Yes, it’s usually lively.
Stoid
author of the original: Abortion for Men, a thread so old it no longer is searchable. Oldest version of this debate I could find.
Except - I think that no child would exist in many, many, many cases if the mother knew she couldn’t force the father to pay child support if he elected to give up his parental rights.
So there’s that.
-
Children are raised in poverty all the time in two parent households.
-
See my response to GreasyJack. Adoption is a red herring; there isn’t the demand for children to consider it as a common ‘solution’ to dealing with an unwanted pregnancy.
-
Who supports these unwanted kids until they are adopted (if they ever are)? We do, so your stance is that we create more orphans?
And, again, read my response to GreasyJack. All of this is ignores the real question, which is, “is it in society’s best interest to allow parents to give up responsibility for a child unilaterally just because he/she wants to?”
All the rest is contortionism in an effort to free men from responsibility for their children.
That sounds like a value judgment. Like you are willing to impose your morals on men but not on women. Like you think a woman should have a choice and that we should tilt that choice in favor of giving birth by imposing a burden on the man against his will that we would not impose on the woman against her will.
And why isn’t the woman taking the same risk when she engages in intercourse? Because she gets a SECOND BITE AT THE APPLE with abortion. This may be the best social policy going forward but its not obvious to me that you are apply the same standard to the man as you are to the woman.
Do the women have any say in whether they get pregnant in your hypothetical?
Isn’t that what abortion does?
The trouble I have with the system is that it doesn’t address (and I’d argue even exacerbates) the root causes of the problems. I don’t even think it does a very good job addressing the symptoms. Like I said above, I know quite a lot of people who are on both sides of this situation (teen and unwed pregnancy is something of an epidemic here), and I’ve never met a dad who paid child support who wasn’t an active part of their kid’s life (and would have been with or without court order). Conversely, the real deadbeats almost never actually pay child support, mostly because it’s a blood-from-a-turnip situation. Sure it’s all anecdotal (I’m not sure how you’d quantify it), but that’s how it is in every situation I’m aware of. Maybe they are active fathers who work hard to support their families because they’re afraid the court will take their drivers’ license or hold them in contempt of court or whatever, but I doubt it. Women aren’t the only people with parental instincts.
I think child support should still absolutely be a tool available to family courts, and enforcement should be ramped up on those trying to welsh out of parental commitments they willingly made. But I think our society and contraceptive technology has advanced to the point that it is no longer the default assumption that having sex with someone means you are consenting to start a family with them. Yes, deciding to give up a child for adoption or abortion is a hard choice but part of the way modern societies work is that we make hard decisions that run contrary to our evolutionary programing when that course of action is actually beneficial to us.
Principled? Ha!
Again, this is not an argument about abstract principles or some sense of morals or justice that is removed from the physical realities of the situation, but an argument about practical and reasonable ways to deal with these issues on a socital leval.
I’ll quote myself here:
Whadya think?
Well I never used any of those terms, but you are correct. Emotional arguments, and ridiculous religious superstition are extremely poor reasons to bring a new life into this world without the means to adequately care for it.
Of course they do.
Sure. But there is no way to logic your way out of this situation to “level the playing field,” or whatever. I can neither force a woman to have an abortion, nor can I forbid it. Once the deed is done, them’s the breaks. Allowing a man to disconnect himself from responsibility for the kid is not a solution to this power disparity. There isn’t one.
I think it’s clearly not in society’s best interest. Some reasons:
- It encourages risky behavior in men, since they will not bear the risk.
- It will encourage abortion, which I don’t see as a negative, but certainly some do.
- It raises the burden financially and socially on society.
- It increases the risk for women.
- It increases the risk for children.
- And for the men, if it really came to fruition, you’d likely not get as much sex. I have a tough time seeing that as a negative either, but again some do.
There are huge waiting lists for couples looking to adopt infants. And it’s not like every single child born into poverty would be placed in a comfortable middle-class home. Situations where the dad literally wants no part a child but the mom keeps it anyways are thankfully rare. The census bureau link above says that only 30% of custodial parents were never married, and of course plenty of those were in relationships where both partner agreed to keep an unplanned child.
I am indeed raising just such a child at the moment.
