Abortion for Men (redux) now "Roe v. Wade for Men"

[even_sven]

@villa

You are completely ignoring the rights of the child here. It isn’t the child’s fault that the mother lies. The child has a right to support from both parents. The father has the right to recover that expenditure were it the result of fraud.

Telling a lie on a personal matter is not fraud. If I ask you to meet me at the movies and I don’t show up, no court is going to have me pay you the gas it took for you to get there. “Verbal contracts”, especially ones implied from casual utterances, are essentially meaningless. And this benefits us. Can you imagine being held legally responsible for every damn thing you say?

If you want a contract, write a contract. AFAIK you are free to do that today with your sex partners. If this is a such a big concern, why don’t more men do this?

[QUOTE=Stoid]
And the idea is to give the man the option early on. If it were a law that women had to inform the father immediately upon learning of their pregnancy, and obtain some kind of notarized document from him declaring his intention to participate or not, or otherwise sacrifice any right to hold him responsible, I guarantee you’d see fewer children born to single mothers.

[/QUOTE]

You realize this would mean informing the government of all of your sex partners, since you never know what could happen (what if you get raped, and it could be from your SO or the rapist?).

Really, go to China. You have to be 24 and married to have your single kid- pregnancies outside of the criteria are aborted. Really, check it out and then tell me if it’s the paradise you are dreaming of.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

How do you prove deceit?

[whole_bean]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

How do you prove deceit?

It’s done all the time. Read up on the legal concept of “actual fraud” and methods of proving such - it isn’t easy, but I never said it should be, I was just saying it should be an option.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

It already is an option to draw up a prior contract. If a written contract is not what you had in mind, then how did you envision expanding this kind of contract, and how do you propose that it be used in court.

You aren’t being very specific. Are you conceding that a guy’s mere say-so about a verbal agreement should be meaningless?

[whole_bean]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

I’m more concerned about the fate of the child anyway. I really don’t have any sympathy for a whiny little weasel who doesn’t want to be responsible for his own mistakes. We are all responsible for our own mistakes in life. That’s how it works. The contention that men are entitled to risk free sex is childish, sexist nonsense.

Believe it or not, I mostly agree with this, on a personal level. It’s one thing to overlook the disparity of treatment under the current system, but the idea that a deceitful person could profit from the system does not sit well with me.

[Cheesesteak]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Yep. He took an assumed risk. He chose his own fate.

Prior to Roe v. Wade, women were taking assumed risks and chose their own fates by getting pregnant. Yet, we recognized that it’s not right to to tell someone that choosing to have sex was their one and only chance to choose whether or not they were going to have a baby. Except, we don’t recognize that if it’s a dude, he’s just a loser who couldn’t keep it in his pants.

[whole_bean]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

It already is an option to draw up a prior contract. If a written contract is not what you had in mind, then how did you envision expanding this kind of contract, and how do you propose that it be used in court.

Are you suggesting such a contract would be enforceabe? If so, do you have a cite for this assertion?

Like anything else, there is all sorts of extrinsic evidence that might show what representations were made, whether those representations were false, etc.

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

It You aren’t being very specific. Are you conceding that a guy’s mere say-so about a verbal agreement should be meaningless

Not meanigless, but certainly not dispositive either.

[villa]

@even_sven

Telling a lie on a personal matter is not fraud. If I ask you to meet me at the movies and I don’t show up, no court is going to have me pay you the gas it took for you to get there. “Verbal contracts”, especially ones implied from casual utterances, are essentially meaningless. And this benefits us. Can you imagine being held legally responsible for every damn thing you say?

If you want a contract, write a contract. AFAIK you are free to do that today with your sex partners. If this is a such a big concern, why don’t more men do this?

I agree with you. Hence I said “were it fraud.” As I said later, the contractual situation is the interesting one.

[whole_bean]

@even_sven

Telling a lie on a personal matter is not fraud. If I ask you to meet me at the movies and I don’t show up, no court is going to have me pay you the gas it took for you to get there. “Verbal contracts”, especially ones implied from casual utterances, are essentially meaningless. And this benefits us. Can you imagine being held legally responsible for every damn thing you say?

