Are men getting the shaft?

Great Debates
41

Okay in order . . .

If he has assumed the responsibility of fatherhood (by adopting the child or holding himself out to be the child’s father), the hell yes, he should be forced to continue to support it. You can become a father in ways other than getting a woman pregnant, but once you do, yes, those obligations are and should be on-going. In any event, if a man has NOT assumed those obligations (through adoption or holding himself out or agreement with the woman) he is generally NOT responsible for the support of another man’s children.

Untrue. He has the right to parent the child. He does NOT have the right to disavow a responsibility he voluntarily took on – nor should he have that right.

A cursory search revealed no cites for any of those cases (Kansas, Alabama, Louisiana); if anyone else finds the cites, please post them.

And I STRONGLY disagree with this. It is NOT the obligation of the state (or through it, the rest of us in society) to pay to raise your children simply because you don’t want to.

Justice TO THE CHILD is and must be paramount, as the child is the only truly innocent party in the vast majority of these cases (where the child is conceived through consensual sex between two adults). If the best interests of the child do not coincide with the wishes of the father, tough.

STUFFINB says:

You’re right; this is the heart of it. But it is impossible to accomplish. There is NO WAY to give men equal rights to reproduction with women until the day men get pregnant. Then men can decide whether or not they want to give birth.

AAUUGGH!!!

[quote]
:: banging head ::* BECAUSE SHE’S THE ONE WHO IS PREGNANT! BECAUSE IT’S HER BODY, NOT HIS!!! Gott in Himmell, what’s so hard about this? I ask again: Are you advocating allowing men to compel women to have abortions when the women don’t want to? If not, precisely what are you advocating?

But who would suffer if that “right” was extended and men were allowed to wholesale disavow their children? The children, that’s who, which is precisely why we do not allow this.

Actually, you yourself have argued that it does NOT work both ways, in that women can make fundamental reproductive decisions that men cannot veto and must in fact live with. Sounds to me like a great reason to embrace that “abstinance, condom line”.

THAT’S BECAUSE THE WOMAN IS THE PREGNANT ONE AND THE MAN CANNOT MAKE HER HAVE AN ABORTION. Far from ignoring this point, we have addressed in several times now. Not fair? As someone above suggested, complain to God – He’s the one who rigged it so that women get pregnant and men do not.

DEMISE says:

How is this a argument for swelling the welfare rolls by allowing men to disavow their responsibilities? We already support far too many children who do not have fathers or whose fathers flat-out refuse to pay for them. Why should we sign up for more?

BLACK KNIGHT says:

So who then supports the child if the mother can’t afford to and the father refuses to? You and I through the state, that’s who. It is far more unfair to place that responsibility on the rest of us – who had nothing to do with the situation – than to place it on the biological father, who ran the risk that this would happen by having unprotected sex.

SAM STONE says:

You’re kidding me. If Mom is sued for everything and goes bankrupt, she still keeps her house, her work tools (if she has any), and her job – precisely so she can continue to support her kids. We don’t send people to work houses in this society. If Mom goes to jail, she obviously loses her right to parent her child (who doesn’t go with her), and the state unfortuntely may have to step in a that point. But in any event Mom remains financially responsible for the child, and the state will do everything it can to recoup the cost of caring for the child if it can. The “right of the baby to be supported” is the entire reason men are kept on the hook in these situations – and the entire reason it is correct for them to be.

Yes, because first and last the child must be protected and supported. The father’s desire for “justice” against a woman who deceived him does not outweigh the innocent child’s right to support, or society’s right not to be required to support children not their own.

Obviously, because you cannot injure someone else for your own ends – or for your children’s. But IF the person has a RESPONSIBILITY to your children – because that person is your children’s FATHER – then you have every right to expect him to meet that responsibility. The fact that he did not WANT to be your children’s father does not change the fact that he IS their father and they need support.

