Child Support and the "male abortion"

[Procacious]

quote:

And I have known a few people that were vegetarians for moral reasons that later concluded that their reasoning was flawed. Such people are rare, but they do exist.

I am a vegetarian. I’ve met no vegetarians (who are “serious” about their vegetarianism, anyway) who have discussed the possibility of quitting vegetarianism. It doesn’t mean that they won’t, just that they have no intention of doing so.

I don’t think I’ll change my mind about being a vegetarian (I’m not one for strictly moral reasons, though). I may change my mind in the future, (but since it’s been 16 years now, I sort of doubt it). As far as I am concerned, I’m veggie for life, and I behave accordingly.

If I were to try to “cover my ass” and say, “Wellll…I can’t eat animals now, but you never know, by Thanksgiving I may not be veggie, so you’d better prepare enough turkey for me, just in case”, then I’d be a piss-poor vegetarian, and I wouldn’t expect anyone to respect my vegetarianism. With moral beliefs, should come conviction. If a person does not display a certain amount of tangible moral conviction (other than just talk), others around them will not take them seriously.

I agree with you on this. But we are not talking about whether you ask someone to prepare turkey for you for Thanksgiving. We are talking about whether you are willing to undergo an operation to remove your ability to digest animal related products. The decision to have a vasectomy is not something to be taken lightly.

quote:

The decision not to have children ever is quite different from the decision not to have child while the world is in its current state.

In which case, a vasectomy (while saving sperm in the sperm bank) may still be a good option to someone who wants to enjoy sex without worrying about unwanted kids. The saved sperm will always be there, if they are needed later on.

It is a possibility. However, something could go wrong that would result in the destruction of the sperm. I find it amusing that they way you throw around the idea of people having vasectomies, a power outage in a city’s sperm bank could result in half the city’s males never being able to breed (since a good portion of men do not wish to have a child at some point in their lives and you would have them all get vasectomies).

If a person is appalled at the idea of bringing up children in this world’s current state, that’s fine. But their moral mortification over bringing a child into this world cannot trump someone else’s moral mortification over abortion, should it? Wouldn’t it be better for the person with the specific moral conviction to do everything on his end to assure that his morals will not be compromised, instead of expecting someone else to possibly violate their own moral convictions, in order to adhere to his moral beliefs? (How many times did I use the word “moral” there? Must be some kind of record.)

True, I would not advocate asking the woman to compromise her morals either, but if the man received the woman’s assurance that she would not keep any fetus she became impregnated with, and she changed her mind later, I would at least let him wash his hands of the situation if it would help him with his moral dilemma. If a vegetarian somehow partook in an act that made him/her partially responsible for the slaughter or countless animals without any good reason, I would allow that person to leave the scene as well rather than have to recoil in constant horror at the carnage he/she helped create.

[yosemite]

However, something could go wrong that would result in the destruction of the sperm. I find it amusing that they way you throw around the idea of people having vasectomies, a power outage in a city’s sperm bank could result in half the city’s males never being able to breed (since a good portion of men do not wish to have a child at some point in their lives and you would have them all get vasectomies).

Well, the idea to abort (as if it is as easy as getting your teeth cleaned) has been “thrown around” on this thread plenty. But since you men are the ones bellyaching about how “unfair” it is that men may have to be responsible for their offspring (unwanted or not), I think it is only appropriate that you do something about it yourselves. As far as the sperm storage concenrs— the solution is simple—just leave several “deposits” in several sperm banks, around the country. Hell, set up an account in a sperm bank in Switzerland, for all I care! Sounds much cheaper than supporting an unwanted child. And taking such an action would not involve anyone else—no child in need of support, no pregnant woman feeling pressured to abort because you don’t want to support the kid—no nothing, but your own choice to be responsible. I think it’s a far more reasonable solution than the almost dismissive solution of, “Well, have her get an abortion”. (Which, as Nonny Mouse has clarified so well, is a moral minefield, and also a procedure which does have some health risks.) If a man doesn’t want kids, let him take care of it on his end.