The trouble is that the answer to the question of whether a woman should be unilaterally able to decide to start a family and obligate another person to a lifelong obligation is also obviously no. I believe that the societal harm caused by enforcing the idea that the answer is yes to this question outstrips what benefits it confers in some situations.
I will agree with you that the truth of the “benefit to society” aspect of this argument is probably in data that is not avaliable to us.
Doubt no further. I have seen many, many parents delinquent on their support get current on their payments when faced with jail time for criminal nonsupport. I’ve seen many more who would greatly prefer not to have to make child support payments at all, but do it anyway because they’re legally required to. That probably describes the majority of obligors.
One problem there: it’s unconstitutional to treat children born out of wedlock to a parent who didn’t want a kid differently than those born to married parents who wanted children at the time of their birth. It’s also unconstitutional to force women to have abortions or to give their children up for adoption en masse (and even if it weren’t, Eonwe is correct - there aren’t enough adoptive parents or orphanages in the country to take the millions of children in single parent homes below the poverty line). villa had it correct way back in post 6: the child support obligation creates a legal right to support for the child, and you can’t make that right contingent on the desires of the parent. You either have to extend child support to all children or do away with it altogether, and there’s no middle ground. We keep talking about a parent’s willingness or unwillingness to enter into parental obligations, but that not only isn’t a concern in whether children get child support or not, it can’t be.
1: by that logic, does the present system encourage risky behavior in women?
2: I don’t think that’s relevant to a strict analysis of benefit to society. Plus it equally encourages contraception and adoption which aren’t (as) stigmatized.
3: Arguable. (see thread)
4: how? Maybe these hypothetical women need to take more responsibility for their reproductive health.
5: how? I guess it increases the risk of unwanted children ceasing to exist.
6: If this means less sex with women who’s backup plan for a failed contraceptive is forcing their partner to raise a child against their will, I think most would see this as a benefit.
And you don’t think that number would go up dramatically if men were allowed to give up kids free of consequence? Also, what about those potential adoptees who belong to . . . less desirable demographics and/or come from less desirable backgrounds? Many of them are likely to not get adopted at all.
- She hasn’t unilaterally decided to start a family and obligated another person to lifelong obligation. As I said upthread, unwanted and/or unlikely consequence does not absolve a person from being ready to accept that consequence if it does arrive.
If my girlfriend got pregnant and wanted to keep the baby, it would not be “her fault” that I was obligated to be a father. It would be my fault for fathering a child!
- Look at jsgoddess’ post. All of those consequences to allowing parents to quit responsibility for their children are, IMO, pretty clearly true. The fact that you’re willing to argue that letting parents abandon their children at no consequence is better for society at large than requiring some degree of responsibility from all parents involved is baffling and almost unbelievable.
Did I say that? If I did, I certainly don’t mean it, and we do not agree. It is obvious to me, and I think it is to you as well, that despite concrete data, parents abandoning children to their other parent free of consequence is officially a Bad Thing.
How about we give men their ‘just consequence’ by charging them a (oh say $500) fee for giving up the baby.
That’s not a just consequence. It takes a lot more than $500 to raise a child. Their just consequence is half the cost of raisng a child for 18 years.
OTOH, but it is roughly equal to the cost of an abortion, don’t cha know.
What is it with ‘justice’? This isn’t about fairness or justice; please don’t put words in my mouth. It’s about whether a world in which men can get women pregnant (men and women can get each other pregnant? whatever) and then walk away, leaving the women or society as a whole with the responsibility of raising the kid is a good thing.
Here’s a hint: it’s not, and the law needs to reflect this.
And, yes, it’s equally bad regardless of the gender of the person walking away, and thus a woman abandoing her child to its father should be just as financially responsible for that kid as a father abanding his child to its mother, IMO.
Well, there are huge waiting lists for couples looking to adopt HEALTHY WHITE INFANTS, yes. Those kids who are not healthy, or not white, or no longer infants are not in demand. In fact, there are long waiting lists for these kids who are looking for someone to adopt them. And, in fact, I’m sure that most of these kids don’t really care if it’s a heterosexual couple, a same sex couple, or even a single adult who would like to adopt them…as long as SOMEONE adopts them.