Since the SCOTUS and the rest of the judicial system seems to be in solid agreement with me, big friggin deal if you get my logic or not. It’s your side of the debate that needs to do a better job of changing hearts and minds, not mine.
What do you feel about having opt outs take place before conception? This arrangment is the one that is most fair, IMO, because it doesn’t place men at the whim of women in terms of being notified of a pregnancy and it allows a woman to be fully informed in advanced that if she becomes pregnant, the man will not be responsible for any child that comes out of it.
It’s an unpopular view, obviously, because, you know, think of the chiiiiiildren and all that. The child support laws, which are also quite ridiculous in many ways, also not likely to change any time soon. That doesn’t mean there isn’t an injustice there.
Probably a good idea in theory, rather awkward and difficult to implement in practice. If people can’t be arsed to put on a condom to save their lives (literally), however will they be arsed to sign a legal document before they have sex? Again, it’s human nature. Why not just allow an opt out after conception? What is the huge problem with that? I know, I know, it’s that a man would be able to walk away from his responsibility, something that women are allowed to do in many ways.
I don’t care about children, per se. I care about the consequences to the society that I live in.
At length I’ve explained the problem with opting out after conception. First of all, it’d be very easy to get around. Nothing can compell a woman to tell a man that she’s pregnant. Any woman who is smart and doesn’t want to have an abortion will just keep the thing a secret until it’s too late for him to legally sign his rights away. And as a consequence, men very well will be lulled into having a false sense of security, thinking that its not necessary to use a condom all the time because “if she gets pregnant, I can just opt out.” Which actually may mean more unwanted pregnancies could occur. More unwanted children in the system for taxpayers to worry about.
Signing something before conception gets around this because the man isn’t dependent on a woman telling her that the stick is pink.
Secondly, opting out after conception doesn’t make good legal sense. KarlGrenze compared it to a gym informing you that they claim no responsibility for injuries you incur while using the facility, but only until after you’ve paid them a non-refundable $150. This kind of arrangement flies in the face of precedent, and has little chance of being enforceable.
If men can’t be arsed to put on a condom and they can’t be arsed to have their legal ducks lined up in a row before they have sex, then society will not be arsed to care about them paying child support.
We’ve been through that and I’m not interested in discussing it with you.
Unless the law allowed him to opt out within a certain amount of time after being informed of his paternity, regardless of when that is.
Cite that the taxpayers will have to worry about it. Also, a woman can opt not to have sex with a man who won’t wear a condom. The opt out might force women to step up and refuse to have sex with irresponsible men. That would be a good outcome, no?
Women can opt out after conception. Men should also have that option.
If a woman can’t be arsed to demand that a man wear a condom, and can’t be arsed to only have sex with responsible men, then society will not be arsed to care about them being forced to be single mothers without the help of the father. See how that can work just as well in reverse?
No it doesn’t work in reverse. A man wears a condom. But a woman has to demand that a man wears a condom. Now which of these two scenarios involves treating a person like an irresponsible, passive juvenile who is unworthy of society’s sympathy? It’s not the first one.
A man can’t even be expected to have a grown-folks conversation about sex and reproduction with his partner because “it’s too awkward and mood-breaking and he might not get laid, Your Honor!!!”. But a woman somehow is expected to be infallible with contraception and perceptive enough to never misjudge a guy she sleeps with, and bear full responsibility for everything that he does with *his *dick that causes a fertlization to take place even if in the heat of the moment, when the clothes were coming off and the fireworks were popping, the guy told her all kinds of crazy things about love, life, families, and picket fences.
Nah, not the same thing in reverse at all. If hearts and minds are going to be changed in your favor, it’s a better idea to focus on making men look more sympathetic rather than making false equivalencies that try to make women look unsympathetic.
“Remedied” at the expense of the child. The child born as a direct result of both their actions. The child didn’t ask to be born, it was born because two had sex and one of them didn’t eject it from her body before birth.
Now you’re going to tell me the child doesn’t have a right to support from the two people who’s choices brought it in to the world?
Is a remedy that victimizes an innocent third party really a remedy?
There are the laws and then there is the implementation of the laws. They can’t possibly deal with every conceivable scenario and have things be perfectly fair. Injustices do occur for the men, the women, and the children involved. No matter how the law is changed that will be true.
Child support is normally based on the income of the two parents and relative percentages. If the man makes more then he pays more and that seems to be the case more than 50% of the time but that doesn’t make it unfair.
