It’s her body, so she has more time to make her choice. That’s not unfair. That’s biology. You have every opportunity to make your own choice.
I take this to mean we are done debating.
So you mean that sex is only for procreation?
I’ll admit it: it’s not fair that the mother has more of a choice over whether a child is born than the father does. That’s more an issue of biology than anything else, but I’ll grant that the situation is not entirely equal (although I support the right to an abortion of any man who finds himself pregnant). However, there’s a greater societal interest at stake than maximizing fairness and equality to all parties. To quote…well, me, when this came up in the last thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10808344&postcount=112
Thank you pravnik. I don’t agree with the flawed premise that you need to have it be as unfair a choice as it is but I can at least follow the logic and understand why you feel that way. I guess for me, as a father of 3 myself (kids whom I love dearly), losing a custody battle (which is a separate argument) would mean me paying child support. Which I would gladly do, albeit I’d probably handle it or try to handle it a bit differently than the court apportioned one.
I mean that vaginal intercourse carries a risk of procreation, and men are assuming that risk with full knowledge and consent before they choose to do it.
Custody issues have nothing to do with this thread.
Yes. The present system enables women to place most of the financial burden of supporting children on the man (who, again, may not even be the actual father), allows her to avoid most of the responsibility for her actions while denying him any say in the matter and any contact with his supposed children. It encourages exploitation, as well as hatred between the sexes. It’s both unjust and destructive to society.
Ah. And I suppose to even things out women who get abortions should be permanently sterilized?
An attitude that is nothing but the mirror image of the anti-abortionist ranting that the “slut should have kept her legs shut”.
Hardly. No choice is being taken away from the man, nor any imposition on his body.
No imposition on his body, true; it’s hardly the same thing to say his choice has no been taken away though. Not every case of pregnancy is as black and white as an irresponsible couple using no protection. There are plenty of examples of pregnancy while on birth control, condom failure, condom sabotage, and flat out lying on the part of the mother regarding birth control on occasion. A man who takes reasonable precaution against pregnancy can hardly be seen as giving his consent to fatherhood. He took action against that very thing.
This is an imperfect analogy but perhaps it will illustrate my point. Suppose you take your classic car into a custom shop to be worked on. You tell the guy there that you would like some restoration done on the interior. He asks you how much, and you reply just enough to get it looking acceptable, you understand that there may be some risk of running up the bill, but for him to minimize that risk wherever possible. He says that he agrees with you and will act likewise to keep the investment minimal. When you return in a few weeks to pick up your ride, you see that an extreme overhaul has been done an he hands you a bill for 50K. He tells you, tough shit, you singed off for me to do the work, and I alone had the decision making capability of what was “acceptable”. Now pay up, and until you pay in full I’m keeping the car.
Now obviously in the real world there are all sorts of legalities to cover you, and kids aren’t cars. The point though, is that in both cases you accepted a small amount of risk while making efforts to protect yourself from an unwanted and preventable outcome.
Having to work for 18-years to support a kid he never wanted is an imposition on his body.
He made the choice to be a father.
We had a guy at work with four kids with two women. Woman A had kid 1, then kid 2 was with woman B two years later. Then a year later he had another kid with woman A. Six months later a kid with woman B.
I have a pretty tough time looking at that situation and saying, “That poor guy. He had no idea whatsoever that could happen. Four times. Since 2007. It’s a real mystery.”
IMHO, Yeah, as long as adoption exists. Genetic ties either mean something or they don’t and if we’re going to treat blood relationships as meaningless ties severed by law where one type of parents are concerned, that right should be extended to any type of parents who no longer wish to be parents.
No, he choose to have sex, just like the women involved. The women then choose not to have abortions when birth control failed. The man had no choice. This isn’t the middle ages. We have the technology to reduce most of the risks associated with sex. People who choose not to use it deserve no more pity or consideration that someone who suffers from any other easily treated medical condition.