If a vegetarian somehow partook in an act that made him/her partially responsible for the slaughter or countless animals without any good reason, I would allow that person to leave the scene as well rather than have to recoil in constant horror at the carnage he/she helped create.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Is there a specific scenario that you could describe where a vegetarian would knowingly get into a sticky moral situation which would require that someone else to bail them out? And, even if a vegetarian got into some sort of moral situation that made them recoil, would you clean up their mess for them, even if it would cost you a great deal of money, and/or required that you do something that voilated your moral principles? Especially if the vegetarian got into this situation fully knowing the potential consequences, and yet deciding that they wanted to take the chance anyway?

[yosemite]

Argh. Please excuse typos! More than usual this time.

[Procacious]

*Originally posted by yosemitebabe *
**Is there a specific scenario that you could describe where a vegetarian would knowingly get into a sticky moral situation which would require that someone else to bail them out? And, even if a vegetarian got into some sort of moral situation that made them recoil, would you clean up their mess for them, even if it would cost you a great deal of money, and/or required that you do something that voilated your moral principles? Especially if the vegetarian got into this situation fully knowing the potential consequences, and yet deciding that they wanted to take the chance anyway? **

Let us say that the vegetarian and a partner get into a business to make a particular product (the product can be anything). The vegetarian informs the other person that he/she does not wish to take part in any business that will involve the killing of animals (since there is a chance that the product they are making would involve something animal related). The other person informs the vegetarian that no animals will be used in the making of the product. The non-vegetarian partner begins the production of the product and at some point decides to use animal parts in the product (either because he/she planned on it all along or because he/she changed his/her mind). At a later date the vegetarian discovers the way in which the product was made and recoils in horror at the thought that he/she helped to produce it.

A woman that tells a man prior to sex that she will have an abortion if she becomes pregnant is doing the same thing as the non-vegetarian partner in this analogy if she decides to have the child anyway.

[yosemite]

The analogy doesn’t quite hold up. The vegetarian is not participating in anything that will result in killing animals. He is completely divorced from the whole process of using animals for the product. He has no knowledge or reason to suspect that there will be animal products used, since that was the agreement from the beginning. He’s not DOING anything to put the animal product in there, personally, himself. He does not need to be bailed out of anything, because he didn’t get into anything. He has no reason to feel guilty or morally responsible for the animal by-products being in there, because he didn’t put them in there, and didn’t consent to them being put in there. He hasn’t contributed to something that he knew from the beginning could result in a (for him) morally sticky situation.

On the other hand, man who has sex with a woman is helping contribute to the creation of a new life, (which supposedly is as moral problem for him). He risks helping create a new life anyway, because he wants to have sex with the woman. The fact that the woman lied/changed her mind after the fact is unfortunate, but it doesn’t change the fact that the man got into the whole thing knowing that he could possibly get her pregnant. And he decided to take risk possibly getting her pregnant anyway. He risked creating a child, something he was (supposedly) “morally” opposed to doing. He did it because he wanted to have sex with her, and he hoped she wouldn’t change her mind about disposing of this child. He was completely dependant on her word, completely dependant on her stopping something HE helped start. And HE helped start something that he found morally wrong or morally repugnant.

[Procacious]

*Originally posted by yosemitebabe *
**The analogy doesn’t quite hold up. The vegetarian is not participating in anything that will result in killing animals. He is completely divorced from the whole process of using animals for the product. He has no knowledge or reason to suspect that there will be animal products used, since that was the agreement from the beginning. He’s not DOING anything to put the animal product in there, personally, himself. He does not need to be bailed out of anything, because he didn’t get into anything. He has no reason to feel guilty or morally responsible for the animal by-products being in there, because he didn’t put them in there, and didn’t consent to them being put in there. He hasn’t contributed to something that he knew from the beginning could result in a (for him) morally sticky situation.

