That’s a disingenuous question. You’d have to show that any fathers wanted to stop the adoption and were denied. The fact is few fathers try.
No, he didn’t. Whether there is an obligation or not, is dependent on the choice made by just one party within a two-party action.
In a two-party action, when party A has an obligation forced upon him at the behest of party B, while party B has no reciprical obligation to party A, an inequity in law is created that is not compatible with the American system of jurisprudence, which is founded under the principle of “Equal Justice Under the Law”.
Oh, ha ha. I was talking about abortion, specifically it being under the sole control of the woman, and you know it.
If you leave abortion out of this discussion, at any point, the entire discussion melts completely away. It would be good if people remembered that.
As opposed to pre-coital opt-in, you mean? What about “avoids tons of he-said-she-said arguments going to court” and “has some prayer of being implementable at a practical level in real life”?
I’m a man who doesn’t engage in casual sex, and while engaged used abstinence as a contraceptive. (Not “we’re waiting for marriage”, either. Pure contraceptive. Made the sexplay damn frustrating at times, too.) I assure you that for me at least, this is a legal/equal rights issue.
And speaking of this, I’m extremely dubious that the “make the father pay” side is really motivated by concern for society or the children (especially those who are arguing the “don’t make ME pay for your kids” line). I think that it’s all about moral outrage. Those deadbeat dads! Fucking so casually, all the time! They should be ashamed of themselves. But they’re not, so instead we’ll slap them with a massive ongoing fine as punishment for their moral indescretion!
I don’t even think it’s about disincentivizing casual sex - because there’s little evidence that the threat of child support is very effective at that at all.
Personally I have doubt that this would make much difference regarding the poverty - though I don’t have any real numbers or even a pretense of them, one gets the impresseion that failure to make child support payments is a widespread and rampant problem - which would imply that what poverty would happen is probably largely happening anyway. Also it’s been noted that these child support payment, while sometimes debilitating to pay, are not necessarity a golden font of wealth and prosperity for the mother. (I could be wrong about all this, of course.)
I also think that moving the cost burden from the father to the mother doesn’t incentivize the act of sex, because to the (limited) degree that men are currently disincentivized from casual sex by the threat of child care, I would expect the replacing threat of being left high and dry to have an equivalent (limited) dicincentivizing effect on women. And since it takes two to tango, only one person has to be scared into taking their dance shoes and going home to avoid the problem entirely. (Since rape is still heavily disincentivized regardless.)
So yeah. There likely would be somewhat of an increase in the level of poverty that children born out of wedlock (the number of which may, or may not, increase or decrease) - but the question is whether that expected increase in poverty is a more pressing concern than the current inequity caused by women being able to opt out after the fact via abortion.
Very, very, few people are willing to go through legal hoops just to have sex with someone, even if they don’t have a particular problem with taking responsibility for unwanted pregnancies. So all your “opting-in” idea is going to result in is a whole bunch of kids being born without father support simply because neither of their parents could be bothered to fill out the requisite paperwork…and not because the father was against having kids. So then when these couples break up, it’ll be that much easier for him to walk away from his kids and leave mom (and taxpayers) with all the expenses.
This hasn’t a hope or a prayer of being implemented. It’s about as crazy the state requiring all women to undergo abortion unless they sign some kind of “opt-in” form.
At least with “opting-out” the default will be that men will take care of the kids they helped create. Which means that mere laziness or procastination won’t be enough to leave kids without the support they need.
Your obsession with referencing male orgasm in response to every third post is starting to seem a little kinky…
Sums it up for me as well.
(wow, never thought we’d agree on anything in this thread !)
I rather like the idea of an opt-out pre-coital form, if for no other reason than the more people think about the consequences of sex before having sex, the better. (I do not think opt-in would encourage this.)
Before having sex, I personally required a contractual obligation, and so did my partner, that should a fetus result from sex, we would jointly decide the fate of the fetus, and both be responsible should we jointly decide that fetus come to term. (This was, of course, marriage.)
ITT: what makes Stoid hot
Necessarily, there are two classes of men - those that do the paperwork, and those that don’t. It seems reasonable to assume that any man who presents an opt-out contract will be denied sex; any man that presents an opt-in contract (you know, a ‘warriage’) will be denied sex if the woman doesn’t want the sort of relationship that would be good for the kid. And a man who doesn’t offer a contract at all will be able to get sex anyway, as the current state of things tells us.
