It’s not a straw man at all. If a woman steals sperm from a mans condom after sex and uses it to impregnate hereself he is still legally responsable for the child.
If a woman a man has never met mounts him while he is unconsous and impregnates herself the father is still responsible for paying for the child.
I think this is the crux of the debate here, though.
I don’t see that having sex is an agreement on the mans part to pay financial support for a child for 18 years. Having sex is not choosing to have a child.
If you have sex with a condom you are specifically trying not to have a child. Then if you do, there is some logic that implies you should pay for it? I just don’t get this.
Well, we could get into a tangential debate of whether or not sex is a contractual transfer of ownership of sperm, with no strings attached, but that is a matter for another thread.
A zygote isn’t an egg, either. Said egg is (usually, depending on the timeframe involved) long gone.
At risk of asking a complex question, I would like to request that you answer this, Lamia.
Does an act of sex resulting in pregnancy oblige one to become a parent?
I will continue to respond to your last post, however, since you have continued the debate.
I said:
And that’s all I meant.
I am deliberately trying to avoid having a long welfare hijack here, so I have stated that for purposes of my position in this debate the existing welfare system is unchanged.
andymurph64 seemed to think that if the fathers could opt out of financial responsabity for unwanted children, then the burden would automatically fall on the state for pay child support for the full 18 years. If I am incorrect please clarify andy.
I was just pointing out that that wasn’t my intention. The child support will not be paid to her.
As long as women are financially rewarded for having children, there will be more women having children who cannot support them.
robert, are you calling me Lamia? Twice you have quoted something I said and then asked Lamia a question. I assume you mean me because there is no Lamia in this tread, but you are starting to give me a identity crisis.
I would agree that a zygote isn’t an egg. A zygote is a completely one of a kind organism.
No, the act of sex resulting in a pregnancy doesn’t oblige one to become a parent. Being a parent isn’t an obligation, it is a fact. A child actually being born makes a person a parent even if they don’t want to be (for women and men). Giving up a child for adoption or even just walking away doesn’t change the biological fact that you are the parent of the child.
I could swear I said “long-term”, but I apologize if this didn’t come across. It is my understanding that the complications from a modern abortion procedure are relatively rare. Discussion of remedies for abortions gone bad seem outside the scope of this thread. **
Given that we can’t change the biology of the human race in such a manner at this point in time, what should we do? A woman has a way to, with a very small chance of complications, divorce the act of sex from its long-term lega, financial,l and biological consequences(even if all birth control efforts fail). In a society of equals surely it is incumbent upon the laws to provide similar options to the male(leaving out the biological consequences/remedies is fine because males are less affected biologically by the human reproductive process).**
There isn’t a simple answer to this question. It would depend on how hard the woman had tried to contact the man, how easy he was to contact, and some measure of how much each had tried to fulfil their responsibility. Perhaps some scale of support payments based upon these(and undoubtedly others once we start actually analyzing the situation) factors.
What burns my ass, is I’ve never been given the chance to bitch about child support! “I wouldn’t have a child by you if you were the last man on earth” is not a statement of feminine concern over a guy’s future finances.
The unmitigatedly thorny realitiy of it is that we are all part of a social order, and reproduction and child rearing is a singular if not primary import within the order…Women can not be held soley responsible for the continuing of our society …especially as sex is usually a male initiated behavior to begin with. Double bag it or go celibate and quit complaining.
What really puzzles me is at what level prolife advocates scream to their heavens over a woman’s abortion option…but just as vocally they will express their disdain at sharing a fiscal responsiblity through collective support of a welfare system.
Boy, you go to lunch…
Before I start, I would like to say I mistyped ‘I believe you understand what you are saying’ and it should read 'I believe I understand what you are saying. Sorry.
Yes. To allow a father to ‘opt-out’ and have costs fall on taxpayers is abhorent to me. Why should I pay increased taxes for this?!