On the other hand, man who has sex with a woman is helping contribute to the creation of a new life, (which supposedly is as moral problem for him). He risks helping create a new life anyway, because he wants to have sex with the woman. The fact that the woman lied/changed her mind after the fact is unfortunate, but it doesn’t change the fact that the man got into the whole thing knowing that he could possibly get her pregnant. And he decided to take risk possibly getting her pregnant anyway. He risked creating a child, something he was (supposedly) “morally” opposed to doing. He did it because he wanted to have sex with her, and he hoped she wouldn’t change her mind about disposing of this child. He was completely dependant on her word, completely dependant on her stopping something HE helped start. And HE helped start something that he found morally wrong or morally repugnant. **

The man in my example does not have a moral problem with producing fetuses, only with producing children. It is the act of bringing a life into this world that offends him not the thought of slaying a 3-month old fetus. The fetus is not mature enough to have experienced the true horror that life can offer and its death would be a humane procedure. Like the vegetarian that invested in the business, the male was assured that the actual act that he finds morally repulsive (i.e. giving birth to the child) would not take place.

I realize such individuals are rare (especially since it requires the man to be thinking about the well-being of the child, rather than himself, to even come up with such a conclusion), but the law does not have a way out for such an individual. He was duped and now must suffer, just like the vegetarian.

[yosemite]

I realize such individuals are rare (especially since it requires the man to be thinking about the well-being of the child, rather than himself, to even come up with such a conclusion), but the law does not have a way out for such an individual. He was duped and now must suffer, just like the vegetarian.

“Suffer”? For one thing, the vegetarian in your analogy does not resemble the man in your analogy. The vegetarian hasn’t done anything to contribute to his situation, so he’s not responsible for “suffering” because something (that he did not morally agree with) happened.

Another thing—I feel limited sympathy for someone who starts something that MAY be a child (something he is morally opposed to creating) and is stupid enough to rely on the word of someone else to cover his butt, especially on a moral issue that is (apparently) this important to him. He’s not the first guy to be burned, and it is unfortunate that the woman lied or changed her mind. But, what if she decided that the risk to her health is too much? What if she decided that she was not morally comfortable with abortion? How can he predict that she won’t have these legitimate changes of heart (since you definitely concede the possiblity that people can have a change of heart)? Is he willing to risk his own moral standards on the hope that she won’t change her mind? Especially since there is no legal reason why she can’t change her mind? (Especially when it comes to something as serious as having surgery?) If he’s willing to risk all of this because he wants to have sex with her that badly, he’s got to be willing to take the consequences if his hopes (that she’ll have an abortion) are dashed.

[dragongirl]

There’s a case in Pennsylvania right now of a woman that wants an abortion and her ex-boyfriend, who is trying to stop her.

Read all about it here.

[Ms2001]

*Originally posted by yosemitebabe *
Would they have some identifying mark on them, or some other way of proving that any woman who had sex with them would know that he would not be obligated to support any child that she may conceive?

I think you misunderstood. The man announces his intent in each specific case, he doesn’t get some membership card declaring his status as someone who doesn’t want kids.

Any women who have sex with him would know that he (like any other man) could officially choose not to support a child as long as he did it within a certain timeframe, just like he knows that she could have an abortion within an equal or longer timeframe.

The obligations were created when they had sex and she conceived, and the child started to grow. He cannot then expect her to violate her own moral beliefs about terminating a child growing inside of her, merely because it is inconvenient to him financially.

I guess having to sell your car and live in the street could be considered “inconvenient”, but I think I’d use a different word.

Why should money flow from the taxpayer’s wallets to support a child that this man helped create, just because he is unwilling to support it himself?

He helped create it in the sense that it contains some of his DNA, and that he was present at the conception. But the actual choice to bring a child into the world rests with someone else.

[yosemite]

Any women who have sex with him would know that he (like any other man) could officially choose not to support a child as long as he did it within a certain timeframe, just like he knows that she could have an abortion within an equal or longer timeframe.