Verbal contracts are enforced all the time - “no court is going to have [you] pay the gas” because there was no contract, not because the contract was verbal.

[villa]

@whole_bean

What in God’s name are talking about? An agreement to reimburse the father for child support payments? There WILL NOT BE ANY child support payments if the primary custodial parent (generally the mother) does not seek child support. Child support isn’t just randomly assesed by “them.” Who did you think did this, the Census Bureau? “I must reiumburse you for the money I make you pay me.” That’s not child support, it’s a coerced loan. Sheesh!

Calm down there, sparky. I’m talking about a situation where a person says they won’t ask for child support, and then does. I know, crazy times, but it fits in with your paranoid obsession with women getting themselves banged up after telling a guy they would take care of it. Sheesh!

@whole_bean

You might reread the post to see the actual point I was making. It was subtle. I’ll break it down for you: woman lies to man to make baby or woman tells man she won’t make baby and makes baby anyway, man no have to pay for baby, now woman’s responsibility because woman lied to make baby or had baby even though she tell man she no have baby. Baby still cared for just now by woman since but for woman’s decision, no baby.

What an odd coincidence. That’s exactly the point to which I was responding! What you totally fail to comprehend, in your complete refusal to acknowledge that the child might have rights, is that the situation is possible that the mother cannot adequately take care of the child. Child not lie to anyone. Child should not suffer from lies. Woman lied. Man still took chance. Chance caused baby. Man responsible to baby. Woman responsible to man for lies.

Is that broken down enough for you? For you, the cost of the woman’s lies should be placed on herself, and the child if she cannot afford that cost. For me, they should be placed on the woman, and if she does not have the ability to afford that, on the man. Kind of a *caveat emptor *situation, or maybe a caveat boner one.

[Kobal2]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

These are laws that need to be tweaked, and made more flexible and made more amenable to changing circumstances and abilities, I agree, but those are different issues than whether the guy should be able to walk awy scot-free of any responsibility at all just be yelling, “not it.” The woman has no such ability, regardless of some of the ignorant assertions which have been made in this thread.

I, for one, am not arguing the guy should be allowed to walk away scot free, and certainly not in any and all circumstances.

I am, however, arguing for the provision that a man be allowed, within a strictly and non-negociable timeframe, to sign an official chitty saying, in essence, “let it be known that, should this child be born, I will not fulfill my expected role as a father”, such chitty being immediately and officialy forwarded to the mother. And from then on, at the very least *influencing *the final verdict of a custody/alimony legal battle. Having some weight, be it in the form of slightly reduced alimony (but not *zero *alimony), heightened parenting rights for the reluctant father, or token one time compensation on the mother’s part.

It’s all about having a token, legally weighted bargaining chip to bring to the table in the regrettable event that the parenting decision turns into aggressive wrangling. It’s not exactly uncommon, is it ? Dealing with that situation doesn’t equal encouraging it.

I’m with **WhyNot **on this : such chitty would not only be of benefit to the tricked father, but to the tricked mother as well. And certainly doesn’t equal to an unilateral right to bail post-birth. I don’t understand how you jump to that conclusion. Of course, if the unwilling father fails to sign such chitty, and can’t prove the mother was aware of her pregnancy but didn’t mention it, then the guy probably should be assumed to have been okay with it, and, in your own words, hunted like a dog should he later skip on his by-now-accepted responsibilities.

As for your “so she tricked you, tough shit, people lie, deal with it” arguments… well, at least they’re a smidgen less ridiculous than your blaming the victim in the (admittedly far fetched) case of condom piercing. I think.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Cheesesteak

Prior to Roe v. Wade, women were taking assumed risks and chose their own fates by getting pregnant. Yet, we recognized that it’s not right to to tell someone that choosing to have sex was their one and only chance to choose whether or not they were going to have a baby. Except, we don’t recognize that if it’s a dude, he’s just a loser who couldn’t keep it in his pants.

The guy’s decision ends when his body stops being involved. It’s pretty simple. Each person is controlling his or her own body.

