wow 3 pages since last night. Throwing in my two cents. The moderate position of a partial opt-out appeals to me greatly. However I think a pre-req would be that the male/female must explicitly or implicitly express(through contraceptive measures) their desire to not have a child prior to sex. This would prevent simply opting out after the child is concieved.
Robert:
Somehow I picture you screaming “No taxation without representation!” at the Boston Tea party. =)
Oh, and why doesn’t anyone think those rabid pro-lifers should be held financially responsible for the wouldve-been-aborted kid?
No, just pressuring her (in a roundabout way) or definitely influencing her. “I know I helped you get into this mess, but I won’t contribute my 50% to help you, so you’re on your own, kid.”
One more time, with feeling: If he were so “unwilling”, he never would have helped the life get started in the first place.
And these two things having nothing to do with each other. Having your “picture taken” never used to be illegal. People who “take pictures” are not sometimes gunned down by zealots. “Picture taking” is not an activity that is fraught with controversy. Having your “picture taken” will not affect your future fertility, or possibly threaten your heath (or life). Having your “picture taken” is not a surgical procedure. No vast amount of people consider having your “picture taken” as something akin to murder.
Sure it has health consequences. And the man has none. Zero, zip nada. No health consequences at all. And he doesn’t get to influence or choose for her what “health consequences” she’d prefer to have. Because it’s her body. Not his.
All legal and binding and everything? And no matter what she may have thought beforehand, she can’t speak for the kid’s welfare, can she? The kid that she later brings into the world, the one that needs support and schooling. The one that is actually needing the support. The kid surely did not “explicitly” tell him that it would not expect support. It just needs support. Newsflash: I (as a taxpayer) don’t feel like supporting the kid. I did not contribute anything the the kid’s creation.
Can’t make a contract with an unborn child. Minors are not allowed to enter into contracts.
HIS AND HER CHOICE to help create life, remember? They both knew going on that sex could equal pregnancy. HE MADE THE CHOICE JUST AS MUCH AS SHE DID to have sex anyway, knowing that birth control is not foolproof. Knowing that a child could result. He had a choice right there in the beginning. All she does later is choose whether or not to “do anything” to interrupt Mother Nature. A life has already been started. Cells are starting to divide, the whole thing is on its way. Since its in her body, (not his) she gets to decide: does she artificially interrupt this process? Does she do something? Or does she let nature take its course, like millions and jillions of women have done before her? (While the men look on, fully aware of the whole natural process?) Since it is her body, she’s allowed this choice. Nifty, huh? She is not by default obligated to interrupt the natural process that was started in her body, with full knoweldge and consent of both parties. Interrupting this process is not a “default” action. Just because it’s a legal possibility, does not mean that it is the expected or default choice.
When egg and sperm meet, when cells start to divide, IT ALWAYS DOES LEAD TO A NEW LIFE. ALWAYS. Unless Mother Nature stops it (miscarriage). Unless she does something proactive to stop it. Unless she goes to a clinic and gets it scraped out of her, IT ALWAYS DOES LEAD TO NEW LIFE. Because that is the way Mother Nature intends it.
No, walking does not equal mugging. An action is taken in order to mug someone. Someone has to jump out from the shadows and plot and plan and take a proactive stance in order to mug. Not so with pregnancy. It just is. The woman does nothing but keep breathing, and it just is. After she and the man make the mutual decision to have sex, the rest is up the Mother nature. Either the egg will be fertilized, or it won’t. They take their chances, and they knew that going in.
The new life comes on its own, because the man’s sperm fertilized her egg. NO FURTHER ACTION IS REQUIRED ON HER PART. She doesn’t have to do a damned thing from then on (other than to, you know, exist) for the life to continue. Unless Mother Nature decides that a miscarriage is in order, the mother doesn’t have to do a damned thing. And you know what? She’s not obligated to do a damned thing, either! Because it’s her body. And if she doesn’t want someone scraping something out of it, she doesn’t have to.
Because it takes two to create a new life: An egg and a sperm. The color of the car they were in when they had sex has no bearing on anything. The identity of their grandparents is not relevant. Just that sperm, and that egg.
“Finger on the trigger”? What are you going on about? It he doesn’t want a new life to begin, if he doesn’t want to be responsible for it, all he needs to do is not ejaculate into her. He doesn’t have to help the new life to start. That’s it. It’s so frighteningly simple, really.
She has no “finger on the trigger”. She just is not obligated to proactively have something scraped out of her that HE helped put in there. There was no one person who made the decision. He was just as much a part of the fertilization of that egg as she was. He cannot expect her to have anything scraped or sucked out of her body, just because, 9 months down the line, it’s gonna cause a hit to his sacred and precious wallet. Too late for that. He made his choice beforehand.
