Child support doesn’t depend on either party’s right to baby-free sex or enjoyable sex. Child support is intended to support a human being/s created by two people who had consensual sex regardless of protection used or failed. Neither party is exempt from responsibility if a child is born, and courts are tasked with deciding how best to divide assets between the parents in order to provide the best possible care. The non-custodial parent, whether male or female, tends to owe money for child-rearing. Who, in your estimation, should pay for child care? Do you really feel that “Oops” is an adequate excuse to shirk responsibility for a human being who shares your DNA?
If you want to start a thread bemoaning the limited options for male birth control, have at it. Sex comes with risks and responsibility. Not sure on what biological, social, or ethical basis you can dispute that.
You think what now?
Which, of course, no one is desputing.
What, did I need to add the redundant qualifier “equal” to that statement? Each party is capable of causing a pregnancy. We aren’t going to see a Western society that forces an unwilling mother-to-be undergo a surgical procedure in order to satisfy the reluctant father. We aren’t going to see a Western society that forgives men who say “oops” and transfers the financial burden to taxpayers not involved in the sex act.
I’m interested in your solution. Please share.
Troppus, when you are using social policy enforced by the government to ascribe biological rights and responsibilities there is going to be social and ethical implications involved. Insisting in willful ignorance that those social and ethical implications don’t exist doesn’t make it so.
I vehemently dispute that consenting to sex is a blanket consent to pregnancy, so it’s pretty hard to reconcile how consenting to sex is a blanket consent to parenthood for men.
The issue isn’t simple, despite your narrow-minded interpretation that you arrogantly conclude ends any discussion. Even among feminists there is differing view points, your view point doesn’t have anymore credence than anyone else’s.
How do you reconcile the hypocrisy of your rhetoric when the same arguments are used by anti-choicers? You are not all interested in exploring or considering differing view points, so why should any one listen to yours. (not only that, the nasty, vitriolic language you use, virtually ensures people will plug their ears)
As the OP mentioned, other countries do things differently, so there is a different way of doing things contrary to your point of view. As far as telling me to go start a thread about male BC issues, you should be reminded that the thread title was directed at men, before you hijacked it by telling men what they need to do about their reproductive issues. (I am a woman by the way, and a feminist, but I see you becoming the blindboyard of women’s rights. Not a good thing for women or men)
Read the quote I was responding to (or read the link). I think menstruation is unfair. I think it is unfair for women that the only way children are produced is by using their bodies. Childbirth looks like it generally kind of sucks. Biology isn’t fair and in modern society sometimes we use social means to mitigate that injustice (child support, maternity leave, contraceptive funding, etc).
Didn’t realize we had to list our qualifications to give an opinion, but as a former social worker tasked with removing neglected and hungry kids from their homes and a business owner tasked with garnishing wages from my deadbeat dad employees’ checks each month… I think any attempt to dump responsibility for one’s progeny on unwilling taxpayers is bullshit.
Just wanted to quote this again because it made me laugh out loud.
Well, I can vehemently dispute that gambling at the track is a consent to go home broke as a joke, but you think any judge, jury, or taxpayer is going to bend over backwards helping me find a way to keep my money?
Ha ha are you serious? You think taxpayers owe us reparations for being women, and that’s your idea of feminism? You’d have to be a pretty hardcore fundamentalist Christian to perceive pregnancy and childbirth as a social injustice.
FYI, I loved sex during my childfree years, I loved conceiving my child, I loved being pregnant, and I loved bringing my child into the world. What you see as unfair is a blessing for many, if not most. Basic healthcare is different for men and women because we have radically different reproductive and endocrine systems, not because the fictional Eve snarfed that apple.
Interesting non sequitur there. Back to the point, do you think when women consent to sex it is a blanket consent to pregnancy? If no, how do you reconcile men consenting to sex as a blanket consent to parenthood? Genuine question.
That’s quite a stretch. I didn’t say anything about pregnancy and childbirth being great social injustices, or that tax payers owe women reparations for being women or any of your other quite creative, but intentional mischaracterizations.
By the way, social injustice “is a concept relating to the claimed unfairness or injustice of a society in its divisions of rewards and burdens and other incidental inequalities.” You are the one going on ad nauseum, about how men and women have the same exact reproductive choices - when by basic biology they don’t.
What I said:
And yes, feminism did fight for social policies, like mandated maternity healthcare coverage, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, Title X, etc. Do you disagree with these social policies? Why do you think they were enacted? Perhaps to use social means to address a biological burden that is treated unfairly in society.
However, at this point it seems clear that you are only interested in intentionally misconstruing any point of view or argument that contradicts with your own.
Obviously, this discussion has proved pointless. My apologies to the OP.