Yes, he certainly should. And if she had the baby under false pretenses AND can afford to support it on her own AND he wants nothing to do with it, I think he’d have a pretty good argument that support should be waived. But, really, how often does this happen? What usually happens is the couple have sex; the woman gets pregnant; the man doesn’t want the child; the woman can’t support it on her own – so then who should support the child? The father, or society? The father.

IMO, no. But, again, we’re not talking about wealthy people who can afford to raise children on their own in most cases.

I draw the line at (a) the baby needing support and (b) the father being an identifiable, consenting adult. You can come up with hundreds of bizarre situations that likely rarely if ever occur (like a woman knocking a man cold and then stealing his sperm). That does not change the fact that the vast majority of these cases arise because two consenting adults tumble into the sack, and the man just doesn’t want to be responsible when the woman later turns up pregnant. It THOSE circumstances, the support of the baby ought to outweigh the man’s desire to be free from responsibility.

42

Hey Jodi, have I told you lately how cool you are?

43

KIMSTU –

Yes, they are. If one refuses to consent to the adoption, they both remain on the hook financially. It’s not like the only financial responsibility is the father’s.

Yes, and no (in that order).

On what other level rather than “biological” is this unfair? The reason she has this choice and he doesn’t is entirely biological – she’s pregnant and it’s her body.

Well, not “punitive fatherhood” (ie, punishing), as much as “compelled fatherhood.” With that quibble, I agree. But the situation exists as it does because no better solution has been found, and I for one cannot think of one.

Leaving the responsibility of raising the child to the state (assuming the mother can’t do it alone)? I strongly disagree with this.

Again, we’ll just have to disagree then, because I would NOT be willing to pay more taxes to allow men to disavow the consequences of their actions.

It is not a question of having “more rights” over your body than he does over his money; it’s a question of weighing the father’s desire to be financially free against the baby’s right to be financially supported, and deciding who is truly the innocent party and who is truly more in need.

How would you redress it? By making it society’s responsibility, when “society” didn’t even get laid? This to me is far more unfair than placing the responsibility on the parents.

44

I’ve been following this debate with some interest, and I will admit that I haven’t fully made up my mind where I stand.

While I was mulling over the particulars, I used some hypothetical examples (some contrived, some practically science-fictionish) to help clarify this muddy picture.

If they help with the debate, I am glad. If not, just ignore this bandwith static. :slight_smile:

EXAMPLE 1:
Mr A. and Mrs A. want to have a baby. Unfortunately, Mrs A. cannot carry a baby to term, so the couple’s sperm and egg are combined in a lab and the embryo is transferred into a willing surrogate mother.

During the first trimester, the A’s marriage breaks up and Mrs. A wishes their child aborted. Mr. A does not.

What if the surrogate mother agrees with Mr. A?
What if the surrogate mother agress with Mrs. A?
In either case, should a court be able to compel the surrogate mother to do anything against her wishes?

EXAMPLE 2:
I know this has been discussed elsewhere, so I will be brief. What if the embyro had not been transferred to the surrogate mother before the bitter divorce, can the cells be preserved, destroyed, or brought to term without the consent of both parents?

EXAMPLE 3: (possibly illuminating but very contrived)
Mr. and Mrs. B are looking forward to the birth of their first child. They learned of the pregnancy early and the fetus is still in its first trimester.

But, pre-natal testing reveals that the child has a weird genetic condition that requires regular transfers of genetic material (blood, lymph, bone marrow) from the father into the developing fetus using the latest in prenatal surgery.

(Yes, I know I am flogging science and reason to make social commentary, all you Trekkies back me up :slight_smile:

In fact, the resulting procedures will be so painful and invasive that the pregnancy could (arguably) be more stressful and inconvenient for the father than the mother.
Mr B. decides, after much thought, not to go through with the procedures, and gently encourages Mrs B. to have an abortion.

Mrs B. staunchly refuses, desperate to have this baby. What legal recourse does (and should) she have against her husband?