Do you actually think that law makers and professionals haven’t considered the options over the years? It’s not justice or equality to make changes that fix one apparent inequity only to create others for the other people involved. The responsibility of the law is to find what is the most equitable for all involved citizens. The law has an ethical responsibility to help protect and provide for the Chhhiiilllldren as well as consider what is just for the mother and father.
All of you who keep harping on how unfair it is to men have utterly failed to offer any reasonable alternative. There’s a good reason for that. The law has already considered the options you suggest and rejected them for sound reasons that include justice and personal responsibility.
It’s not unreasonable at all. The question is why do you think the onus is on women to choose a responsible man, but it’s verboten to expect the same thing of men, who surprisingly enough are complaining about all the hootchy mamas forcing them into unwanted fatherhood and ruining their lives. Seems if the men would just eliminate the hootchies from their sex pool and wear condoms, they’d have fewer problems and they’d be less likely to be saddled with responsibilities they don’t want. This is the exact same advice I’d give to a woman who’s complaining about the men she’s sleeping with.
Women are generally less promiscuous than men are already, but apparently that’s not good enough because women are unable to prevent men from screwing up men’s own lives when they fail to tell them to put condoms on their own dicks. This view is a bucket of shit.
Really? I don’t think so. I think the focus is on keeping children off the dole, regardless of the fairness to the father. A woman can lie to a man, tell him a child is his, and trick him into accepting paternity. Even when the fraud is discovered, he has to keep paying. The focus is 100% on getting money out of the man, not at all on the justice for the man. There are many examples I could give you, but that’s not what this thread is about. I don’t think you can make this appeal to authority, saying “The law already thought of that!” I don’t think it has, and if has, it doesn’t care. That doesn’t mean the status quo is acceptable.
This is why I find conversing with you so unpleasant. Please indicate where I said it was verboten to expect the same of men. Can’t argue against my actual point, had to construct a straw man. The onus is on both partners, and men who don’t protect themselves are extremely foolish, as are the women. However, women have more choices if accidental conception occurs, which can happen with condoms, as we all know. Men have zero choices if their wishes conflict with the woman’s. You’re saying that you don’t care about changing the law because, if men had a legal opt out as women do, fewer of them would wear condoms. I’m not sure why this is such a burning problem, since the women involved are free not to have sex with these men, since their risks are greater in some ways, as you’ve mentioned. Somehow, you don’t agree with this, and wish to paint it as…
A very articulate rebuttal, so fitting for GD.:rolleyes:
You keep finding a way of putting words in my mouth, as apparent by the above (which makes your claim that I’m the offender in that department most interesting). I never said I said don’t care about the changing the law, and if you think I have, please pull a quote showing me saying that. If anything, I’ve been offering a solution that I think would give the men the “out” they want while protecting the interests of society. But for some reason it’s been rejected because it’s too hard and inconvenient.
What fact-based arguments have you been making in this thread? I keep waiting for you to make a compelling a case for men, rather than encouraging antipathy towards women. Repeatedly pointing out the obvious (i.e. women have power that men don’t) clearly isn’t enough to convince people that we should change the law. Or else the law would have been changed by now.
Did you not put words in my mouth? You did. So you are an offender in this department as much as you claim I am. Sorry.
Pull a quote where I said it was verboten to expect men to choose a responsible woman before having sex. Fair is fair. You won’t be able to do it. I was merely responding to YOUR claim that giving men a post-conception opt-out would decrease condom use.
You have shown little interest in allowing a man the same legal right to opt out after conception, which is what I meant when I said “changing the law,” and I think you know it.
It’s just a bit silly, is what it is, and again, I think you know it. People are supposed to sign legal documents before they have sex. You think that’s a reasonable proposal? I think you’re being disingenuous, and if not, you are incredibly naive. So you can propose this, knowing that it’s a farcical idea, and then say, “See? I offered an out, but you don’t want to take it!”
I have made my case for men. Women have numerous legal opt-outs post-conception. Men have none. That is a fact. You can give all your reasons why you think this is fair and for the good, but the fact remains that it’s an inequity. You can’t force a person to be a parent. You can force him to pay (if he works), and systematically take things away from him, then imprison him, if he doesn’t, but that hardly seems like a reasonable remedy, and it’s not particularly salutary for society either. Yet that’s all that we have. If you think it’s fine that way, or if all you have to offer is a sexual pre-nup that you know damn well will never fly as public policy, then I don’t think your argument, which essentially “maintain the status quo,” is all that interesting either.
