Abortion For Men, Part Two

Forgive me for taking the liberty, folks, but the old thread is taking too long to load, and I got better things to do then wait around for it to do so. I'll bet you do, too. So I thought I'd start a "Part Two" where we can continue our discussion.

-Melin

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

Okay, I'll start. The following points have been made repeatedly, but for some reason are being ignored, so I'll make them AGAIN.

1. The decision to have the baby (as opposed to aborting it) is the woman's alone because SHE is the baby-maker or -carrier or -incubator. This thread is not one on abortion, so for purposes of this argument we are assuming this is necessarily the woman's decision alone, since she alone is carrying the baby.

2. The man cannot force the woman to put the baby up for adoption. But neither can the woman force the man to put the baby up for adoption, as the example posted by someone else above illustrates. So they are EQUALLY at the mercy of each other, and if either one disagrees with the other's decision, they are equally shit-out-of-luck.

3. The man AND the woman are financially responsible for the baby. The question posted was whether one party (the man, in the hypothetical, but it could just as easily by the woman) should be allowed to avoid that financial responsibility because he or she did not agree to keep the baby. The answer to that question is "no," because the baby must be supported by SOMEONE, and that someone should be the biological parents as opposed to the government.

Thor now argues that if a woman were faced with the choice of giving up her child (assuming the father was relieved of his support obligation) and raising the child in abject poverty (assuming she doesn't have the financial ability to raise it herself), more mothers would surrender their children. Maybe so. But that is a hell of a position to put a woman in just to let a man off the hook financially, when the alternative is to allow the child to remain with its biological parent and make the other parent pony up some support. And the party that suffers for the lack of support is the CHILD. I still am flipping STUNNED that anyone thinks this is a good idea. You think woman will stop having children if the social services that assist them are not in place? What if they don't? Who suffers then? The children, that's who. That's a pretty damn expensive lesson to teach the mothers.

And jon, the fact that my discussion of the cost of government assistance to single parents and families in crisis (not to mention children who must be taken from inappropriate homes or who are abandoned to the state) did not include the detail of a tax credit does not make it "specious." Are you seriously arguing that such services do not present a serious drain upon the taxpayer, or that it is more fair to have that burden proportionally paid by society instead of the people who created the children in question? I don't think so.

And if you can deal with the "reality" of men being apparently unable to keep their zippers up even when it is in their best interests to do so, I think you can deal with the reality that the ones who would suffer from relieving parents of their support obligations in the manner proposed would be the children. What is so hard about this? What part don't you get?

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.

Melin, would you please do me, and the rest of our audience, the courtesy of pointing out just where in the hell you think I ever said anything like that?

Perhaps a comprehension problem has popped up. I said:

(among reasons your 999-1 comment is invalid) "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).

Wrongly and quite unfairly, meaning it's wrong and unfair that women generally make less for doing the same job, and on top of that, have a harder time getting those jobs.

If you thought the "token support" angle was me saying it wasn't fair, you also hopped into a reactionary stance; it's less of a burden to pay 20% of the monthly support requirement than 80%, or even 60%, therefore making it less likely that they'll avoid paying it. Ignore gender; Joe Blow is more likely to try and dodge paying $700 a month than Jane Doe is to try and dodge paying $150.

Okay, I'll start. The following points have been made repeatedly, but for some reason are being ignored, so I'll make them AGAIN.

That's all well and good, Jodi, but you can't just toss out part of the entire equation and then apply what's left to the concept. You cannot argue that the rights of both parties are equal at the time the underwear hits the floor; as such, you cannot carelessly fling around the idea that if guys don't want to be responsible, they should keep their dicks in their pants.

At the time the decision is made to have sex, the woman has the option to abrogate legal responsibility for the possible outcome. The man does not. That is a gender-based inequity, and all your attempts to divert the discussion to a point beyond that are meaningless.

And, hell, even beyond that... let's say I knock someone up, and she disappears, thereafter giving the kid up for adoption with a sob story about how the father ditched her. Be realistic here - what are the chances I'll ever have a reasonable right to exercise what limited rights I do have? Hmm?

And jon, the fact that my discussion of the cost of government assistance to single parents and families in crisis (not to mention children who must be taken from inappropriate homes or who are abandoned to the state) did not include the detail of a tax credit does not make it "specious."

I'm sorry you seem to have missed the word "partially." Next time, I'll be sure and bold it or something...

Are you seriously arguing that such services do not present a serious drain upon the taxpayer, or that it is more fair to have that burden proportionally paid by society instead of the people who created the children in question? I don't think so.

Apparently, not only did you miss "partially," but you stopped reading as soon as you saw "specious." Good for you. A sterling debate practice, to be sure, making assumptions and drawing asinine conclusions.

Here, let me help. You made the essentially correct point that without support from the parents, the state has to pick up the tab. All I did was point out that the way you put that point was slightly flawed, as you painted it as an equal burden for taxpayers. I then pointed out it's not an equal burden. A married couple with kids get a sizeable break on taxes, and if they don't make enough money... hell, we give them even more (EIC). Meanwhile, the rules for who can claim dependents can doubly screw the person paying support...