I do agree that women should practice more choice before pumping out kids. I’m just not sure letting the father off the hook financially is the way to eliminate this. By that logic, maybe the wrath of God type punishment on the male would do the same. Dramatically increase the father’s obligation and put the male on the ‘being careful’ track would serve the same purpose. Right? The best route is to try to thwack both at once instead of trying to throw the responsibility on the mother or on the father.
It is ‘unfair’. Men and women are not the same. The woman, in an abortion-allowed society will have more choices and the male less.
It is ‘unfair’. However, I’m 40 now and arguments about ‘unfairness’ have little effect on me anymore. There is so much unfairness in society. It’s cliche to say this but life IS unfair. Some people are smarter than others. Some have illnesses. Some inherent money, some don’t. Some people are more attractive than others.
There are many people with more choices and options in their life than I have through no effort of their own. I could rail at the injustices, and I have in the past, but it does no good.
In the end in issues like this, I look at the effect on all involved. The NET effect of allowing fathers off-the-hook is probably negative on the child, mother and taxpayers and positive on the father. Forcing the father to support his child reverses this.
Therefore, I strongly support being very, very tough on fathers.
None of the discussion here has, as of yet, changed my opinion.
There are several fundamental inequities here that ought to be addressed:
The fundamental inequity of responsibility for conception. It amazes me how frequently “guys, if you don’t want the responsibility, keep it in your pants” is touted as a response to the issue, but how rarely that’s coupled with “keep your legs together if you don’t want the responsibility, ladies.” This vestigial remnant of “man as the provider/dominant” sexism is amazing in this day and age. It takes two to tango, and BOTH parties are EQUALLY able to avoid conception through abstinence, sterilization and/or birth control. It’s not solely the man’s “fault” when a pregnancy occurs, despite the societal feeling that somehow it is.
The inequity of post-conception options. The woman has options after conception, the man has none. It is the woman’s SOLE choice to keep the baby or not. If the man wants an abortion, he cannot insist on it. If he does NOT want an abortion, he cannot prevent it. AND YET, this sole choice of the woman, carries HUGE implications for the man for a life-long (or at least 18 years-ish) commitment financially, psychologically, sociologically, etc.
I wonder if anyone can put forth an example in our society of a legal choice that can be made by one adult with NO input or consent from another adult that nevertheless carries an extensive decades-long consequence for that person non-participating person?
Aside: For the “abortion is not a ‘choice’…” folks: Yes it is. You may not feel it is an “ideal” choice. It may not be a choice you “like,” but it is an available, legal and extremely commonly selected choice.
The guy will help pay for. It isn’t as if she’ll be sitting home eating bon bons and watching soaps and waiting for the money to flow in. She will have to sacrifice greatly to support and care for this child. If she decides to raise it (and that is the assumption here) her whole lifestyle will change. All the government (yes, government) expects of him is some money to help support the child he helped create.
And yeah, maybe she will be happy about the pregnancy. And maybe she didn’t even know she’d react that way before she got pregnant. People are unpredictable. Which is an additional reason to be extra-careful and selective about who you have sex with.
That’s exactly the point.
It may seem “unfair” for a man to support a child he didn’t want, but it’s “unfair” that the woman is the one that gets pregnant (and must face either carrying the child to term, or abortion, neither which are neutral experiences).
The man has an “opt out” at the beginning—he can be extra careful with birth control (but that’s not 100% foolproof), get a vasectomy, or just abstain (the only fool-proof solution). He does have choices. He is not choice-free here. My heart does not bleed in sympathy for him because he chooses to not avail himself of the several “opt out” choices available to him and then ends up with a child he has to support. He knew the deal going in. And it’s never going to be fair, to either of them.
What some of you here seem to want is for the government (not the mother, necessarily, but the government, which enforces child support) to take that support away from the child. To legally allow men to abandon their offspring, and leave all the expense of the support to the mother, or to the government. Offspring that they knew going in could occur from the sex act. And yet they chose to engage in the sex act and to take that risk anyway.
