Abortion for men and SSM marriage are about as comparable to each other as sea monkeys and belly button lint, but go ahead and knock yourself out.
Aren’t you assuming that if that happened that the woman would want the baby and not want to have an abortion in order to make the father pay for a child unwillingly?
That is the kind of crazy this thread was supposed to stay devoid of.
Why would that be in her best interest? I thought we were talking about the best interest of the child?
I don’t know if you noticed but its 2011 now.
Am I missing something? ZPG Zealot’s positions seems pretty clear to me. What secret agenda do you think Zealot has?
The idea is that women who do not want to have abortions, and this appears to be escaping the notice of a whole bunch of people in this thread but there are women who do not want to have abortions and the whole point of choice is actually having a choice, will try to avoid being forced into an abortion. And one of the avenues might be for them to avoid getting identified as pregnant.
Which means lots of bad potential outcomes.
To be fair none of these changes have a chance in hell of obtaining legislative approval. If legislative approval were the standard then there would be very little debate
And the many times it’s been said in this thread, if an oops happens and the woman doesn’t want to have an abortion, she has two or three choices. The father can pay for the child willingly. The woman can have the baby solo. Or she could give the baby up for adoption.
That is a whole lot of choice, all siding with the mother.
No, but the rationale is identical.
Yes you are. It isn’t the mother she wants to see penniless, but the child. The intention is to ensure the child is as badly off as possible.
I was talking of economic rationality.
I don’t read that into the words that were typed, at all. Maybe you are a bit paranoid? Are you attributing the same to the other advocates in this thread or just her?
Not at all. I’d say the motivation for some other people lies more in the punish the slut mentality. Others have a simple misunderstanding of the situation.
I’m not sure what you’re asking.
What I’m saying is that if you allow men to opt out of child support within a window of time during pregnancy–only while an abortion is feasible (That’s the key, right? Otherwise, the opt-out setup for men gets even more sillier and crazier, let alone much more unfair for women and children, and thus exponentially more unlikely to become accepted by society, but heh, if Lenny and George can dream, so can we)–this means it will be incumbent upon a woman to notify the man of her pregnancy.
This implies that a woman has to know she is pregnant not only in time to get an abortion but also in time for a man to come to decision.
But it’s legally infeasible to hold a woman responsible for diagnosing herself with a pregnancy. It’s not unheard of a woman to not know she’s pregnant until very late. Women are not omniscient and many have pre-existing conditions that can easily mask a pregnancy. Furthermore, even if a woman knows she’s pregnant, she could simply keep that information to herself and claim to be ignorant until the child is born. How could anyone realistically prove otherwise? If a woman didn’t want to get an abortion, it would be in her best interest to keep her pregnancy a secret until after an abortion becomes feasible, so the father doesn’t have time to opt out.
Damuri seems to think the state will gladly step up to pay the bill in those situations in which a man contests paying child support, but as a taxpayer for the “state” I gladly assure him that he would be wrong in that.
Maybe you’re envisioning the same kind of silly proposal that ZPG has, in which the default would be that men would not be responsible for their offspring unless they signed the right forms. But this idea is so stupid and fanciful (really, you might as well be asking politicians to require alll water fountains dispense blueberry milk shakes), that I can’t imagine you’d really be suggesting that as a fair alternative to the status quo. But maybe you are.
And see, I’d rather not a single person involved was punished at all.
As it stands now though, the only ‘punishment’ comes to the father (and I’d wager, in some cases to the child) That is, unless you are going to classify birthing a child as punishment.
I think a pre-pregnancy contract has a lot more chance of passing muster than the other ideas proposed in this thread. It’s not that much different than a pre-nup and ensures that both parties are on the same page. Plus, it’s the only arrangement that I can think of that’s fair to both men and women, with little cost to society.
And yet wackjob ideas like ZPG’s are what we’re given to argue against. Is there any wonder policy on this is not likely to change any time soon?
It’s not likely to change because there’s only one party in the whole mess who definitely got his rocks off, and it ain’t the taxpayer.
And even the most hypocritical pro-lifer can’t want to encourage more abortion. I don’t think I’m that naive in saying that.
Why would anyone WANT to see that?
I don’t WANT to see ANYONE penniless, mother or child. I just don’t see why the state cannot step in to support single mothers. Why do we force men to support children that they never wanted?
The argument has been proposed that if we don’t hold these men accountable then the number of illegitimate children will explode. It is not at all clear that child support has that sort of effect on effect on the number of unwanted pregnancies. If there is an effect it does not appear to be a particularly dramatic effect.
Why are the best interests of the child better served by having the check come from the reluctant father than from the state? Or are we really concerned about women being able to raise their children based on how rich the sperm donor is?
People are not driven solely by economic rationality. Being able to look at yourself in the mirror can be as significant a driver of behaviour too.
Who has taken a punish the slut mentality? I think that anyone that says that men are responsible for child support as soon as they ejaculate in a vagina has a “punish the male slut” mentality but in a thread where noone has proposed limiting abortion rights, how has anyone proposed “punish the slut”?
So the woman ignores pre-natal care all for the sake of tricking a guy into paying child support? Is that what you are proposing?
You do not determine how taxes are spent, the elected representatives do. We have ALWAYS provided state support for children that needed it. ALWAYS. They don’t live in the lap of luxury but we support them. Gladly or not, we will step up and pay the bill in those situations.