And if you can deal with the "reality" of men being apparently unable to keep their zippers up even when it is in their best interests to do so, I think you can deal with the reality that the ones who would suffer
from relieving parents of their support obligations in the manner proposed would be the children. What is so hard about this? What part don't you get?

The part I don't get is where the hell you get off applying others' arguments to me, assuming I think "Aww, let's just let everyone off the hook," and trying to make it sound like I'm taking some "Screw the kids" stance.

First, I never supported the "manner proposed." I have argued that there is a gender-based inequity. I have argued that, just as a woman is entitled after the fact to abandon the resposibility of parenthood, maybe a man should be allowed to before the fact; I have not proposed that this is the best-of-all-possible-worlds scenario.

Second, I have not once argued that that support should not be forthcoming, and I strenuously object to your attempts at painting me as (at best) stupid and inattentive or (at worst) an uncaring SOB who couldn't care less about the fate of the kids in this situation.

What I am arguing is that the law is flawed. In an earlier response, Lucky hits us with the offensively flippant:

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.

Well, thank you very much, Lucky. The fathers of this world whose wives packed up and ran off to go live with their "tart of the week," male version, will be warmed by your sensitive display. I'm sure they see the right of your view, now, and, well, gee, maybe it's okay to go ahead and support the wife, the kids, and her lazy-ass, unemployed boyfriend who she's telling the kids to call "daddy."

Of course, I'm sure you'd all like to think that doesn't happen.


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

Jon;

At no time in this debate have we been talking about couples who divorce and what happens to the kids thereafter. Get a grip.

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

Jon wrote

[q]If you thought the "token support" angle was me saying it wasn't fair, you also hopped into a reactionary stance; it's less of a burden to pay 20% of the monthly support requirement than 80%, or even 60%, therefore making it less likely that they'll avoid paying it. Ignore gender; Joe Blow is more likely to try and dodge paying $700 a month than Jane Doe is to try and dodge paying $150.{/q]

I dunno, I think it's all relative. Your absolute numbers here mean nothing; what would provide a better example is percentages of disposable income. $700 per month might not mean quite so much to somebody netting $4,000 as $150 means to someone netting minimum wage (what would that be? That would be grossing something like $1,000 a month, I think, wouldn't it?). That $700 could be play money for him and the $150 survival money for her.

Jon also wrote:

[q]Melin, would you please do me, and the rest of our audience, the courtesy of pointing out just where in the hell you think I ever said anything like that?

Perhaps a comprehension problem has popped up. I said:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(among reasons your 999-1 comment is invalid) "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).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wrongly and quite unfairly, meaning it's wrong and unfair that women generally make less for doing the same job, and on top of that, have a harder time getting those jobs.[/q]

That may be what you meant, but IMHO that's not what the primary inference was in your original post. Particularly in context, it sounded to me like you were complaining that because women statistically make less money than men do, men are usually ordered to pay more in child support. It certainly sounded like you were complaining that the difference in incomes was taken into account when child support orders are entered. If I misread your intent, I apologize.

As long as we've turned this into a bitching session of sorts, though, I have to comment one thing about custody arrangements that I see far too often that truly pisses me off. (I have sat in court and listened to this arrangement be ordered manny times.) This is the sort of arrangement that is often made when the parents live too far away from each other for there to be weekely or even monthly visitation.

One parent, let's say the mother, gets custody of the kids during the school year, and Dad gets custody during the summer. In at least one of the cases I've heard recently, Dad also got Christmas and Easter breaks, or -- more likely I didn't hear it right -- they alternate these holidays.

Well, thank you very much! So Mom (or the primary custodian) gets all the work -- getting the kids up early, getting them ready for school, fixing their lunches, getting homework done, teacher conferences, routine doctor's visits, arranging for their field trips, music and dance lessons, etc., etc., etc. Mom gets all the work, and further gets the times the kids get annoyed or angry because she has to always be after them to meet their responsibilities. She also gets the bad weather, the snow or the rain, and all the attendant hassle that brings.

Dad (or the secondary custodian) gets the fun times. He gets the vacations, the lazy summer days to sleep in, go to the beach or the pool, no deadlines, no homework, no scout meetings or late soccer nights, etc. etc. etc.

The first time I heard a judge make that order I was ready to stand up and scream. I didn't, because it wasn't my case, and it would have been vastly inappropriate on my part. But it still makes me upset to think about it.

(And just in case you're wondering, no, I've never been through child custody proceedings. I am married to and living with the father of my three sons.)

-Melin

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

::sighing:: I THOUGHT I had the quoting thing down finally . . . sorry, folks.

-Melin

Jon, I'm going to respond to your post point by point, but I must tell you that you are not raising any argument that hasn't been raised and dealt with repeatedly already.