Fine, if that’s the case, we could fix that. Overturn Roe vs Wade then neither party will have any say in whether or not the baby is born. That’s be equally fair to both “parents,” right?
I would be against this as well. However, I don’t think anyone is advocating this.
If someone said “lets let all unwilling fathers off the hook for child support and have the government pay instead”. That would be abhorent to me as well. The system we have now would be much better: More fair, and less easy to abuse.
However, that’s not what I am envisioning here. For one thing - if the pregnant women were still going to be provided for, there is no disinsentive to have a child they cannot provide for. That’s the main benefit of this as I see it.
What I am suggesting is that they don’t get child support. Not from the father, or the government. They can collect whatever existing social programs like welfare will provide for them.
But, with welfare reform in place thats a far cry from the 18 years of payments that they would be getting from a traditional “child support” arraingement. Plus, mothers get paid child support even if they are working and making good money.
Yes, maybe it would. However, I think my option is more fair to everyone.
Well, this could probably be accomplished through marketing. Have a series of TV ads similar to the ones that attempt to scare us about the evils of drug use.
I wouldn’t agree with this, but it might get the job done better. Right now the system is only concerned with the best wishes of the child once it’s already born. This is a noble notion, but short sighted.
By taking the “scare the fathers” approach you suggest, they could prevent unwanted children from being born. (some of them anyway).
I just think that my “scare the mothers” approach would be more effective.
I say that to women too. Hell, if you don’t want to resposibility, don’t have the sex. And women do get saddled with the biological consequences of sex. Men don’t. That’s unfair.
And it’s UNFAIR that the woman is the one that gets the baby growing in her body. But she does. And, God Forbid, because it’s growing in HER body, she’s actually allowed a “choice” about it! She may do what Nature intends, and carry the child to term. Or, she may avail herself of a surgical procedure which is fraught with controversy, wasn’t always legal, (and is threatened to be limited once again) and is considered morally bankrupt by many (including, possibly, her). And yet if she doesn’t choose this controversial procedure, she’s on her own? He is just as responsible for the situation she’s in, and her option may be to support the child she and he created, or undergo a procedure that is far from morally neutral. But, oh well. As long as it doesn’t affect his sacred wallet, I guess that’s “fair”.
Sucks to me him, then, doesn’t it? But it sucks to be her, because she’s the one that has the growing baby in her body. And, by hook or by crook, that thing has to come out. Either in 9 months or in an abortion clinic tomorrow. You think this is EASY on a woman?
Boo hoo hoo. He’s not allowed to force her to have a medical procedure. Sucks, doesn’t it?
And yeah, that sucks too. Which is yet another reason for him to be very careful and selective about who he has sex with. It’s NEVER going to be fair. NEVER.
And she gets away scot-free? Hardly. No matter what happens, she will have consequences. Because that’s how nature set it up. All the government wants from him is some financial support for a child that he helped create. He knew going in, sex can equal pregancy. He took the chance anyway. That was his choice, and, God Forbid, the government is so unfeeling and uncaring that it feels it’s better for a man to help support his offspring rather than pawning it off on the government or soley on the mother.
Who ever said it was a man’s “fault”? Women do have responsibilities and consequences if they get pregnant. Please try to address the points people have made rather then make up your own points and rebut them.
**
**
I (and many others) have addressed these so called inequities. The fact of the matter is that the baby is in a women’s body. This fact can not be changed no matter how many times you stomp your feet and scream “But it isn’t faaaaaiiiiir”.
How can you continue to say that a man has no input into a pregnancy? You must know a lot of women who have had virgin births or are rapists sperm stealers.
Choosing to carry a baby to term is not “making a legal choice”. It is allowing nature to run it’s course.
Again, that is a straw man you have set up. As far as I can see you are the only person who suggested that it was immoral to have an abortion.
No one is saying that an abortion is “easy” for a woman. Never has anyone claimed in this thread that a father should have the right to “force her to have a medical procedure”. No one has said that she “gets away scott free”. You are obviously very emotional about this, but please leave the poor straw men alone.