By non sequitur, do you mean analogy? If a woman fails to use a failsafe method of birth control, she is effectively consenting to pregnancy if one occurs. If a man fails to employ a failsafe method of birth control and subsequently impregnates a woman, he has consented to pregnancy should one occur. There isn’t any other way to state that each person in a consensual sexual relationship bears an equal burden of risk, but each is entirely responsible for the success or failure of his or her own contraception. No verbal contract should be believed as legal or binding.
Lately I’ve been hearing a lot about increasing access to morning after pills, no Rx, younger ages, fine by me. What’s the gain there? Why it increases reproductive self-determination, but only for half the players.
What about Holland? From the OP:
"
Now suppose a child IS born to a woman where the man did not consent to that happening. In most cases, when the woman earns enough or has enough support of her family not to go be on welfare, they mostly choose to let the man go. There is no law that requires the woman to go after child support.
When the woman is on social assistance, the county will try to extract a part of that from the man. But that happens rarely. "
Maybe I am misunderstanding, but it does seem that in Holland if the woman has the means to raise the child on her own and the man is not interested there is not normally any action taken. I could easily be wrong though, as Maastrich seems to have left this thread he conceived without any support.
Well, if it increases self-determination for half of all players and leaves the other half’s ability for self-determination the same as it was… why is that a problem? I mean, the only people who this change specifically disfavors are… men who didn’t want their fetus aborted but whose mother didn’t want to give birth to it? I mean, surely we can agree that abortion laws or no abortion laws, that’s not going to turn out well for anybody involved no matter who gets their way.
Quint, a single parent can agree to relinquish rights or can agree to forgo support and visitation in the US, too, unless public assistance is involved. Step parents adopt biological children of others as well, and that transfers the burden to a willing party. There are many legal ways escaping from child support in the US which require the consent of the custodial parent.
As much as I’d love to be one of the cool chicks who sides with the guys on this one, it simply isn’t feasible to dump more impoverished children on an already overburdened system, or feasible to expect taxpayers to pick up the slack for others. People who successfully have sex without giving birth to unplanned children know it’s possible to do so, making this argument even weaker. There is no guarantee that the naked person under you has your best interests at heart; and we don’t need to write laws that force consenting parties to favor one person’s desires over another.
I’m really puzzled as to how sex can be viewed differently than other assumed risks, like allowing another to drive, working a dangerous job, gambling…I can’t see any way around “you play; you pay”. And if someone has a solution for raising the unwanted children who are products of sloppy birth control, I’d like to hear it.
But men who are not the fathers of the children in question are still forced to pay; so “you play you pay” is not what this is about. This is “you’re the nearest convenient male, so you pay”. Nor is “child support” about supporting children despite the name, or they’d care more about if the children are being supported.
In practice, it’s much more about taking money from a man and giving it to a woman, as part of some sort of collective punishment scheme more often than not as far as I can tell; there certainly seems far less concern over what happens to any children involved than there does in making sure that the money is extracted. The fake concern over the children is one of the more disgusting aspects of this issue as far as I’m concerned.
The fake concern over the children? Okay, let’s end all child support tomorrow and transfer the burden directly to the taxpaying public at large. How long will you be willing to provide food, shelter, and healthcare for the children of other men?
Or more to the point, if you are paying child support and feel it is being misappropriated, why not insist on a monthly accounting of how the payment is used, take the mother to court, or report her to child support enforcement? Assuming you’ve completely forgotten the numerous burdens that childcare has on a custodial parent.
Funny how you seem to be fully aware that the physical, emotional, financial, and life-altering toll of childcare is daunting enough for you to avoid it, until or unless you are obligated to part with a portion of your salary to support one. Then, suddenly, a child is a payday. Which is it, Der Trihs? Is having an unplanned child an instant upgrade in one’s socioeconomic status, or is it an incredible burden?
For those of you guys who view unplanned children as an instant payday and upgrade in socioeconomic status, I don’t know what’s stopping you from seducing women, whipping off the condom and suing for full custody and support for the resulting child. Unplanned children are exactly like winning the lottery, right?
Indefinitely. A burden spread around is a lesser burden.
Because no one would care (and no, I have no children, nor am I presently being forced to pay for anyone else’s).
It rather depends on if you are paying for the child and/or actually taking care of the child in question, or just taking money for the kid and neglecting him or her.
And if the child isn’t yours and you are still paying for it, that isn’t you having an unplanned child anyway.
Gender. The courts and our culture in general are notoriously biased against men and towards women when it comes to child custody, child support, and the treatment they expect you to give to the children.
Bullshit. Guys who are diligent about birth control, celibate, or gay and guys who struggle with getting female attention will not willingly support the spawn of careless men who get laid frequently. You couldn’t even twist that idea nto a plausible sci-fi scenario. That would only encourage people to be even more careless with birth control.