I’ve thought of a few more examples (one involving male pregnancy [maybe in the near future]), but I will see if this post adds or detracts from the debate.

45

So you would dismiss men’s rights for the sake of children? Would you be willing to dismiss women’s rights for the sake of children as well? In other words, do the rights of children automatically trump the rights of adults?

Besides, you presuppose that these children will actually be born; if a woman cannot afford to raise the child, she can abort it. In other words, it is the woman who decides whether or not society foots part of the bill already. Why not let men have some similar choice?

By this logic, every pregnant woman on welfare should be forced to have an abortion just so tax-payers don’t have to pay more tax money to support her children.

Why didn’t the woman use a condom, or use birth control pills, or flat out abstain from sex if she couldn’t afford to have a baby? Note that you and I (well, not me, 'cause I don’t have a job and therefore don’t pay taxes, but you get the idea) already foot part of the bill in many cases when a woman decides to give birth.

  1. It is not always the case that a pregnancy occurs from unprotected sex. Condoms and the like are not foolproof.
  2. What about the woman who ran the risk of a pregnancy happening? If she can’t afford to raise the child, she has the option of an abortion. Why not place the responsibility on the person who chose to have the baby?
46

Kimstu

True, and I thought of explaining this, but I went for simplicity.

The act of surrendering a child for adoption is tantamount to legally transferring your parental responsibility. Abandoning a child is one thing; giving that responsibility away is another, be it to another person or to the state. In effect, the child’s parent is now someone else, and the responsibility goes with it. It doesn’t really impact the man/woman fairness issue, in principle.

True in a sense, but I’ll take issue with your language; the act of having an abortion means the “Responsibility” never existed. There was never a “Child” that entailed a positive duty for support. Nothing was renounced.

If it’s unfair, it’s only unfair in the sense that the father may WANT a child but is denied it - and sure, I can see that point all the way.

But that’s a totally different issue from the OP, which held that it was unfair that a man would have to support a child even though women can get abortions; that entails no unfairness.

I cannot stress this enough; the right to having an abortion is compeltely and utterly different from parental responsibility. They are not connected.

My take on the issue is simple; it is completely and totally irrelevant. You, I and the rest of the SDMB can write up posts from now until the end of time about 15,000,000 different possible scenarios involving every conceivable combination and degree of what the father and mother wanted or didn’t want, and it will not change what is, IMO, the central truth; the child must have a positive duty for support from both parents. To my mind, arguing over the relative degrees of wanting/not weanting the child is simply irrelevant once the child is born and that positive duty kicks in. I don’t have any interest either way in these “she/he should have been more careful” arguments; they’re red herrings.

No, it doesn’t make sense. Simply put, you are equating two completely different things. Bear with me for a long reply, 'k?

The woman’s choice is one of simple personal liberty. It has nothing to do with a child’s right to parental support. If she has an abortion, there’s no child.

The man’s decision DOES impact a child - if he opts out of being a parent, the child is denied that most basic of rights from the moment it is born. You can make it look like a “paper abortion” (as I’ve heard it called) but the reality is that the decision does not actually come into effect until the child’s birth. Having him make the decision at a given time is a chronological scam; the only rationale is to give the woman a brief period of time in which to abort/not abort, but neither the man nor the woman, nor for that matter both acting in concert, have the legal or moral right to legally abandon their child.

Rephrasing; once born, a child has a legal and moral right to both its parents’ support. They cannot renounce that right AFTER the child is born; it makes no sense to allow them to say six months prior to birth, “If my child is born I renounce my duty to support them.” You can’t abandon your kid just because you said you would six months ago, but that is what you’re suggesting we allow. A woman having an abortion, however, is not abandoning a child. There is no child.

Both concepts are wrong. Undertaking to become a parent begins at one moment and one moment only; the moment the child is born.

StuffinB

No, the mother does not have that right. There is no “choice to become a parent” here.