Life ain’t fair, it will “NEVER” be fair, that sucks, deal with it.
I don’t accept this. I choose to believe that when we find inequality, whether it’s based on race, gender, physical handicap, or whatever we should try to address it insofar as we can. Seems to me that’s a fundamental belief behind what this country stands for. “Too bad, so sad” is not America to me.
By the way, you can’t have your cake and eat it too: If “deal with it” is your view of the quest for fairness, then you can’t legitimately point out:
“Fairness” being irrelevant in your book, don’t bring it up as part of YOUR argument.
Shoulda thought of that before you got out the one-eyed-python, dude!
Again, I don’t accept this puerile and sexist view. Your own words expose this:
[QUOTE]
He knew going in, sex can equal pregancy.{/QUOTE>
So did she.
So did she.
No, it was hers too. You don’t get to “bun in the oven” without two people making the choices.
What offspring? There were nine months to prevent “offspring” from happening. This is not about “pawning off” offspring, this is about avoiding offspring that don’t have two willing, ready and able supporters OR making it clear from the outset, before it’s too late, if someone won’t be part of the support structure and allowing choices based on that. If one party insists on having the offspring over the objections of the other that party should be held responsible for raising it.
Finally, to your points about abortion not being a “good” alternative/choice… My prior post addressed my standpoint on that.
Men have no input into whether or not to bring the baby into the world or to abort it. This is just a fact.
It is both.
The woman gets to make the choice to have the child. If the man disagrees and wants to abort it then he shouldn’t be responsable for the child once it’s born.
Does sex mean you consent to being a parent if pregnancy occurs? This is a gender-neutral question and it should have a gender-neutral answer. A yes will have repercussions on abortion rights and a no will have repercussions like we’re discussing here. Still, the basic question is valid.
I guess one could shrug and say “life isn’t fair” and that’s that, but that smacks of cowardice to me. Life isn’t fair, but the rules of society aren’t bound by natural law. It’s possible to make an unfair situation in nature “more fair” via social convention/law.
I actually see a faith in humanity vein in your posts. Really. I believe you actually believe that people would think about their actions if forced. I believe you feel people are inheritantly logical and forward thinking.
I do not have this belief.
Since you post on SDMB, you are probably this way and so are your family, friends, aquaintences, etc. There may be the quack here and there but for the most part…
I can assure you that many people do not act this way. The best I can think of it is that they live in the present. They don’t think of the future or contemplate very much on the results of their actions. These people are more common than you think.
Then there are people who would be logical and forward-thinking but have issues with which they are struggling. Consider the not-so-attractive-and-extremely-lonely-woman craving human contact. She may not wish to risk pregnancy but the desire for companionship is overwhelming and the choices scarce. I knew a woman in her 40’s who allowed herself to be scammed when she seemed so logical and smart. She was just so damned lonely and wanted someone so bad so she took a risk and lost.
Many people have issues that they are dealing with that makes them act illogically. Lonliness, mental, depression, unhappiness, lack of self-worth, etc, etc, etc.
One of the biggest shocks of my adult life happened in my early 20’s when I realized there were many screwed up people in the world. I had another one a few years later when I realized that I had underestimated the number of screwed up people from the first shock. I am not kidding.
I’ve learned not to expect too much out of people. People are very fragile and think differently than I. I believe that you, Debaser think people are stronger than they are.
Andymurph & Debaser have interesting points about the uber-responsibility “Scare” tactic. (Andymurph proposed “scare the father” and Debaser added “Scare the mother” to the mix…)
That’s sort of mirror-opposite of what I proposed. Rather than an “opt-out” option for both genders (rather then the opt-out for women only that we have now), they propose a “get tough” sort of tactic. If done for both genders, it would to some extent address the inequity issue, just in a different way…
Either of you (or anyone) care to discuss any practical way to apply this? Discussion to this point has been conceptual, with little example beyond the analogy to “this is your brain on drugs” commercials. Could be an interesting path…