There are a number of basic premises here that are wrong. This whole argument is being couched in terms of blame and responsibility and fairness, when really those are marginal issues. The deal with child support is “Who pays for this kid? The taxpayers or the parents?” The deal with abortion is “Should women have the right to make medical decisions about their bodies?” These questions are not particularly related, and there is no need to find some sort of “balance” between them.
Anyway:
Child support is not about punishing men.
Abortion is not about providing a “free pass” for women.
Now, it may work out that way, but that’s a consequence, not a cause. That’s just how things happen to work. It’s not fair that some cities are sunny and some are rainy. Life is life.
Men can receive child support.
If the system is so unfair men do not have the ability to gain custody of their child and receive child support, then that is the system that needs to be changed. I’d get behind that 100%.
But it’s funny, for every guy complaining he didn’t get a fair shot at custody of his kid, we get 20 guys complaining about having to pay child support. Something tells me even if the custody system was 100% fair, and even if men had 100% of the decision of what to do with a fetus…men would still complain about having to take care of the kids they sired. How many unwanted kids were unwanted from conception, anyway? In my experience the guy wants to have kids and probably sticks around for a couple of years before deciding he has better things to do than raise his family.
He knows that pregnancy may result, and he willingly, knowingly assumed that risk.
Some random thoughts:
[ol]
[li]I can’t fathom not paying child support for my own child. No matter how odious the mother may be, and no matter if I wanted it or not, that kid is part me (in some sense), and I wouldn’t want it to suffer.[/li][li]Having said that, just because I can’t fathom not wanting to pay child support, I can see that some men don’t want to pay for kids they didn’t want. Just as some women would never personally have an abortion, but want women in general to be able to make that choice for themselves. Similarly, even though I would not exercise this right, it would be more fair if men had the option, before the fetus is X weeks old to say “I want out” via a legal document, and if the woman continues and has the baby, she has to support it by herself[/li][li]On the other hand, ‘fairness’ aside, it looks like the current system results in the best overall well-being of society in terms of having kids (especially from lower socioeconomic strata) taken care of.[/li][li]This brings up an interesting question: Should we optimize society for fairness or for the economic well-being of the citizens? If some form of monarchy can be proven to result in a higher standard of living for all citizens than any form of democracy, should we chose that monarchy even if it is not as fair as democracy (since not everyone gets a vote in the monarchy) ?[/li][/ol]
Actually the argument for balance does boil down to “fairness” to some degree. I believe that each person should be as free as possible to decide what to do with their own body and life. Since I support a woman’s right to choose, and thus control her own body and destiny, I have to likewise support a man’s right to be in control of his fate as well. Now since biologically speaking the equation is skewed, true balance can never really be achieved, and I grant that. However, Currently the system allows one partner to decide about her body, and the future of both herself AND her partner. I believe that goes too far and encourages, rather than discourages carrying pregnancies to term. There is plenty of data out there that shows women will do this for any number of reasons beyond a well thought out decision to start a family. THAT is the problem. No amount of money will make up for a stable loving family, and we are not in dire need of growing the population at any rate. Simply put, if women knew there was a significant chance that there would be no support from the father, there would be a great deal fewer unwanted pregnancies brought to term. That would be a net benefit for society, and the population in general.
I’m sympathetic to your overall argument, but I can’t quite help being reminded of an anti-abortionist saying that illegal abortion would not be an imposition; a woman knowingly assumes the risk of pregnancy when having sex. (Ignoring, momentarily, issues of coercion.) In both cases – a woman being forced to carry a baby to term and a man being forced to provide for that child until adulthood – sacrifices have to be made by both parties, and I’m not comfortable saying one is more or less onerous. To say otherwise certainly seems a little … unempathic toward the male.
(To be honest … when I was younger and more opinionated, I believed that – because a man essentially provides only genetic material – the child is utterly, entirely the woman’s. To posit that genetic material ties a man to his child is almost like imparting something magical or spooky to it. The woman creates the child from her own flesh; the man should have neither responsibility for providing for the child nor any rights to that child. Now I’m much more open to the practical argument that somebody has to care for the child, but I haven’t entirely shaken that point of view.)