The mother has the right to get an abortion. If that happens, there is no baby. Nobody is a parent.

The mother and father become parents once the child is born. They have no “choice” in this matter; they become fully responsible and must execute that responsibility or bilaterally transfer it.

Is that sort of scammy? It sounds like it, I know; the mother can terminate a pregnancy. But that just doesn’t matter; it is a completely separate issue. The parents only become parents once the child is actually born, and they have no choice in the matter. Once a baby exists, the duty exists. Prior to birth, no baby exists, and no duty exists; the only right excercised by a woman getting an abortion is her ordinary right to liberty. There is no child, no parents, no parental responsibility, no parental rights.

47

I think there are a couple of mostly-unstated conceptions at work here. One is that abortions result when the father wasn’t going to support a child anyway; I think there are likely a significant number of cases where a woman wants, and gets, an abortion against the father’s wishes or even his knowledge. I personally know of one such case, sort of.
I don’t think it would be unreasonable to require women getting an abortion to inform the father, even if the final choice is hers.

Needs2know seems to think the absence of a “male Pill” is somehow indicative of the blatant sexism of society or somesuch. I don’t see it that way; If the majority of men were the sort of weasel that wants to go 'round humping whatever moves and then ducking their responsibilities, and if the medical establishment were somehow biased towards men, then we would have developed a male pill. As it is, we have spent millions successfully developing and improving an array of pregnancy-prevention alternatives for women, while men’s choices are the same they were 100 years ago.

I am NOT saying this is necessarily wrong or bad; but it does indicate that either men are more willing to assume the responsibilities of fatherhood than the “deadbeat dad” stereotype implies, or that the bias in medicine is a myth.
All that aside, I tend to fall into the camp that says that the whole situation is unresolvable. I’m not persuaded by the arguments that there is no unfairness here. But I also don’t see any conscionable way of rectifying an unfairness that is, at root, the creation of Mother Nature (or God, if you prefer).

Of course, the implication is that men and women are fundamentally different, if equal, in their abilities.

48

Jodi:

This is the same argument conservatives use against gay marriage. “Gay Men have the same right to marry as Straight Men” they just have to marry a woman.

Nice logic, Jodi.

And your preivous posts refer to “the rights of the BABY” capitalization yours, many times, but what rights does the BABY have in an abortion?"

49

Actually God’s not to blame, Eve ate the apple and got herself cursed with child bearing, or at least painful child birth (depending on whose at the puplit).
To be a bit more on topic I think this is a situation where no matter how the law is set up people are going to be pissed. One of the reasons is that the less out there situations are a result of miscomunication. Before a sexual relationship people should discuss the possibility of pregancy. I don’t get involved with women who won’t abort. Now if we want to bring law into this I suppose (and I’m not a lawyer so I don’t know) some sort of contract requiring her to abort could be made. If this is the best solution, well that’s kinda sad. Yeah there are situations where in a relationship some evil child desperate woman is going to play some trick or another. The child is going to get punished regardless of whether the father pays or not, how psychologiclaly healthy do you think someone who tricks a man into being a biological father is?

Judges should use their sense in far out cases. There are situations in which the biological father is not responsible. They are rare but if/when they come up punishing the father isn’t going to help, because the woman involved is probably not playing with a full deck. IIRC the state can force unfit mothers to give their babies up for adoption. I wouldn’t be surprised if in the case of some hypothetical rape of a man that the mother would have to give up the child produced.

50

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
**

I should have put that in my post. My wife (girlfriend at the time) witnessed the act as the woman told her what she was doing and why.

51

Actually, Jodi did not say this. I did.

And I see no similarly at all between this argument and an argument against gay marriages. The comparison is completely invalid.

As to the baby’s right in abortion, it has none, because it is not legally a person, and only people have rights.