You say I "cannot argue that the rights of both parties are equal at the time the underwear hits the floor." I can, and I do. Except for those relatively rare occasions when birth control fails, each party is equally able to practice appropriate birth control. Don't want a baby to result from a sexual encounter? Use a condom.

You say I "cannot carelessly fling around the idea that if guys don't want to be responsible, they should keep their dicks in their pants." This was not said carelessly, and I'm not sure how one "flings" on a message board, but it wasn't flung, either. It seems to me to be the self-evident first step that might be taken by those seeking to avoid this entire problem. I'm not saying men do, I'm just pointing out that they can.

You say

At the time the decision is made to have sex, the woman has the option to abrogate legal responsibility for the possible outcome. The man does not. That is a gender-based inequity, and all your attempts to divert the discussion to a point beyond that are meaningless.

If by "abrogate legal responsibility" you mean the option to have an abortion, I certainly do recognize this is a gender-based inequity -- I admitted as much in my very first post. But it is a NECESSARY gender-based inequity because the WOMAN is having the baby and it must be HER decision whether or not to have an abortion, because no one can force her to do so if she doesn't want to. I have never argued otherwise. Now, if she chooses to have the abortion, end of discussion -- no baby, and no support issues. If she chooses NOT to have the abortion but instead chooses to have the baby, what happens then? This is the starting point of this entire discussion -- what happens if a woman decides to have a baby the man doesn't want to have? Should he be responsible for the child's support? Since this is the question under consideration, how does attempting to address it constitute a "meaningless diversion"?

You then ask:

hell, even beyond that... let's say I knock someone up, and she disappears, thereafter giving the kid up for adoption with a sob story about how the father ditched her. Be realistic here - what are the chances I'll ever have a reasonable right to exercise what limited rights I do have? Hmm?

This is, of course, irrelevant to the question of whether you should be obligated to support your biological children that you know to exist. If you don't even know they exist, obviously no one has hit you up to support them. But, to answer your question, the chances are pretty good. No self-respecting adoption agency -- and certainly not the state -- will put a child up for adoption without first terminating the parental rights of BOTH father and mother, for just this reason. The only way to get around this is if the mother declares that she simply doesn't know who the father is. Even then, the authorities will try to make her list those men who MIGHT be the father, and get all of those men to surrender their parental rights. One of them balks at that, they do a paternity test to determine whether he is or is not the father. If you want a real-world example, check out the "Baby Richard" case, where a toddler was removed from his adoptive parents and given back to the biological father who had never surrendered his parental rights.

You say:

Apparently, not only did you miss "partially," but you stopped reading as soon as you saw "specious." Good for you. A sterling debate practice, to be sure, making assumptions and drawing asinine conclusions.

Let's try to keep this civil, shall we? I have and will refrain from making snide remarks and I'd appreciate it if you'd attempt to do the same.

You admit:

You made the essentially correct point that without support from the parents, the state has to pick up the tab. All I did was point out that the way you put that point was slightly flawed, as you painted it as an equal burden for taxpayers.

Given the breadth of the point I was trying to make (which is simply that if parents do not support their children, the government must -- a point you apparently concede is correct), I certainly WAS speaking in the broadest of terms. It was never my intention to address the intricacies of support obligations or the questions of "fairness" in any other context than letting a parent of the hook for support merely because he or she didn't want the baby. You want to discuss earned income credits and other inticacies of tax law, fine with me, but that's another subject and another thread. It has NOTHING to do with the point I am making -- which is that a child whose parents will not support it must be supported by the state -- a point that we agree on, right?

So, having hacked through your irrelevant tangents, what precisely are you arguing? You say:

I have argued that, just as a woman is entitled after the fact to abandon the resposibility of parenthood, maybe a man should be allowed to before the fact; I have not proposed that this is the best-of-all-possible-worlds scenario.

Okay, now we're FINALLY back to the question presented in the thread, which you have identified correctly, and which I will rephrase in your own terms: since a woman is entitled to abandon the responsibility of parenthood after the fact, should a man be allowed to abandon his parental responsibility after the fact?

No, he should not. The woman decides whether to have the baby, true enough, but as stated 400 times above, this is how it must be because she is the pregnant person. If you don't think that's "fair" to the man, argue with biology. She decides to have the baby and to keep it. Why shouldn't the father be let off the hook? Because someone must be responsible for the financial support of the child, and if the mother can't be, the father ought to be to avoid placing the burden on the government. If this is not the "best-of-all-possible-worlds scenario," what would be? What would you propose happen instead? You say the law is "flawed." How? What would you suggest be done to fix it? What would be a fairer solution? This is the part of your argument that I'm not getting, so I'd appreciate it if you'd clarify it for me. I'm happy to argue this issue with you, but frankly I can't even tell if you disagree with me. So maybe you can tell me if you do, and why, and maybe you can do so without muddying your argument with unnecessary sarcasm.

Jon, I have been in on this thread for a while. We spent a lot of time on the gender inequity business. But Melin brought up a good point whis is that the child support is not the assertion of the mothers rights against the father. Rather the child support is the assertion of the child's rights by proxy.

