unfair at all. Better him (or her) than all the rest of us. And, expensive, enormous, and unwieldy as the system is now, imagine how much worse it would be if we just allowed people to walk away from their obligations to their children. It would be a nightmare, and society would be a lot poorer for it, in every sense of the word.

Specious argument - partially.

Yes, all of us pay toward supporting children on AFDC, etc. However, it must also be noted that parents who DO support their children get a tax break; therefore it can't entirely be said that all of us pay equally toward that support.

(This is in no way intended to suggest that the state should not be involved in support issues; it must also be remembered that single folks without parental obligations don't get the tax break, and are, therefore, paying equally with those who aren't providing support.)


------------------
~jon

That's a perfect reason not to get drunk and sleep with complete strangers, especially if you are not going to adequately protect yourself.

An idea just popped into my head. I know it probably has flaws and perhaps it contradicts something else I've said - haven't really thought through all the pros and cons yet.

anyway, I was thinking that it would be different if we give guys a chance to bow out of fatherhood before pregnancy occurrs. This would mean that both the man and the woman would have to sign a contract that the man relinquishes all rights and responsibilities to fatherhood should a pregnancy occur.

This would not bother me at all (at least not yet - maybe someone can point out all the flaws in this idea). It gives the man a fair chance to say he does not want to be a father, and it gives the woman a fair chance to know that beforesleeping with him. This way both parties know going into the relationship where the other one stands. If the woman chooses to haves sex with the man, then she knows exactly what risk she is taking. If she gets pregnant, it is completely her responsibility.


What do you think?


yah, I know - it'd be so hard to do on those drunken one-night stands. bleh

Yes, all of us pay toward supporting children on AFDC, etc. However, it must also be noted that parents who DO support their children get a tax break; therefore it can't entirely be said that all of us pay equally toward that support.

Hi Jon -

I am not sure what you mean by a tax break. Do you mean when filing income tax? I can't speak for the rest of the nation, but here in Utah, child support is non-taxable, therefore, non-reportable income.

Interestly, alimony is reportable.


------------------
&gt;^,,^&lt;
KITTEN

He who walk through airport door sideways going to Bangkok. - Confucius

Jodih wrote:There's no welfare. There's no money from the government. The baby is starving. The mother must then decide whether to keep the baby or not? What kind of choice is that? Any person with a shred of maternal feeling would turn their child over to another to save its life. That isn't a choice, it is another way of forcing the mother to surrender the child. It is unfair to put the mother in that position, and it is morally indefensible to risk the life of the child.


Your argument here presupposes the decision to have the baby. My point on the "no Welfare" deal is that if women and men understand that there is no safety net, they might either a) not take as many risks that would lead to pregnancy and b) not have the child at all.

My point is that if the consequences are dire, people will change their behavior. (caution, Anecdotal evidence ahead.) My wife does hear from the kids in jail "Sure I'm gonna go ahead and have this baby. I can get welfare." This burns me up.

Whooops - when writing that last post I was only refering to a tax break on child support money paid to the custodial parent.

I didn't consider that those who are supporting their kids DO get a taxbreak in that they are able to claim their children as dependents when filing income taxes.

------------------
&gt;^,,^&lt;
KITTEN

He who walk through airport door sideways going to Bangkok. - Confucius

I didn't consider that those who are supporting their kids DO get a taxbreak in that they are able to claim their children as dependents when filing income taxes.

'zactly what I meant, Diane. :)

Some other thoughs on this topic, while I'm at it.

- I've seen an attitude here that seems to say, "If a man doesn't want to be responsible, he should keep it in his pants." And, while I agree with the sentiment in general... let's pause for a moment.

If a woman doesn't want the responsibility, she does have the right to either eliminate it or push it off on other parties. If this is acceptable, then I'd have to submit that on legal grounds, forcing men to accept the responsibility is illegal. They should, don't get me wrong, but this is clearly a gender-based inequity.

Does that make sense? You have two people. They hop in the sack, obviously tossing the dice. Woman gets pregnant, she has the option of not being responsible for the consequences. The man doesn't. (Responsible meaning legally responsible.)

- Why do we, as a society, think it's fair to force a man to pay child support when the mother not only refuses to allow the father a role in raising the children, or, at least, makes it nearly impossible... and all the while, she's living with, or married to, another man who is getting all the benefit of fatherhood without the legal responsibility?

Do those of you who objected to the OP so strenously agree, or disagree, that if the mother is allowing - even encouraging - another party to act as the father, and allowing or encouraging the children to view him as such, then the responsibility for support should fall on that party?


------------------
~jon

I didn't consider that those who are supporting their kids DO get a taxbreak in that they are able to claim their children as dependents when filing income taxes.

'zactly what I meant, Diane. :)

Some other thoughs on this topic, while I'm at it.

- I've seen an attitude here that seems to say, "If a man doesn't want to be responsible, he should keep it in his pants." And, while I agree with the sentiment in general... let's pause for a moment.

If a woman doesn't want the responsibility, she does have the right to either eliminate it or push it off on other parties. If this is acceptable, then I'd have to submit that on legal grounds, forcing men to accept the responsibility is illegal. They should, don't get me wrong, but this is clearly a gender-based inequity.