And I still don’t know why you disagree this, because you really haven’t offered a fact-based argument. At least I came up with a cite showing that pregnancy fear is the biggest promoter of condom use. You? Nothing except false equivalencies.
And if you think I’m misunderstood your point, all you have to do is correct me. That’s what I did when you first put words in my mouth about advocating oppressive child support policies. But when you continued to do it, I had to throw up my hands and walk away frm you. God knows why I came back.
Yes, I don’t have any interest in changing the law after conception. And? I’m open to changing the law in a way that I believes makes sense and will optimize outcomes. Burn me at the fire.
Yes, I do. Why is that unreasonable? Just saying it is doesn’t make a sound argument. We already have pre-nup agreements that stipulate distribution of assets following a a divorce. Is what I’m proposing that different from that? No, it’s not.
If a man really, really, really doesn’t want to become a father and pay child support for 18 years, then why is it unreasonable to expect that he could tell his partner “Look, I don’t want to become a dad at this point in time. Can you sign this form releasing me of any responsibility for any child that may result from us having sex? That doesn’t mean I won’t try to be careful with you, it just means that anything that happens from here on out is your decision to make, not ours. Abortion or childbirth, it’s your choice. But if you opt for the latter, I’m not taking responsibility for it. We can talk abut it some more if you want, but I’m just telling where I stand now. Okay?”
This is not an unreasonable conversation to have with someone you’re having sex with. If this conversation is not feasible, despite the issue being of extreme importance to a male, then maybe having sex with that woman is what is unreasonable. Consider it natural selection, if you will.
Speaking of natural selection, a woman should know upfront which men are willing to be responsible fathers and which are not. A pre-opt arrangement will ensure that women have the information they need to make responsible choices for who they sleep with. If she can’t handle the implications of raising a child by her lonesome, official notice that the guy in her bed will not be there to be pick up the slack is exactly the wakeup call that she needs. I would think everyone could appreciate that.
And yet it seems as if it’s prefered that she be kept in the dark until after she’s impregnated just so that the guy won’t have to have an awkward discussion with the woman he’s squirting his semen into. Sounds so shady to me that I have to wonder why anyone who wants post-conception options would not see that this particular implication is not doing them any favors.
Yeah, I’ve heard people in this thread say this, but have yet to read an adequate argument for why it’s unreasonable, impractical, or legally unsound. I’ve shown that with the post-conception opt out idea; why can’t you do that with my proposal? Gotta assume it’s because you can’t.
Won’t respond to the rest of what you wrote because it’s just more of the same ranting about women being able to do things that men can’t, as if the inequity derives from something other than biology.
Because you just have to have the last word. So have it. I can see that “debating” with you is going nowhere, and frankly, I’m going to pull a Starving Artist here and say that I have better things to do with my time than go on with you. Later.
No doubt numerous examples of injustice are available. An old friend of mine got no child support when she got divorced because the state said her ex was already paying the maximum amount for the children he had before he married her. They couldn’t award her anymore of his income and they couldn’t change the previous ruling to divide his available money among his children.
It’s clear not everything in life is fair. You can’t realistically be suggesting that men don’t lie to women and/or avoid their parental responsibilities. Do you have any statistics on the number of men tricked and trapped by lying women vs men who simply bail on their pregnant girlfriend? I’d guess the latter is far higher but feel free to show me I’m wrong.
I repeat, no matter what laws we have in place the implementation of those laws
will be imperfect and injustices will occur. You’ve offered an opinion but it appears that’s all you’ve got.
Keeping children off the dole and having the biological parent pay is a perfectly reasonable and fair thing to do. Is it always fair in every case? Of course not. That doesn’t prove anything.
I’m waiting for anyone who holds these views to offer any viable suggestion that doesn’t result in making things better for men but less fair women and the resulting children. After several threads on this topic nobody has.
After all this, I have to wonder what your problem with pre-conception opt-in was, again. Because as far as I can tell it would achieve exactly the same things you state that you want to achieve with pre-conception opt-out - only automatically. You want the man to have to inform the woman that he doesn’t want to take responsibility in a manner that allows her to make an informed choice on whether to sleep with him or dump him? Opt-in achieves this. Better, it allows her to make decisions on the matter prior to getting drunk and horny - she can say to herself “Well, damn! They changed the law to take away child support unless I can get him to warry me first! I guess I’d better be careful what I let men who sleep with me do!”, and she can make this decision before she even decides to go to the bar.