[you_with_the_face]

@Kobal2

I am, however, arguing for the provision that a man be allowed, within a strictly and non-negociable timeframe, to sign an official chitty saying, in essence, “let it be known that, should this child be born, I will not fulfill my expected role as a father”, such chitty being immediately and officialy forwarded to the mother.

What if that timeframe was set for prior to sex? Would you be okay with that? Makes sense to me for such a contract to be signed at that point rather than later, because it ensures informed consent is obtained well before any life-altering decisions have to be made.

[whole_bean]

@villa

What you totally fail to comprehend, in your complete refusal to acknowledge that the child might have rights, is that the situation is possible that the mother cannot adequately take care of the child. .

(again, assuming the fraud/decit/change-of-heart scenario) Then the child is given to the father, if the father is able, can afford, and wants to raise the child, or the child is put up for adoption

@villa

Child not lie to anyone. Child should not suffer from lies. Woman lied. Man still took chance. Chance caused baby. Man responsible to baby. Woman responsible to man for lies.

Whoa boy - “child should not suffer from lies.” Somebody owes me a refund then. Yes, I think the mother’s deceit should absolve the father of legal responsibility if he so chooses so long as he relenquish any parental rights. From this point, all scenarios are treated the same as if the mother does not know who the father is. The child can thank Mom. Your idea of reimbursement is incedibly naive.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

How are you going to prove that deceit? I think you need to be more specific. Verbal contracts can sometimes be enforceable, but you still have to prove such a contract ever existed.

[villa]

@whole_bean

The child can thank Mom.

This sums your entire philosophy up. As long as the father can walk away unscathed, screw the kid. He or she can just blame Mom, anyway.

[Kobal2]

@you_with_the_face

What if that timeframe was set for prior to sex? Would you be okay with that? Makes sense to me for such a contract to be signed at that point rather than later, because it ensures informed consent is obtained well before any life-altering decisions have to be made.

I don’t think it’s to be construed as a contract. More of a formal notice. But yeah, I could certainly accept the timeframe to be set to “prior to the event of conception”.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

You guys realize that no women are ever going to sign those contracts, don’t you?

[you_with_the_face]

@Kobal2

I don’t think it’s to be construed as a contract.

It’s contract if you’re expecting it to have legal standing.

[cosmosdan]

@WhyNot

People being coerced into parenthood at a time when the population isn’t suffering from low numbers cannot realistically benefit society as a whole.

Nobody is being coerced into parenthood. Men know the potential when they make the conscious choice to have sex. What they’re being coerced into is fulfilling the responsibilities of the consequences of their own choices. Allowing them to walk away from those responsibilities fairly easily won’t help. It will only shift the burden unfairly

But by legalizing parental choice for men, we give each individual woman an informed choice. Not all of them, sure. There will still be deadbeats and liars, I get that. But there will be some men who say, just as they do now, “Hey, I’m not cut out for this parenthood thing.” And if they want legal protection for that, they’ll have to do it in time for a woman to decide that she’d rather get an abortion, or seek an infant adoption, than be a single mother.

Don’t men already have an informed choice right now? If I’m not cut out to be a Dad or would rather not be then I need to consider that when making choices about sex.

No, I’d bet a lot more men lie to get sex than women lie to trap men. But I’m not sure why that’s relevant.

You’re proposing we give them more opportunities and fewer consequences.

There are men, today, who don’t lie, who tell their partners they don’t want to be parents right from the start, but they have no legal protection for that choice.

And even if they tell their partners and their partners feel the same way they are both consciously taking the risk when they choose sex, even protected sex.

There are others who do lie about being willing to be responsible parents once they find out about a pregnancy, who might not lie if they knew their choice had legal standing. And, of course, there are the far greater number of men who are responsible and willing to be fathers, and nothing at all would change for them.

An unrealistic assessment IMO. Knowing how many men already avoid their legal responsibilities I can imagine what would happen if we gave men a legal out to completely avoid responsibility for their genetic offspring. They’d have even less motivation to be sexually responsible and consider the consequences of accidental pregnancy. There’s no realistic way that can help society.