I’m still asking—how would he prove that he told the woman that he intended to not be responsible for any child she conceived? How does he “officially” declare that he is not responsible for any children he fathers? She could just say that he didn’t “officially” tell her. Or, he could say that he told her before they had sex, even though he never did tell her. (The only appropriate time to tell her this is before they ever have sex, or course. After they’ve had sex even one time, she could already be pregnant for all he or she knows, and then the cow is out of the barn.) Please be more specific about how this would “officially” work, because I’m not getting it. I see a lot of legal loopholes being created with this.

He helped create it in the sense that it contains some of his DNA, and that he was present at the conception. But the actual choice to bring a child into the world rests with someone else.

We’ve already covered this one quite adequately (especially in Nonny Mouse’s posts). We are not buying your theory that he is not “responsible” for the child even though he helped conceive it.

[Ms2001]

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
I’m still asking—how would he prove that he told the woman that he intended to not be responsible for any child she conceived? How does he “officially” declare that he is not responsible for any children he fathers?

I imagine it would go something like this: He stands in line at someplace like the DMV or a public health office. The clerk asks if he’s notified the mother; if not, the clerk tells him to do that first. The clerk fills out a form, including (e.g.) the mother and father’s contact information, the date he learned of he pregnancy, and the expected due date. The man signs and dates the form.

One copy of the form is kept for the state’s records, one copy is given to the man, and one copy is sent via registered mail to the woman. The return receipt is proof that she has been notified.

If the return receipt doesn’t come back within, say, 10 business days, the state tries other means to contact her - home phone, work phone, addresses from DMV or tax records, etc. I believe methods are already in place for notifying people who are being divorced, sued, or summoned to court.

If she can’t be contacted but she does show up to request child support, I imagine the man would be allowed to file a suit against her. If she is found to have deliberately avoided contact so that she could say “I didn’t know he wasn’t going to support the child”, he would be entitled to recover any child support payments he was forced to make.

Or, he could say that he told her before they had sex, even though he never did tell her.

Simply telling her isn’t enough, he must also tell the state.

[SuaSponte]

Forgive me if this point has been raised already; I got through 2 pages and MEGO -

There aren’t three parties to this equation; there are four; mother, father, child and the public. The public’s interests are not best served if the child only has sufficient resources to get on by. The public’s interests are best served if the child thrives - becomes the most productive member of society (and pays the most taxes :p) that the child is capable of becoming.

And the evidence is very clear that the more financial resources a child has on call, the more likely the child will thrive.

So the father didn’t want the child; definitely a factor. But that factor is addressed by the fact that the father doesn’t have to put in the hours necessary to raising a child. The opportunity benefit of that is pretty damn big. But the father’s interests in lessening his financial cost does not outweigh the public’s interests in maximizing the child’s potential productivity.

Sua

[yosemite]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
I imagine it would go something like this: He stands in line at someplace like the DMV or a public health office. The clerk asks if he’s notified the mother; if not, the clerk tells him to do that first. The clerk fills out a form, including (e.g.) the mother and father’s contact information, the date he learned of he pregnancy, and the expected due date. The man signs and dates the form.

ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE. Didn’t you read my comment about how he needed to tell her before they ever had sex? She needs this sort of information BEFORE, not after she’s pregnant. For him to trot down to the DMV or wherever after he hears of the pregnancy is completely unacceptable. The cow is out of the barn then. He’s already gotten her pregnant.

If she is violently opposed to abortion, (or unwilling to have the surgery for whatever reason) and she has sex with him with no knowledge that he’d not support the kid, only to find out later that he wants no part of it, she’s stuck. He may have even told her prior to having sex that he wanted to marry her and that he wanted her to have kids. He may have fed her all sorts of lines in order to get her into bed. (And how would she prove to the state that he made all these promises to her after the fact? He could just deny it.) And then once she’s pregnant, he easily bails out? And she’s forced with facing supporting the child by herself? Absolutely unacceptable. Legalized child abandonment is what it is. It makes being an irresponsible deadbeat so much easier.