Why is the “keep your pants on” defense a valid key to my wallet, but not your reproductive system?
So why should he be obligated to help pay for what he decided to put there?
A woman’s body is her body. She should not have to give up her sovigern rights to it. A man’s wallet is his wallet. He should not have to give up his sovigern rights to it. Tell me again why if your child can pry open my wallet and take my money, I can’t pry open your legs and remove it pre-emptively.
[major hijack]
And throwing tea into a harbor was silly, and theft/vandalism. Just don’t buy it, doofuses. You’re right about the tax/rep. issue, though.
[/major hijack]
Have a nice rest DrLizardo and thanks for the thread in the first place! You finally got me to stop lurking.
How about this as a parting shot.
I could support a male opt-out in the following conditions.
The male can prove that he explained to the female in no uncertain terms that he had no interest in supporting a child BEFORE they had sex. In today’s society this would have to be written down. It would probably have to be written in very clear language, read and understood by both parties, and there could be no evidence that either party went back on the deal verbally later. Any evidence that the male said anything to the effect of “don’t worry dear I love you I wouldn’t really leave you…” would void his "opt-out " . The option should be available to the female as well. That is she should be able to write a contract stipulating that any children will be given over to the male with no further interference or obligation from her.
Furthermore selecting this option should not be free and clear. If I may, I would like to bring up an earlier suggestion of mine that committing unwanted pregnancies shold be grounds for sterilization. I’m not seriously suggesting makeing this a law. But if you want to limit the number of unwanted children nothing short of sterilization will do it. Mind you I’m willing to build in some leniency. For instance we would not sterilize until the 2nd or 3rd offence with obvious allowances for rape victims. And I’m willing to include redemptive properties. That is we could use some fomr of reversable sterilization which you could petition the courts to reverse on proof that you had become a responsible player in the procreative arts.
Frankly I know this sort of thing could never become law. I think the only chance for this kind of responsible sexual culture lies with the females. (heres where I get to enrage both sides:) If the women of this country were to refuse to have sex with any male who could not prove he was a responsible sexual partner, the system would be up and running tomorrow. For example if there existed a national database which women could access easily that listed men who had fathered children and not supported them, we would certainly find fewer repeat offenders.
I’m sorry, yosemitebabe, the idea that men have no responsibility toward their children is repugnent. But the idea that women bear no responsibility for the decisions they make during pregnancy is just as silly. As long as agreements and promises are taken into account from before sex the woman does hold all the cards during pregnancy. What I’m saying is that if a woman promises to have an abortion before sex and precautions are taken to revent conception, then she must bear the majority of the responsibility for changing her mind.
Mr2001: I think your analogy of a fear of pictures could apply here. If he honestly, truly believes that supporting his genetic offspring would steal his soul, no one will expect him to participate in procreative activities (or activities which risk procreation). But that doesn’t mean he gets to have all the sex he wants without consequences. It means he takes the bus to work. (sorry I could not think of how to translate this part of the analogy without offending people in a bad way:)
robert just out of curiosity, what exactly does a man have to do to opt-in? If I do not make any specific promises or agreements can I back out of father hood at any point? I think your posts indicate that men by default should not be obligated to support their offspring. Does that mean they have no rights by default?
Any parents, even rich ones can give a child up to the care of the state if they wish. Parent’s who do this have no further financial responsiblilities to the child. It is raised by the state. Even if they are wealthy, they don’t have to pay to support it.
How about for adoption? Can rich parents, together, give a child up for adoption and then have no financial consequences. They aren’t forced to pay child support to the new familiy even if they are wealthy.
In these scenarios the parents are not forced to pay any child support at all. They can just walk away. This sort of blows a big fat hole in minty green’s “IFTC!” (It’s for the child) position.
Fathers, even unwilliing ones, pay child support to the mother, not the child.
Your little addition to my scenario makes no sense in regards to the nature of sex and pregnancy. The guy jumping out behind you and cutting your chute is not analogous to a woman who consentually screws you. Unless you are insisting that men are completely helpless and powerless when it comes to sex.
Walking down a dark alley is not instrinsically risky, because the danger comes from other people, not the act itself. Having sex with a fertile woman is intrinsically risky, especially when caution is not exercised. Not wearing a condom is like not wearing a parachute and still expecting to come out unscathed. And there’s not even a guarantee that the condom will save you, no more than there is a guarantee that the parachute will. Expecting someone else to manage the reproductive process is as stupid as expecting a plane to swoop down mid free-fall and catch you before you hit the ground. Just because a woman is capable of getting an abortion, doesn’t mean she should do so just to relieve you of your responsibilities.
Let’s say you burned down my house by being negligent with a cigarette. Let’s also say that I wasn’t a total victim, because I was being stupid along with you. But let’s say you were co-participant in the act that led to my house being burned down, as determined by Judge Judy, with means you are partially culpable and accountable.