I wholly agree that post-coital opt-out would be shady if the woman didn’t have a clue it might happen - but that’s like saying that it would be shady to let people play the stock market if they didn’t know that occasionally people lost money at it. In other words, yes, that would be shady, but how frikking stupid would a woman have to be to think that Mr. One Night Stand wouldn’t fill out his post-coital opt-out form and submit it the moment he heard that pregnancy was afoot?
So no, I don’t buy that the average woman would be caught off-guard by post-coital opt-out. I do buy that if she could rob him of post-coital opt-out by waiting or failing to inform him, that many females would do so, out of self-interest. So clearly post-coital opt-out would become a massive legal tug-of war of he-said-she-said, in probably the majority of cases. Ick. Let’s avoid that!
But again, I don’t see the functional difference between pre-coital opt-out and opt-in, with the notable exception that the pre-coital opt-out seems legally unworkable. You’re talking about a contract that will be signed in passion and often while one or both parties are drunk, and neither of them can find a lawyer. Seriously, who’s not going to contest that in court? Good grief, that’s asking for trouble! So seriously, let’s avoid that too.
I can think of two ways of avoiding it: opt-in, or, er, ‘sweeping’ opt-out. That is, opt-out that can be arranged prior to meeting any specific female, which would apply to all females thereafter. Females don’t need to consult the males to abort, so males shouldn’t need a female signature to opt out, fairnessly speaking.
Of course the downside of sweeping opt-out is that it would be exactly like opt-in only worse. Much worse, by the criteria you give as your reasoning to favor pre-coital opt-out - not only need the man avoid the cautionary discussions, he could lie about it! So, no. We’d best not go there, either.
Having examined the options, I feel that opt-in actually does give you most of everything you want from pre-coital opt-out, and that it’s also the only option that is not likely to turn into a legal nightmare or backfire overtly. The man needn’t warn her that she’s on her own, but her mommy already would have. That’s perhaps not optimal, but it’s probably the best solution that even considers the idea of giving the males a way to abort their biological obligations to the pregnancy the way the law and medicine have given the woman a way to abort her own biologically-presented obligations.
It’s unreasonable, impractical, and legally unsound because in a large percentage of the cases where the pre-coital opt-out contract would have to be signed, the contract would by legally unsound by the circumstances of its signing, and it would be impractical for many couples who would sign the opt-out contract to go through the steps of formalizing it beyond legal doubt (since notaries work bankers’ hours). And because of these difficulties it’s unreasonable to expect men to have to balance the rights the opt-out contract would offer them on the precarious edge of a possibly or probably legally invalid contract.
I suggest other avenues that work to the same end be seriously considered.
Define “less fair [for] women and the resulting children”. It’s entirely fair to require the women to make the choice between aborting and raising the baby, and it’s not unfair to make her make this decision based on only the resources she can muster on her own, for the simple reason that it’s not unfair that one family may have to decide to abort on a combined income of $28000 a year while another single woman may have $100000/year. The simple fact is, each set of circumstances will have a different amount of money available, and if it’s not unfair to let a couple decide to raise a kid when poor, it’s not unfair to let a single parent decide to raise a kid when poor.
Similarly, it’s not unfair to allow a child to be raised poor, if the mother decides to have the kid when poor. This is true whether or not the poorness comes from the father being non-contributory or because the poorness comes from everybody being poor - either way, the kids may be had, and if they got the short end of the stick, well, that was mom’s choice in not aborting, I guess.
Basically, it’s hard to get less fair when the situation is already completely unfair. And to the degree that financial pressure compells women to abort, then the problem will self-correct; women who know they are on their own, and who feel that without child support their only way to get by is to abort, will abort. And in those case: problem solved.
My problem has everything to do with it being automatic. You’re proposing that we turn society’s rules upside down, and by doing so, you’re not only going to penalize women and children, but also men who want kids. Under your scenario every father would have to go through the extra effort of officially asserting parental rights instead having them assumed. And how do you reward them? By making them go through red tape and lawyers. Why should willing fathers go through this noise just so that some faceless dude can avoid paying child support? It’s of no benefit to them or any other person. No politician in his right mind would support this, either.
But keep on hatching elaborate schemes to get around having the Big Scary Talk. If the quality of argumentation used in this thread bears any similarity to what’s been exhibited in the courts, it’s no wonder why men have made zero gains in this area.
Make both parents pay child support to the state for its foster care until such time as it is adopted. Give the biological parents first cut on adoption and/or being the foster parent, though they have to meet the same wickets as any other adoptive or foster parent.