52

What I have been saying and will say again is that if you have consentual sex then it is your responsibility and yours alone, man or woman to prevent pregnancy. Barring that should a child be born from this sex BOTH parties are responsible for it’s support. What men can’t seem to get through their thick heads is that there would be no baby if they also would accept EQUAL responsiblity for birth control. Abortions, adoptions, and the desire to father a child has nothing to do with the issue once the child is concieved, not just born, but concieved. Each individual through various methods of birth control was given the opportunity to prevent pregnancy. If pregnancy occurs, then both parties are responsible for the result. How hard is that to understand? And please do not give me anymore farfetched scenerios about throwing away pills and such. Because the ultimate and final reproductive responsibility lies with each individual and should be addressed before and during sex not after. Then it is simply too late.

Needs2know

53

And yes, we can start another “feminist” thread about how medical science has ignored the fact that there are more than one responsible party were pregnancy is concerned. And yes, many women will back me up when I say that for many years a predominately male medical community glossed over, ignored or simply did not believe women when they complained about their reproductive health. A little over 35 years ago most OB-GYNs didn’t even know that women were in pain because of a real condition called endometriosis. They simply thought that women were a bunch of whiners. Yes, it’s true and well established now that PMS is a real and valid condition, but just a couple of decades ago women were just a bunch of bitches. I am not saying that women’s health issues have been deliberately ignored or that it was ever any kind of organized conspiracy. It’s simply a fact that men, even doctors, for many years could not relate to women’s health issues.

You also cannot tell me that just a few decades ago, during our parents day, that women were not held solely responsible for the issue of sex and birth control. If you think that the residual effects of those societal constraints do not still effect us to some degree now then you are deluding yourself. Read over this thread it’s a perfect example. Yes, “we’ve come a long way baby” and thank goodness for that. So now our daughters do not have to suffer the same humiliation and ostracism that our mothers did for unwanted pregnancies. They no longer have to be made totally responsible for the moral and financial responsibility of an accidental pregnancy.

Needs2know

54

May I just make a small point, that if the birth-control situation alone were reversed, i.e., women had but 1 choice while men had 6 options, would you, or any woman, feel better about that?

So, the men “in charge” deciding to study the situation and give the women (of course, the gender that had bear the child) more options. Could some credit be given there, or should the situation have been the opposite, as stated above?

55

needs2know - I think the most worrying cases were those where the sex was non-consensual (with a minor, or a drunk male) yet the male was held responsible. Surely you would agree that there is unfairness in holding the male responsible in such situations?

56

Good morning teammates :smiley:

I think a lot of people are getting way to emotional over this, it’s just mental exercise guys & gals relax.

I’ve been reading the responses since last night (actually intended to participate last night but my power went out) and I think we’re at an impasse. I actually acknowledged as much in my 1st post.

THE ISSUE: I believe that if you’re extending parental choice pass conception to the mother, than the father should have that same right. That is the sum total of my argument.

I’m not arguing about financial responsibility, birth control, rape, or enter your emotional red herring here: ____________ and if you go back you’ll notice I haven’t. I agree with all the poster here that once the child is here it has the right to be supported. My only issue is the one above.

57

Not trying very hard to sound flippant but aren’t an awful lot of pregnancies the result of someone being drunk? Can’t remember what comedian said it for sure but one of them joked about the warning label on liquor bottles that pregnant women shouldn’t drink. She found it ironic since many of them were preggers BECAUSE of alcohol. Elaine Boozler I think.

I have no intention of addressing the anecdotal cases. There is no point, they are simply that, anecdotal and meaningless to the big picture. Inequities such as those are what our court system is designed to handle. What we are really talking about here is a guy who dips his wick, does not secure his own protection and then whines when he has to pay up.

I mentioned the male birth control problem because it’s true, men don’t have as many options. I firmly believe it is because it has been far more expediant for medical science to fool around with women’s hormones than it has men’s. Now tell me is that fair? Nothing about sexual responsibility has traditionally been equitable for women. It’s getting better but the stigma is still there. The societal overtones of previous generations are still present even here in this thread.