Let’s say then that I’m left with two mutually exclusive options: 1) go live with my mother and father or 2) get money from you to get another house. Let’s say, for the sake of discussion, that if I took the first option, you wouldn’t owe me any money. Does that mean I have to pick the first option?
No. I shouldn’t be made to live with my parents just because you don’t want to help pay for the mistake we made. You have no control over deciding what option I pick, but that doesn’t mean you are not to be held accountable if I choose option 2.
Yes. It’s the re-flipped flip side of my body, my choice. Women have sole control over their pregnancy. It follows that they have sole control over the results of that pregnancy (excepting the legal rights granted to newborn babies as people not to be killed and whatnot). Of course, if she chooses to share her responsibility with someone who accepts the burden, all well and good. Conversely, if she doesn’t want the child but she knows Dad (or even an interested 3rd party) does, and does not wish to get an abortion, she should be able to give birth and hand the baby off to whomever she wishes.
In Robertland, there would be a bureau of parents, where you would submit documentation stating that you would be financially and legally liable for your child for 18 years. No documentation, no parenthood. To prevent total strangers from attempting to opt in to your family, approval to be a parent would require a majority of current parents’ approval (if Mom chooses to become parent, then Dad requires her permission to join. Should a trusted neighbor wish to become a co-parent, he or she would require both parents’ approval. Possibly parents could give partial shares of parenthood to extended family, and a majority would be required for legal situations that the parents are supposed to decide.
This is a pipe dream, of course. IMHO, bring boardroom politics to a child-raising situation, no matter how fair in principle, will end up screwing the child over. OTOH, there are plenty of failues in the current system as well. So, I’m keeping my pipe dream, even if only in the capacity that the communists did after seeing what happened to the U.S.S.R. So there.
Because it is two different people you are talking about. The child (I like the use of the word your rather then our or mine) has the right to your money because the child has a right to be supported until at least age 18.
Prying open a women’s legs would damage her. The women hasn’t done anything to you. The child will demand support after it is born, not the women.
And just because a man is capable (usually) of paying child support for 18 years does not mean he should do so just to relieve a woman of her responsibilites.
This doesn’t follow. Women don’t have sole control over their pregnancy. They don’t get pregnant by themselves. They have partial control over their pregnancy in that they can choose to terminate if they want.
I disagree with this premise. The child has a right to continue living, but if it needs a heart transplant, and the only one that will do is the father’s, the father is under no obligation to give up his heart. Likewise, the need of a child for food, shelter, etc. does not translate into an obligation for anyone else other than those who have voluntarily agreed to to have to support the child.
And prying open my wallet damages me. Also, 1) you’re wrong about child vs. woman (re: Debaser) and 2) it doesn’t matter if it is you or random kid that is reaching for my wallet.
Two different things. You don’t have to give up parts of your body to keep someone else alive. That is why women can have abortions.
However, you do have an obligation (thank god!) by law to support your children even if you don’t voluntarily agree to because you did voluntarily agree to have a child. Even if you changed your mind later.
Yes. That’s wrong. Taking my wallet is wrong. Taking (control over) your womb is wrong. They’re both wrong, and both of our rights should trump the rights of whatever may result from said pregnancy.
Arg. Yes, they do. Women do have sole control over their pregnancy. Every choice (barring rape, kidnapping, etc.) was hers along every step of the way.
I’m not even talking about during pregnancy. I’m talking about after it. Women are expected to take care of the kids they produce, just as much (if not more than) the man is. But all we keep hearing about is your pitiful wallet.
Nope, not at all. The reason that being forced to give up parts of your body is wrong is because it is your damn body. Or is there another reason why keeping a woman from getting / forcing a woman to have an abortion is wrong?
In, I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, LEGALITY DOES NOT DICTATE MORALITY. A legal obligation does not dictate a moral one. And stating because it is the law is not an effective argument in a moral discussion.
And having sex is not a voluntary agreement to have a child.
My wallet is large and thick, thank you very much. And I don’t think that women should be expected to take care of the kids they produce if they do not choose to.
They have control over whether or not they have sex. They have control over what happens after they have sex. And, like I said before, guys and girls are jointly responsible for the fertilized ovum. But, once that ovum is fertilized, it stays in the girls court property-wise, and the guy cannot touch it, he therefore has no responsibility for what it becomes.
I could argue (and some do) that you have an obligation to said fertilied ovum not to kill it. Of course, then I would need to defend the statement that you have an obligation to it.
(In case that was too indirect, I’m asking for defense of the statement that I have an inherent obligation to pay child support.)
I was agreeing with you about the lung thing. Men don’t have to give up a lung. Your wallet isn’t part of your body. That is why they are two different things.