Does that make sense? You have two people. They hop in the sack, obviously tossing the dice. Woman gets pregnant, she has the option of not being responsible for the consequences. The man doesn't. (Responsible meaning legally responsible.)

- Why do we, as a society, think it's fair to force a man to pay child support when the mother not only refuses to allow the father a role in raising the children, or, at least, makes it nearly impossible... and all the while, she's living with, or married to, another man who is getting all the benefit of fatherhood without the legal responsibility?

Do those of you who objected to the OP so strenously agree, or disagree, that if the mother is allowing - even encouraging - another party to act as the father, and allowing or encouraging the children to view him (or her!) as such, then the responsibility for support should fall on that party?


------------------
~jon

I'm starting to feel like a broken record here.

Jon said:

If a woman doesn't want the responsibility, she does have the right to either eliminate it or push it off on other parties. If this is acceptable, then I'd have to submit that on legal grounds, forcing men to accept the responsibility is illegal. They should, don't get me wrong, but this is clearly a gender-based inequity.

Does that make sense? You have two people. They hop in the sack, obviously tossing the dice. Woman gets pregnant, she has the option of not being responsible for the consequences. The man doesn't. (Responsible meaning legally responsible.)

We cenceded early on in this debate that the abortion decision must be made by the woman. It may not be fair, but it's her body. Go complain to Mother Nature.

So, now we're talking about the woman having the baby and the adoption vs. raising it issue. One more time: The man has exactly the same choices and responsibilities as the woman. If she doesn't want the responsibility and wants to give the baby up for adoption, but he decides he wants to raise it, she is obligated to pay child support.

And:
- Why do we, as a society, think it's fair to force a man to pay child support when the mother not only refuses to allow the father a role in raising the children, or, at least, makes it nearly impossible... and all the while, she's living with, or married to, another man who is getting all the benefit of fatherhood without the legal responsibility?

We don't think it's fair. She is obligated by law to allow visitation. If she doesn't comply, he can take her to court (just like when a man doesn't pay his court ordered child support)

Lastly, if the man wanted 'all the benefits of fatherhood' perhaps he should have thought about selecting a suitable mate rather than knocking up the tart of the week. The guy she married afterwards is taking on a hell of a lot of responsibility for someone else's kid. I'm sure if he had his choice, he would not be parenting someone else's child. The natural father ought to be damned grateful that his kid has a father figure in his life every day (assuming the man is a good father--if not, perhaps the natural father should consider suing for custody).

Frankly, whether it's the man or the woman who's paying, I think having only to part with some cash is a small price to pay for having brought a child into a less than ideal situation.

We don't think it's fair. She is obligated by law to allow visitation. If she doesn't comply, he can take her to court (just like when a man doesn't pay his court ordered child support)

Oh, aren't you a barrel of laughs.

So, how was it again you intended to garnish the kids?

When was the last time you saw the picture of a mother refusing visitation hanging on the wall of your post office, or on the sensationalistic cheese program of the week?

There is still a gender-based inequity. Period. Melin was kind enough to throw out that "one deadbeat mom for 999 deadbeat dads," which (no offense, Melin) I think is: - a complete crock,
- completely obfuscatory; it fails to take into account (a) the disparity in where kids end up in a custody hearing (it's been getting better, but it's still horribly skewed toward the women), (b) the support guidelines, which due to the fact that women are far more likely to owe only a token amount of support if the male has custody (because men [wrongly and quite unfairly, no flames on this point, please] are more likely to make a hell of a lot more money than women).

You can't say "men have the same rights as women after the decision to bear the child" when courts routinely allow the argument that children should not be separated from the mother unless there is compelling reason. Pretending that we do is folly.


------------------
~jon

Sorry Jon, I don't buy it. I won't say that anecdotally there are deadbeat moms to talk about, but statistically speaking the overwhelming odds are that the deadbeat parent in the family is the dad.

And I'll match you anecdote for anecdote. I know a few professional women who lost custody of their kids to the stay-at-home dad. And you don't think it's fair that the courts take into account each parent's income when deciding who pays what in child support? That's garbage. I make twice what my husband makes. My kids have had some advantages in their lives, thank goodness, that require us to spend some money, whether it's private school, extra-curricular activities, or vacations to visit family east of the Mississippi (we have no family west of the Mississippi). Based on our incomes, I figure I pay two dollars of my salary towards the kids events and my husband pays one dollar of his. If my husband and I were to get a divorce, I think the kids are still entitled to maintain their music or tennis lessons, etc. If I were to get custody, I guess that means I should still pay two dollars for every one he pays. If he were to get custody, then I guess I should still pay two dollars for every one he does.

If the family is together the person who earns more pays more. I see no reason why that should change, and the kids suffer accordingly, when the family is not together.

-Melin

------------------
I'm a woman phenomenally
Phenomenal woman
That's me
(Maya Angelou)

I've taken the liberty of starting a "Part Two" of this thread, because it is taking forever to load.

See ya there! :)

-Melin

------------------
I'm a woman phenomenally
Phenomenal woman
That's me
(Maya Angelou)