Of the parties involved, the child is the only complete innocent. AS such, any discussion of relative fairness of child suipport should recognize that baby comes first.

I started this thread arguing your position. WHen the above was pointed out, I conceded.

Jon, I have made the two following points which you claim conflict: (1) When two people crawl into the sack, the rights and responsibilities of both parties are equal; and (2) if the woman becomes pregnant, the decision to have the baby or to abort it is hers and hers alone. There is no conflict here. At the time of the two people have sex, there is no baby; there is only the potential to make a baby, and both of them are equally able to minimize the chances of that occurring. If a pregnancy occurs, however, the decision to carry it through or terminate it is the woman's alone. At the first point in time, the decision is both of theirs; use birth control or don't. At the second point in time, the decision is hers, because she's the one who's pregnant. Are you arguing that a man should be able to compel a woman to have an abortion? Or are you arguing that if a woman decides to have the baby over the objections of the man, she shouldn't be entitled to support? What, precisely, are you arguing? This is not the first time I've asked this. In my last post I asked you:

Why shouldn't the father be let off the hook? Because someone must be responsible for the financial support of the child, and if the mother can't be, the father ought to be to avoid placing the burden on the government. If this is not the "best-of-all-possible-worlds scenario," what would be? What would you propose happen instead? You say the law is "flawed." How? What would you suggest be done to fix it? What would be a fairer solution?

I await your response.

Jon said:

Perhaps you're under the assumption that no deadbeat dads used to be husbands? Perhaps you think that's a different aspect of custody issues?

No, Jon, it's just that we aren't discussing custody issues. Throughout this thread, the discussion has been about couples who are not married, and the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy.
And BTW, don't be dissing Jodih. She has presented clear and logical arguments and has asked you only fair questions. She clearly has more facts than you and has contributed invaluably to this debate. You, on the other hand, seem to specialize in obfuscation.

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

Jon wrote:

{{{Yup. That's correct. And it results in a gender-based inequity. Women completely explode if a gender-based inequity negatively impacts them... and God forbid a man turn around and say, "No, it's not fair, but... deal with it."}}}

Now Jon, I'm sorry, but this is pure garbage. It's not a "gender-based inequity" -- it's a biologically based fact. You're damned right we'll argue about mere GENDER-based inequities. My abilities as a lawyer have nothing to do with whether I am male or female, but my ability to give birth does. And even when pregnant I was actively working as a lawyer the Friday before the births of each of my children (all of whom were born on Monday). About the only thing that one gender can do that the other can't is sire/give birth to a child. That has nothing to do with women's ability to vote, go to school, manage her own money and property, hold elective office, hold a job, try a case, manage a business, etc., all those things that women have fought for the right to have the same opportunities as men do.

So tell me, what other biologically based facts exist that "negatively impact" women complain about? Strength? Maybe. As a general rule, men are stronger than women, but there are exceptions to that rule as well, and men and women of equal strength ought to be treated equally.

We are not talking culturally based inequities here, we're talking biology. So yeah, now I'd say that your misogyny is indeed showing.

-Melin

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

Now Jon, I'm sorry, but this is pure garbage. It's not a "gender-based inequity" -- it's a biologically based fact.

We are not talking culturally based inequities here, we're talking biology. So yeah, now I'd say that your misogyny is indeed showing.

I see irony fails you, Melin. Fine. "We" can stop talking about what "we" don't want to talk about.

No, Jon, it's just that we aren't discussing custody issues.

And, of course, Lucky, to you as well; my sincerest apologies for not receiving the proper permission to digress, or to bring up new angles. I should have realized that a new and better crowd is in charge here, going so far as to do that which we old farts never had the gall to do back in the old AOL days; decide what "we" are and aren't discussing. A thousand pardons. Truly.

Jodi:

I could tell you why it's flawed, if I could adequately express it. The only way I can even hint at it is with an example:

Man and woman hook up. They discuss having kids. They decide to try. She gets pregnant.

She changes her mind. Father has no rights here... none whatsoever.

You tell me that's "right."


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

Melin, in regards to your split-custody issue, I'm sure it usually does occur that Mom gets the kids during the school year and Dad gets them on vacations, and for a very gender-based reason: It proceeds from the rather sexist assumption that men are not capable of taking care of children very well.

Jon said:

And, of course, Lucky, to you as well; my sincerest apologies for not receiving the proper permission to digress, or to bring up new angles. I should have realized that a new and better crowd is in charge here, going so far as to do that which we old farts never had the gall to do back in the old AOL days; decide what "we" are and aren't discussing. A thousand pardons. Truly.

You're kidding, right? If you want to discuss child custody issues, then start a child custody thread. I fail to see how child custody in divorce situations is a 'new angle' on the issue of men supporting their unwanted, born out of wedlock children. Are you trying to be a troll here or do you just not understand the question?



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

Jon Morse wrote: [[Now, I'm not about to get into an abortion argument; that's not the issue.]]