With your system, the woman is completely in the dark. She can’t even make an informed choice about this guy. If she knew his intentions beforehand, she could choose to not have sex with him. She could choose to not risk getting impregnanted by a guy who wanted no responsibilty for his own offspring. But wait! Wouldn’t that be a bummer for him? He’d have to perhaps risk not getting some sex, wouldn’t he? Well, we can’t have that! He has a right to consequence-free sex, after all! :rolleyes: (Yes, that was sarcasm again…)

This is a terrible, terrible, horribly selfish solution you have suggested. All the guy needs to do to bail out is wait in line and sign a form. On the other hand, the woman has to have surgery, possibly face a deeply uncomfortable moral decision, and endure other health consequences. Perhaps she’ll have to face all of this after being lied to by a snake-oil-salesman of a man. And you think this is “fair”? It is to laugh.

With the current system, all parties are aware of their responsibilities and the consequences of their actions beforehand. I know you don’t like the idea of the man having to possibly be expected to be responsible for his own offspring. But the fact is, he KNOWS what he may face, undeniably, beforehand. He can choose not to have sex (like Procacious has chosen) rather than face those consequences.

Sua Sponte: Some interesting and compelling points you’ve brought up!

[RexDart]

I just wanted to cut through the ongoing yosemitebabe vs. a couple others (she’s at about 20% of total posts in this thread right now) to note that we had a first-time poster in the middle of this convoluted thread.

Good points selfdo, nice post. It’s been my limited experience here that once a GD thread boils down to 2 or 3 posters going back and forth, newcomers to the thread generally find it hard to become part of the discussion. So don’t take the fact that your points weren’t addressed in this discussion as a statement that they don’t matter, just that the primary participants at this point are mostly concerned with the arguments they are directing at each other. It’s just the way of things.

[yosemite]

she’s at about 20% of total posts in this thread right now

You’ve been counting? :rolleyes:

I also extend my welcome to selfdo.

[Ms2001]

*Originally posted by yosemitebabe *
ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE. Didn’t you read my comment about how he needed to tell her before they ever had sex?

I did, but I disagree. I don’t see how the man has any more obligation to tell her “I don’t want kids”, than she has to tell him “I do want kids.”

Certainly they ought to understand each other’s position before they have sex, but I don’t think it needs to be a legal requirement. How could you enforce that?

He may have even told her prior to having sex that he wanted to marry her and that he wanted her to have kids. He may have fed her all sorts of lines in order to get her into bed.

Or maybe he told her he didn’t want kids, so she told him she had a hysterectomy, or she’s on Norplant. Who knows what she might have said to get him in bed, or to get him to pay for her mommy fantasy? :rolleyes:

We could make up scary stories until the cows come home. No system is perfect.

If he says he wants kids but she thinks he might bail out, maybe she ought to have him sign a contract. Doesn’t that sound like a good idea, agreeing up front about something that will cost tens of thousands of dollars over the next couple decades? That way, no one is forced into anything; the only obligations are those that the parties enter into freely.

(Factual question - under the current laws, is it possible for the couple to sign a contract beforehand, absolving the man of any parental rights and financial obligations?)

(more male-bashing snipped)
With the current system, all parties are aware of their responsibilities and the consequences of their actions beforehand. […] But the fact is, he KNOWS what he may face, undeniably, beforehand.

The woman knows what she’ll face too. The consequences are more unpleasant for her, but that’s due to biology; fixing it would involve genetic engineering, not law.

Under my proposal, she still knows what her options are and what his options are. She knows that if she gets pregnant and declines to terminate the pregnancy, the law won’t force him to pay. If she’s concerned about that, she can give him a contract to sign.

Originally posted by SuaSponte
But the father’s interests in lessening his financial cost does not outweigh the public’s interests in maximizing the child’s potential productivity.

If financially supporting the child is in the public’s interest, why not let the public pay for it? The father isn’t receiving any benefit, and the choice of bringing a child into the world was made by someone else.