Anyway, I ramble…this is my take on the subject. If someone is vehemently opposed to having a child then they should trust no one else with their reproductive decision. So if I were a man, I’d never take some woman’s word for it. I would always make sure that I am protected. Actually I’d probably have a rubber, my own can of foam, and even pull out at just the right moment. Just to be safe. I plan to teach my son when the time comes that HE is every bit as responsible for reproduction as a woman.

Needs2know

58

Np, there is no unfairness, because the same legal standard applies to the female; if a woman gives borth to a child conceived by rape, she’s responsible for raising it.

If this were to happen to a man, the appropriate and ideal route for him to take is suit in civil court, NOT automatic relief of his parental duty. Let him sue for damages.

59

Kinda stuck on the woman’s victimhood thing eh Needs? I just don’t believe that, and Im going to find evidence to the contrary. You think men wouldn’t want an easier way of preventing conception that a sensataion REDUCING condom :rolleyes: Me thinks you’re buying into too much feminist rhethoric.

60

RickJay: *There is no “choice to become a parent” here.

The mother has the right to get an abortion. If that happens, there is no baby. Nobody is a parent.

The mother and father become parents once the child is born. They have no “choice” in this matter; they become fully responsible and must execute that responsibility or bilaterally transfer it.

Is that sort of scammy? It sounds like it, I know; the mother can terminate a pregnancy. But that just doesn’t matter; it is a completely separate issue. The parents only become parents once the child is actually born, and they have no choice in the matter. Once a baby exists, the duty exists. Prior to birth, no baby exists, and no duty exists; the only right excercised by a woman getting an abortion is her ordinary right to liberty. There is no child, no parents, no parental responsibility, no parental rights. *

RickJay, it’s not that I’m not getting your argument, which is very clear and sensible. It’s just that the whole line of reasoning, although legally consistent, still strikes me as ignoring some of the most basic realities of the issue. We can theoretically separate a woman’s right to cease being pregnant from her (non-existent) right to renounce maternal responsibility, but when it comes to making those choices in real life, they are not separate issues. Even hardline pro-choicers (among whom I’m proud to number myself) agree that a fetus is a potential baby and that abortion terminates the potential for new life and its accompanying parental responsibilities. Women considering abortions aren’t just debating whether they are willing to have a pregnant body right now, they are deciding whether they are willing and able to accept maternal responsibilities at the end of pregnancy. The distinction you’re drawing between a woman’s “ordinary right to liberty” and the “completely separate issue” of “parental responsibility and parental rights” may be theoretically defensible, but it completely ignores some of the most basic realities of how we actually think when faced with choices about pregnancy, abortion, and parenthood: and that’s what bothers me.

Jodi: *On what other level rather than “biological” is this unfair? The reason she has this choice and he doesn’t is entirely biological – she’s pregnant and it’s her body. *

Yes, but we aren’t so reluctant to employ social and legal fictions to redress biological inequities in other issues. For example, if a woman is physically barred from entering a public place by a man who’s stronger than she is, we don’t tell her “well, men on average are stronger than women and can push them around more: if you don’t like it, complain to God.” No, we have the artificial concept of equality before the law, which means that we bestow on weaker people the right to be equal in many ways to stronger ones, which they certainly don’t naturally possess (“naturally” here meaning “without support from society and its laws”). Similarly, if a person in a wheelchair can’t climb steps to get into a public building, we don’t say “Well, people with legs can climb steps and you can’t: take it up with God”; the Americans with Disabilities Act insists that on the contrary, the physical realities have to be altered to accomodate the handicapped person’s artificial equal rights to access.

It always makes me kind of nervous to hear fellow feminists arguing that some inequity or other just has to be accepted because it’s based on biological reality. I fear that that’s the kind of argument that can come back to haunt us.