It is the issue, though. The entire foundation of abortion rights rests on the assumption that, up to a certain point in the pregnancy, the fetus is part of the woman's body and she has complete control over its destiny. No one can force her to have an abortion and no one can force her not to. (In theory, at least.)

It seems to me that to allow anyone, even the presumed father, to overrule her decision is to define the fetus as a separate entity from the moment of conception.

Jon, I must say it's very difficult to continue this discussion with you since you steadfastly refuse to answer pointed questions intended to flesh out what your opinions are. I would be happy to try to persuade you that my analysis of this situation is correct and yours is incorrect, but the truth is that I don't have the slightest idea what your analysis is. And when I ask you, you refuse to answer. So I'll ask again. Here's the situation: Woman gets pregnant; decides to keep baby over the objection of man. Regarding the financial support of the child, what do you think should happen in this case? Choose one:

A. Woman should be required to abort the baby because the man doesn't want it.
B. Woman should be allowed to have baby but not to demand man help to support it.
C. Woman should be allowed to have baby and man should be required to help to support it.

Which do you choose, and why? I'd appreciate an answer. This is the THIRD time I've made such a request. If you still refuse to answer after three such requests, I'll have no choice but to conclude that you simply cannot defend your position in any way. And it seems to me that attempting to argue with someone whose position is indefensible is pretty close to the definition of wasting my time.

In your last post but one, you claimed that the law requiring men to support their biological children is flawed. I asked you why. Now you say:

I could tell you why it's flawed, if I could adequately express it.

So you admit, apparently, that you can NOT tell me why the law is flawed -- meaning that you cannot back up your own assertion with anything approaching a cogent argument.

The only way I can even hint at it is with an example: Man and woman hook up. They discuss having kids. They decide to try. She gets pregnant. She changes her mind. Father has no rights here... none whatsoever. You tell me that's "right."

Okay, I'll tell you -- That's right. What right COULD the father have in this situation? The right to prevent her from having an abortion? If you believe that, then by all means write a check to the right-to-life brigade, as that's what they think should occur as well. But even this is an easier situation than the hypothetical presented in this thread (which you keep turning away from), which is where the mother WANTS the child but the father does not. Are you going to force her to abort it when she wants to keep it? Here's another pointed question I'd appreciate an answer to, even though I'm quickly losing hope that I'll actually receive one: If a man and a woman disagree about the fate of her pregnancy, do you think the man's wishes should override hers? It's a simple, yes-or-no question.

You were quick to take offense earlier in the discussion when you felt I misinterpreted your post. You then spent a great deal of time telling me what you are NOT saying. All I would ask is that you now tell me what you ARE saying. If you want to sit on the fence, fine; but then you shouldn't post as if you have an actual opinion. If you have an actual opinion, you shouldn't be so reluctant to state what it is. If it seems like I'm trying to pin you down -- you're right, I am.

I also take issue with you when you say:

And, of course, Lucky, to you as well; my sincerest apologies for not receiving the proper permission to digress, or to bring up new angles. I should have realized that a new and better crowd is in charge here, going so far as to do that which we old farts never had the gall to do back in the old AOL days; decide what "we" are and aren't discussing. A thousand pardons. Truly.

Well, your apology is so sincere, how can we help but accept it? Didn't they have the concept of "topics" in the AOL forum? This isn't a thread on child support issues or on abortion; it's a thread that is attempting to answer a specific question that you apparently want to argue about without stating your own opinion. You are free to raise whichever tangents you want, but you can't demand that anyone else follow you down them if we would prefer to stick to the subject at hand. If you would prefer to switch to another subject, why don't you start another thread?

I recognize irony very well, when it's well written.

Phil, I don't care who has the kids during the school year and who during the summer, it's still a rotten arrangement!

-Melin

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

Lucky:
My point was, it takes unmitigated gall to tell someone in a public forum what "we" are talking about when the discussion digresses... especially when the digression is NOT irrelevant. If you truly think the issues regarding the two situations are completely separate, then you're on crack; the exact same laws apply in both cases. There are not two different sets of statutes dealing with the issue of support for "kids whose dads vanished before they were born" and "kids whose parents divorce." To discuss the fairness or unfairness of the law, the entire scope must be discussed. If you do NOT, then you merely address part of the issue; any proposed alteration will fail to correct inequities related to the portion of the issue you refuse to discuss (or might even make them worse), and a decision that nothing needs to change can have the same effect.

As for calling me a troll... I'm not the one who's been accusing other people here of saying things they didn't even allude to. That's why I came out swinging, because if there's one thing I won't tolerate, it's someone trying to "argue" with me by misattributing and making me look like an ass in the process.

Cher:
I've not once argued that the male should be allowed to force an abortion - and I wouldn't argue that the male should be allowed to force a birth, either. However... well, on to Jodi.