I’ve seen the legal terms “but-for cause” and “intervening cause” used in other threads discussing similar situations; would it be appropriate to say the couple’s choice to have sex is a but-for cause of the child needing financial support, and the woman’s choice to carry the child to term is an intervening cause?

[wring]

no, one cannot ‘opt out’ legally of financially supporting your child before hand as you suggest - you cannot forfeit some one else’s (the childs) rights.

and the public does end up supporting many children. HOwever, isn’t it better that those most closely responsible for creating the life take that responsability?

Oddly enough, you seem to only want the male to not be responsible unless he specifically chooses to.

[yosemite]

Let’s see, Mr. 2001: How do you propose that a woman “opt out” of an unwanted pregnancy, without involving a medical procedure? Oh wait, there is no way, is there? And that biology is a bitch, ain’t it, but why should it spoil any of the man’s fun, huh? We couldn’t expect him to do anything responsible, like, say…have a vasectomy, could we? No!

He doesn’t need a vasectomy. Why bother with that? Why even bother with a condom? Why bother with any form of birth control? It just spoils the mood. He doesn’t need to do anything on his side to prevent pregnancy, after all. That’s all her problem. All he has to do to be responsibility-free is to wait in line and sign a form. Let her deal with all that nasty surgery stuff and child support stuff. Yeah, that’s really fair.

I just cannot believe your position. I’m absolutely incredulous.

wring wrote:
Oddly enough, you seem to only want the male to not be responsible unless he specifically chooses to.

Exactly. Amazing, isn’t it? But, don’t you see how fair it is?

[Ms2001]

Originally posted by wring
HOwever, isn’t it better that those most closely responsible for creating the life take that responsability?

Yes, that’s exactly my point. The woman is clearly more responsible for creating the life than the man.

Oddly enough, you seem to only want the male to not be responsible unless he specifically chooses to.

The procedure I posted was only a first attempt; I’m open to suggestions if you have a better way to implement my ideas that will be less open to abuse.

The woman is in a situation where she has at least two options: one will produce a life that needs constant attention and decades of financial support. She knows which one that is. If she chooses that option, she doesn’t get to turn around and say “he made me do it!” The choice is entirely hers; if she didn’t want to have a child or support it herself, she could have chosen differently.

So no, I don’t think the male is responsible unless he chooses to raise a child, because agreeing to have sex isn’t the same as agreeing to have a child. He is only involved in the choice to have sex; the choice to have a child, and therefore the responsibility of supporting a child, are out of his hands.

I have yet to see a satisfactory explanation of why the man should be held responsible for her choices. I’ve seen attempts, but no logic that I would want to apply to another scenario; why should responsibility be assigned differently here than in every other case?

*Originally posted by yosemitebabe *
Let’s see, Mr. 2001: How do you propose that a woman “opt out” of an unwanted pregnancy, without involving a medical procedure? Oh wait, there is no way, is there?

Not yet. You sure seem upset about that, have you considered becoming a medical researcher?

I have no problem with her having the choice of terminating the pregnancy or carrying it to term, just with her forcing someone else to subsidize it. If she can’t afford to raise a child herself, she should get a better job or just not have kids. Not everyone needs to be a mommy.

Let her deal with all that nasty surgery stuff and child support stuff. Yeah, that’s really fair.

If she doesn’t want to support a child, she doesn’t have to. Unlike the man, no one can force her into 18 years of financial servitude.

I just cannot believe your position. I’m absolutely incredulous.

Which part don’t you believe… that I don’t think one person should be held responsible for choices made by someone else? That I don’t think one person’s philosophical convictions should create obligations for someone else? That I don’t think the woman and the man share equal responsibility for the choice to bring a child into the world?

Did you leave something out of your post? It looks like more male-bashing and “Well, I NEVER!” hand-waving; I was hoping to see something of substance.

[wring]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
**Yes, that’s exactly my point. The woman is clearly more responsible for creating the life than the man.

**
?? how so? any pregnancy requires two people. not one. This ‘fact’ is unsupported and unsupportable. and until it is supported, the rest of your argument is bunk.