So. By making a opt-out contract you will basically be denying sex to responsible men. This will strongly encourage men to forego the contract and take their chances - and I figure that the few men who don’t will be the ones that are likely to pay child support properly or otherwise support the child. So this is basically a plan to maintain the status quo or maybe improve things a little in the least positive way possible.
Making an opt-in contract will, as you note, let irresponsible men leave women on their own. But it will also underscore to the women that the risk is all theirs. I’m betting that, since the woman can decide to be careful in bed as easily as the man can, that putting all the eggs in one basket will actually reduce the amount of babes borne out of wedlock. And even if babes do get born, the woman always has the abortion option, and can make it in a more informed manner if she doesn’t assume the man will support her (which he may or may not be very effective at).
The opt-in contract is basically the no-sex-before-marriage/shotgun-wedding arrangement, and frankly it actually surprises me that more conservatives aren’t avocating it. It punishes the promiscuous women, not the promiscuous men - which ain’t perfect, but women aren’t just simpleminded chattel anymore. A woman can decide for herself not to have casual sex with the man because it would take all the risk on herself, and if she decides instead that she likes the sex she can decide to get an abortion (which I’ll remind I’m great with making the man pay for), and avoid the risks completely that way too. I see no reason not to encourage that avenue, becase in terms of kids it seems likely to actually be better on average. Of course, my main objective here is not to punitively punish promiscuous men.
Opt-out is basically just the current unfair status quo with an irrelevent addendum. Any man who would try and get the contract signed before having sex (and not give up on that in short order ) will be too paranoid to be having casual sex anyway. This would change nothing - and perpetuate the inequality.
Nonsense - an abortion is something separate that must be done that has nothing to do with the government; whether the man needs to pay child support is a government matter. It’s nothing to the government either way to decide that rights are denied by default and must be requested or that they are granted by defaut and must be denied.
I always start to wonder about a position that inspires so many false analogies as this one seems to.
No - it means that responsibility will be punished, and that responsible men won’t get sex or have kids. And thus, responsibility in men regarding sex will be evolved out of the species…
Okay, that’s nto going to happen. What’s going to happen is the all these contracts will be dumped in the trash. Yay! That’ll help loads!
Opt-out forms would line birdcages - and only inspire thought in those already thinking. Opt-in contracts, are, as you note, marriages.
Odd to be shouted down for encouraging marriage…
Are you aware that some of the staunchest advocates for male “abortion” in this thread are women? That alone tells me its not reasonable at all to assume that women en masse will deny men sex when presented with an opt-out contract. Shoot, if I were in a relationship with a guy who I trusted and cared for, it’s far from a foregone conclusion that I would dismiss him simply for that. I’m not trying to have any unwanted children my own damn self. Women have sex drives, too.
The worrisome sentiment in this thread is that women just can not be trusted with anything. They can’t be trusted to not punch holes in a condom. They can’t be trusted to not lie and say one thing and then turn around and do something completely different. And they can’t even be trusted enough to have a rational conversation about sex and responsibilities without getting their wittle fwellings hwurt. Not just some women. But all women. Bullshit.
Depends how you define “responsible”. I think exhibiting some selectivity in who you sleep with and establishing some kind of non-sexual rapport with them that will allow you to communicate about reproduction in a productive manner is what defines “responsible”. For a man who is intensely worried about unwanted fatherhood, it would be irresponsible for him to do anything less.
Where is your evidence for this bet coming from? Rarely does putting all the eggs in one basket work very well. Another cliche that has served society well is Two heads are better than one.
If women are made to be 100% accountable for every unwanted pregnancy and men are made to be 0% accountable, that means that any given woman has to protect herself 100% of the time in order to guarantee zero pregnancies. That’s a lot of work for one person. Not only does she have to make sure she’s doing her part to stay pregnant-free, but she also has to make sure he’s doing his part, if any. Sure, he may help out her out with this by wearing a condom sometimes, but that’s all it is to him: helping her out. That’s a lot of work for one woman to put up with.
But if women are made to be 50% accountable and men are made to be 50% accountable, that means both sides of the equation have an active interest in protecting their gametes. So if she slacks off one day and forgets to take the pill, it’s probably going to be all right because he brought his Trojans. And if his condom bursts the next month, it’s okay because she’s compliant on the pills.