Jodi... first, I'm not "steadfastly refusing to answer the question." I told you, outright, that I can't adequately answer it. There's a difference. The point I'm getting at is that this entire argument has now boiled down to a thumbing of the nose at males, with a "life sucks, get a helmet mentality." And telling me to "write a check to the right-to-life brigade"... sorry, I'm not in the habit of supporting terrorists, thanks.

As for not stating my opinion, I've stated it very clearly. You didn't ask my opinion; you asked me for solutions. I don't have any. Of course, neither do you; you don't think there's anything wrong. I do NOT think that current law CAN be changed effectively, for precisely the reasons you've all consistently mentioned. That, however, doesn't mean it's right or fair. The original post, albeit offered by a woman, expresses the frustration men feel over a system which is outrageously skewed against them... and which can be and is used against them as a bludgeon. I don't know HOW to fix it, or I'd offer my ideas up.

For you, however, to take the stance that it's "right," when it's clearly not, I can't accept... and I won't. Do you not see the logic hole of taking the "it's not fair, deal with it attitude" and then saying "sure, it's right"?

Melin:
Actually, I owe you a bit of an apology; I committed the crime I accused Jodi of earlier, and only just realized it while reviewing the thread. I still don't appreciate the "that may be what you meant" comment, but you DID apologize for the misconstrual, and I should have caught that and graciously let it go at that. I do apologize for that failure.


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

Lucky:

At no time in this debate have we been talking about couples who divorce and what happens to the kids thereafter. Get a grip.

I'm sorry. Perhaps you're under the assumption that no deadbeat dads used to be husbands? Perhaps you think that's a different aspect of custody issues? One would tend to suspect that the person objecting to the introduction of a relevant aspect of the issue is the one in need of a "grip," as opposed to the one who introduces it.

Melin:

That may be what you meant, but IMHO that's not what the primary inference was in your original post.

"May be" what I meant? Please don't presume to tell me what I meant, and more to the point, please don't attempt to insult my meaning. (Although, in the future, maybe I'll just forget to make those side qualifications, so I can truly be the misogynist bastard y'all seem to want me to be...)

BTW, I agree with you about the school year/summer custodial splits. Ridiculous.

Jodi:

You say I "cannot argue that the rights of both parties are equal at the time the underwear hits the floor." I can, and I do.

then:

If by "abrogate legal responsibility" you mean the option to have an abortion, I certainly do recognize this is a gender-based inequity -- I admitted as much in my very first post.

One conflicts with the other...

But it is a NECESSARY gender-based inequity because the WOMAN is having the baby and it must be HER decision whether or not
to have an abortion, because no one can force her to do so if she doesn't want to.

Here's the problem. Now, I'm not about to get into an abortion argument; that's not the issue. However, what I'm trying to get across, and don't seem to be able to, is that the argument here is "Women can decide not to be mothers after behaving irresponsibly, but if men behave irresponsibly, tough. They shoulda kept their pants on."

You see where there's a problem here? When an abortion opponent implies that a woman should "accept the responsibility," watch out, because crap's gonna start flying. Why should it be different the other way?

Since this is the question under
consideration, how does attempting to address it constitute a "meaningless diversion"?

It's not. Saying discussing the situation before that point is irrelevant is. The question of paternal right and responsibility does not begin with a woman's decision to keep the child; it begins when a man and woman decide to get it on in the first place. Cutting off the portion of time between sex and decision is not only neglecting a vital part of the discussion, but, frankly, it also places the emphasis where it shouldn't belong. The "cure" to the "problem" is, or should be, preventing unwanted pregnancy... and by unwanted, I refer to the desires of both parties.

This is, of course, irrelevant to the question of whether you should be obligated to support your biological children that you know to exist.

Legally. Not morally.

Let's try to keep this civil, shall we? I have and will refrain from making snide remarks and I'd appreciate it if you'd attempt to do the same.

I found your response to be snide, as well as unfounded. Had you, indeed, read the entire comment in question, you never would have tossed up a straw man to attempt to get me to argue something I never implied. If you don't want snide, don't deliver it.

No, he should not. The woman decides whether to have the baby, true enough, but as stated 400 times above, this is how it must be because she is the pregnant person.

Yup. That's correct. And it results in a gender-based inequity. Women completely explode if a gender-based inequity negatively impacts them... and God forbid a man turn around and say, "No, it's not fair, but... deal with it."


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

I can't begine to tell you how rewarding it is to see that my post has prompted such voluminuous discussion!

So much so that you've all left me in the dust! how could I hope to catch up?

Carry on....

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

Don't meddle in the affairs of dragons, cuz, like, you're crunchy
and taste good with ketchup.

I'm sorry, folks, but I've lost all patience with Jon. He's sucked all the intertest out of this debate by being obtuse, and I can't stand to listen to him stomping his feet and throwing a temper tantrum any longer.
For christ's sake, Jon, Jodih gave you multiple choice questions and you still didn't answer her.
It's too bad, really, as this was a very interesting thread.

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

Well, Jon, it seems to me we've stepped away from the issue at hand to a discussion of what is "fair." You seem to feel that it is not "fair" to expect a biological parent to financially support a child that he or she did not want. But, at the same time, you admit that you have no better solution for how the support of the child could be handled. In other words, you think the law is not fair, but you have no idea how to make it fairer.

Neither do I. Someone MUST support the child and that someone should be its biological parents. The fact that one parent would prefer not to suffer that financial burden cannot outweigh the child's right to support. This situation exists precisely because there isn't any other way to handle it that is not more unfair than this solution. You seem to say that the current system may be the way it has to be, but it's still unfair. I would argue, to the contrary, that if the current system represents the most fair solution, and in fact the only reasonable solution, it is, by definition, not unfair.

You say:

As for not stating my opinion, I've stated it very clearly. You didn't ask my opinion; you asked me for solutions. I don't have any.

You don't like it, but you admit you don't have any better idea for how to handle the problem under discussion. What you have, then, are only complaints. It would be hard for me to argue that you don't have the right to complain about something (even when you don't have a better idea), but your complaints are hardly something I need to exert myself to address. But you HAVE finally answered me by admitting:

I do NOT think that current law CAN be changed effectively, for precisely the reasons you've all consistently mentioned.

Okay, thank you. Now I can stop repeating myself.

That, however, doesn't mean it's right or fair.

Of course it does. The child must be supported and the biological parents should bear the responsibility for that support. Placing that burden on their shoulders is "right" because the alternative (placing the burden on the state) is not right. It is also fair: it's your child; your child needs support; someone must support your child; that someone ought to be you. This does not represent a system that is "outrageously skewed against" men. It certainly does subordinate the rights of the reluctant parent (which is not, BTW, in every case the male) to the rights of the child, but that is because the child is the one truly innocent party and the one in need of support. If the system is occasionally used "as a bludgeon" against men, that is hardly an argument for abolishing the system entirely. Any number of laws may be abused; that doesn't mean they should be repealed. But, you're not arguing for the law to be repealed, are you? Because you admit "I don't know HOW to fix it, or I'd offer my ideas up." All you're doing is complaining about it.

For you, however, to take the stance that it's "right," when it's clearly not, I can't accept... and I won't.

You have not convinced me the existing solution is not the right solution, and you have not even tried to do so. I, on the other hand, have repeatedly explained why it is the fairest possible solution and therefore, by definition, the right solution. If you don't want to accept it, you can argue against it; but you admit you can't do that, either, beyond simply repeating that "it's not fair."

Do you not see the logic hole of taking the "it's not fair, deal with it attitude" and then saying "sure, it's right"?

No, as a matter of fact, I do not. The thinking there is as follows: It's not unfair, it is in fact the best available solution and therefore the right solution. Even if YOU think it is unfair, you still can't come up with a better solution and you admit the child needs support, so deal with it.

You are right, however, if you sense a lack of sympathy on my part for the parents who have children and then would prefer not to support those children. To them I say: These are YOUR children, and they need support. I don't care if they came into existence with or without your permission, because at this point that is irrelevant --they exist and they need support. You, as a biological parent, have the legal and moral duty to support them. Don't like it? Tough. I don't care if such parents write their support checks kicking and screaming, moaning and whining, so long as those checks get written.

And I'm not addressing whether child support can't be used as a weapon by one parent against another -- it can, but the circumstances under which it might be is a subject for another thread. The question under discussion here is whether the fact that a parent did not want a child should abrogate that parent's responsibility to finanically support that child. The answer to this question is "no" -- an answer with which you apparently do not disagree.

You seem to feel that it is not "fair" to expect a biological parent to financially support a child that he or she did not want.

I do NOT, Jodi. What I feel is not fair is that legally, if I get someone pregnant, I don't even have the right to know... and it just goes downhill from there. (And I strongly suspect that even if our technology reached the point where an embryo could be removed from a woman who wasn't willing to be a mother, it wouldn't change for the benefit of a willing father.)

In fact, if you've paid attention, most of my argument has revolved around the unfairness to a WILLING father.

Neither do I. Someone MUST support the child and that someone should be its biological parents. The fact that one parent would prefer not to suffer that financial burden cannot outweigh the child's right to support.

From somewhere, and not from the public, absolutely. What you're conveniently forgetting in this debate is the intricacies.

Support isn't based on what the child requires. It's based on what the couple make, combined. Do you realize that, using Virginia's guidelines, a non-custodial parent making $50,000 can be placed in a position where they can't reasonably afford to live within 20 miles of Dulles Airport? That's not a "right to support," it's highway robbery (regardless of the gender of the non-custodial parent), and realistically has little to do with the actual expense of caring for the child.

Kids have a "right" to eat decently, and not freeze to death, and have warm clothes. They don't have a "right" to the toy fad of the year, or an endless supply of junk food, or designer jeans they'll outgrow in three months. If families of four can get by on $20K a year, I see no rational excuse for the law forcing someone to shell out half that for the "support" of one child.

It would be hard for me to argue that you don't have the right to complain about something...