Two heads are better than one.
So do you think we should be treating men like irresponsible simpletons? That’s what you’re advocating.
And yes, please let’s punish promiscuous women, please! Men whine enough about how hard it is to get laid. What a brave new world it will be when women have even more hang ups about sex.
Could we not just pair up these baby-hungry women with men who beg every partner to ditch the condoms and let them ‘pull and pray’? I know plenty of them. Not sure if their habits would change with an opt-in contract.
I still think that signing contracts (and getting them notarized?) might be something of a mood-breaker. Remember, we’re not just talking about talking about sex - we’re talking about a binding legal contract. Before coitus.
And if it were opt-in, a reasonable man and woman could discuss the matter anyway. Personally, if I were a woman, I would be happy with a man who would frankly and openly caution me that under the law he wasn’t responsible, and wanted to be sure he wasn’t putting me in a position I didn’t want to be in. I’d be even more impressed if he didn’t have to have that discussion to cover his legal butt. But either way I wouldn’t want to have to call my lawyer before risking inviting him over for a movie date!
Rational conversation, nothing - you’re talking contract negotiations. And no way would a verbal he-said-she-said be a valid and legal opt-out in practice. Pretending otherwise is dishonest argument.
And I don’t think that women can’t be trusted here - except I don’t trust them to respect a man’s desire not to pay child support if they chose not to abort! “Hey, sex-friend, I know the government is making you pay, but I know you would have aborted given the choice, so here’s your money back.” Yeah right!
No - I think that women can, as a general rule, be trusted (there are of course excpetions - men too); I even trust them to be able to decide if they aren’t able to personally by themselves support a kid and act accordingly. If I didn’t, I couldn’t in good faith argue of opt-in!
Most men aren’t “intensely worried” about fatherhood - any more than they are “intensely worried” about being in a car accident. If they were they wouldn’t have casual sex at all - or wouldn’t drive at all, respectively.
Among those who do have casual sex (which we’ll note is the only set worth considering here), there will be some willing to discuss the issue, some who don’t think about it, some who actively bring it up, and some who bring their contract lawyer with them when they go bar-hopping. The first three groups will leave the contract at home.
Actually my logic is based on the fact that a square with a given perimeter has more area than a rectange with the same perimeter. Allow me to explain.
Suppose the threat of the consequences of having a child is, currently, such that 50% of women are willing to have casual sex and 50% effective of men are. This means that 25% of random couples will be willing to have casual sex.
Suppose that if we move all the legal/financial responsibility to the women, and this results in, say, 30% of women are willing to have casual sex and 80% of men are. This will result in 24% of random couples will be willing to have casual sex. This despite the lessening of deterrence for men being half-again more severe than the increase in deterrence for women.
And one other thing to keep in mind that women who are willing to abort skew this even further. Suppose that of those 50% of women under current law, 2/5th are inclined to abort. This means that only 15% of random encounters could make a baby. Now suppose, reasonably, that the 100% accountability deterrence for women comes entirely out of the segment that won’t abort (because under current law they’re already 100% accountable - in fact things would be *better *for them under opt-in-or-pay-for-the-abortion). Now if there are even just three percent fewer women engaging in casual sex due to the threat of 100% responsibility, then fewer babies will be born. Three percent!
So yeah - it’s not quite as simple as “two heads are better than one”, in my view. It’s a numbers game - and one person strongly committed to caution is more effective than two people who are half-assed about it.
I’m advocating the plan that strives to give men a comparable opt-out option to the one that biology+abortion gives women. That the equal-rights option also accomodates the reality that most men are irresponsible simpletons is only a perk. 
I have no problem with making it harder for men to get sex - but even if I didn’t think it was more equal and likely more effective as a deterrent to fatherless babies, I still would prefer the plan that made it harder for all men to get sex, not just the ones who strongly and actively take steps not to father unwanted children!
Yet the mother does not necessarily agree to that same obligation when she lets him come inside her, does she? She has several ways to opt out, and her responsibility is not de facto dictated by the fact that she had unprotected sex. Do you not see the double standard there?
Ack, grevious error on my part! Women’s inclination to have sex has to drop from 50% to 37% to counteract the men’s increase in inclination from 50% to 80%. Thirteen, not three. Blasted complex math (subtraction).
Still though, I think the numbers game is considerably more favorable to the opt-in solution than it may appear at first glance.
On come on, Zoe was funny. Abortion needs to be under the sole control of the woman and nothing about that biological and legal reality makes the father less responsible for a child carried to term.
Yeah, sure, but it hardly was a fair addressal of my position, now was it?
True - absolutely, 100% true
False.
With great power comes great responsibility; the biology gives the woman 100% power over whether there will be an abortion. If there is an abortion, she is 100% responsible for choosing for that to happen; if there is not an abortion, and thus if there is a baby, she is 100% responsible for choosing for that to happen. The man has 0% responsibility in making that decision.
And legally, currently the man has responsibilities forced on him, if the woman chooses to go that route - but there’s nothing about that which makes it unchangeable in law, legally speaking. And we do have a rather more unchangeable legal responsibility to try and make the situation as equitable as possible.
It’s funny how this possibility is treated like a small town tragedy throughout the thread. Like the very thought of a man not getting any is supposed to make us lose sleep at night. Why the fuck should society care if these contracts are mood-breakers? If we’re concerned about unwanted pregnancies, that’s probably a good thing. Much preferable to using female abortion as a form of contraception.
Speaking of female abortions, do you think female abortions aren’t mood-breakers? Welcome to the land of consequences.
Which is why you shouldn’t have a problem signing a opt-out contract.
Trust me, your argument that all the willing, truly responsible fathers out there who want kids and want to do right by them should have to go through the bereaucratic hazzle of “opting-in” just so that their lazier, more risk-averse brethren can take the more convenient route of not doing anything but sit on their ass and fuck without saying so much as a “how do ya do?” to their partners is seriously NOT going to help advance the male “abortion” cause. Any judge worth his robe will chuck his gavel at you just as soon as the words “…but a opt-out contract is a mood-breaker! Opting-in is better because I can still fuck as many women as I want and I won’t have to sign anything, either!!!” are whined.
I suspect that most of the people sympathetic to men in this thread don’t even think this “opt-in” idea should be implemented, and probably wish you’d stop advocating it because you’re making their side look like a parody of itself.
Not exactly but they can be. Since we weren’t planning to have a child it seems fairly logical that we didn’t want one at the time. The point is when faced with an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy you have to make choices. Even if you didn’t want the child and the child places a financial burden on you it’s still very possible with the correct attitude to have a good relationship with your offspring and have them be a boon to your life rather than a curse. I understand feelings of anger, bitterness, and resentment, but it’s up to the man to hold on to those and wallow in them or make the best out of the situation. I know that’s harder for some than for others.
My youngest daughter was the product of a romantic fling rather than a long term relationship. I didn’t want another child since I was already paying child support. I asked the Mom about getting an abortion and she said she couldn’t do it. Fast forward 20+ years. I have an awesome daughter who makes a contribution to my life and the lives of many others. 20 years of child support wasn’t easy but I managed and she sure as hell is worth every penny.
[QUOTE]
Sure people feel differently about it , men and women. The point is that it can be , for some women, such a momentous event that even though she thought she didn’t want a child and would probably terminate , before she got pregnant, she might well change her mind once she discovers she is. A conversation where both agree they don’t want kids is okay but far from a guarantee. Any reasonable guy ought to know that.
Good for you. I’m sure some girls feel the same way and feel safe with the precautions they are taking. Has anyone ever been turned off by your honesty? I assume you don’t carry a contract around right?
OKay. I’m just saying that realistically, there can be a cost for avoiding parental responsibility that is just as costly as child support for a kid you didn’t plan on or want. Men who justify avoiding child support can pay in other ways.
Even with you being so upfront it’s possible an accident could happen and your partner changes her mind about termination. Then you’d be faced with how to deal with it.
It was a joke. {I think} It wasn’t meant to be.
whew! I finally got something right.
false. The* law* gives women the power based on the realities of biology. The law makes men responsible based on the same.
Sure, but the equity needs to be based in reality. what’s as equitable as we can get based on the biological reality. What’s best for the people involved and society as a whole? What we have now is what the law has decided is best. I know injustices occur but basically, I think it’s as equitable as it can be based on biological reality and the principles of law.