Well, you know, it's the only right y'all are willing to grant me, being male and all.

Of course it does. The child must be supported and the biological parents should bear the responsibility for that support. Placing that burden on their shoulders is "right" because the alternative (placing the
burden on the state) is not right.

A system which places 100% of the burden on even an unwilling parent is not "right." (And that applies both ways! I fully agree that it's not fair for a custodial parent to bear the whole burden, either!)

It is also fair: it's your child; your child needs support; someone must support your child; that someone ought to be you.

TWO someones must support that child.

This does not represent a system that is "outrageously skewed against" men. It certainly does subordinate the rights of the reluctant parent (which is not, BTW, in every case the male) to the rights of the child, but that is because the child is the one truly innocent party and the one in need of support.

Here... you worry me, Jodi. It absolutely IS skewed against men; one look at the percentage of custody awards going to men and women should make this clear. Courts have a blatantly clear policy of "preferring" the mother, except when she's patently unfit or the father would be able to provide an environment which is vastly superior to that which the mother can provide. And it doesn't stop there. I've never seen pictures of women on post office walls for failing to provide proper visitation. I've never heard of women losing their drivers' licenses for it, either. Produce me evidence of the former, or show me a statute in ANY state where the latter is mandated, and I'll gracefully bow out. Hell, I'd completely accept the initial inequities if the REST of the system was fair...

If the system is occasionally used "as a bludgeon" against men, that is hardly an argument for abolishing the system entirely.

And where, Jodi, have I even remotely suggested "abolishing the system entirely"? I don't quite grasp where this need to misrepresent my views comes from.

I would refer you to my initial post in the original thread, where I quite clearly stated that the original poster's idea wasn't kosher... yet you continue to harp on me as if I'm in favor of handing men a free pass.

Any number of laws may be abused; that doesn't mean they should be repealed. But, you're not arguing for the law to be repealed, are you? Because you admit "I don't know HOW to fix it, or I'd offer my ideas up." All you're doing is complaining about it.

The reason I don't know how to fix it is that I'm not a damned economist, nor am I a lawyer. I don't know how to refigure laws and guidelines so that they're fair. What I DO know is that I've seen too many men paying support so that the mother can have a slack-ass unemployed live-in boyfriend (which the law won't do anything about)... or so she can drive a shiny new car while the father gets stuck in a rusted-out beater he can't trust to make it the five-hundred miles to pay his kids a visit after she decides it'd be cool to live somewhere else (which the law won't do anything about)... I think you get the picture.

I won't bother quoting your last paragraphs; really, it should have been clear that I agree. In fact, -I- have no sympathy for men who get women pregnant and then shrug their shoulders and try to dodge the responsibility. If we are going to say that the discussion is ONLY about those sorts of men, rather than about the overall issue of the fairness of women having the sole discretion, then fine. We're all in agreement, and we can shut up. I digressed, because comments were made which pushed me toward that digression... and my digression was argued with. It is those arguments that I find unsympathetic, offensive, and laced with reverse sexism.

Or, put another way, fine. I digressed. Mea culpa. That I digressed doesn't mean my points are invalid, nor does it warrant an inaccurate and misleading representation of my opinion based on things I haven't said.

As for you, Lucky, I really couldn't care less whether you've lost patience with me. I lost mine with you a few replies ago, and I count myself fortunate that I don't have the displeasure of knowing you. Whereas Jodi has, for the most part, even in the midst of violent disagreement, been attempting to make a point, you've pretty much just been a twit from the start.


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

Okay, we appear to have pretty much exhausted the question initially presented in this thread. Jon now wants to divert the discussion to not just one other issue, but several other issues, ranging from the gender inequities of custody awards to the amount of support to which a child should entitled to whether the entire "system" is bias against men. Maybe Jon will find people who want to discuss these topics, but I'm not one of them. In general, I find divorce, custody, and child-support issues to be boring and fraught with emotionalism, which is why I don't practice that type of law. Since the true subject of this thread appears to be exhausted, you won't mind if I excuse myself at this point.

Boy, this thread just turned to shit.


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

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

Man, we were really getting down to brass tacks on teh first version of this thread. Jodih, Diane, Melin..all really had the issues boiled down. Heck, they won me over to their side.

Baby wins! Thousands of thrilled posters go home to rest from protracted partying.

Man, we were really getting down to brass tacks on teh first version of this thread. Jodih, Diane, Melin..all really had the issues boiled down. Heck, they won me over to their side. - Thor

We are kinda irresistible, aren't we.


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

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

I'd like to summarize with an anecdote.

One day my boyfriend and I were discussing politics. The question rolled around to abortion. He was pro-life (not rabidly); I was pro-choice (not rabidly). We argued for a while. Then we reached the obvious conclusion that it was really fucking stupid for two gay guys to be arguing about abortion.

::giggle:: Thanks, Matt! That was my best laugh of the day!

-Melin

------------------
Phenomenal woman
Bitch Corporate Lawyer
That's me