sex and sharing responsibility

Great Debates
61

Okay BlackKnight, you say that the father has no responsibility for the unwanted child. I have a great deal of sympathy for this position actually - but you have to remember this is in amny ways a lose-lose situation all round. We need to find a way to minimise the overall harm.

So I ask you - is it your position that the father has the same level of responsibility as the general taxpayer or more responsibility?

I think that your position would be consistent with the same level - i.e. part of the society that led to the child but no more than that. Therefore he should only pay to the extent that taxpayer money is needed to subsidise the child.

And in the absence of the father, there is a very good chance that the taxpayer will have to subsidise that child. My position is that this is even more unfair, since the father in my opinion has more responsibility for the outcome than the rest of society. Therefore he should have to pay. Whether he should pay 50% or not is a whole 'nother argument - for now I’m just interested to know your position on the above.

pan

62

Under the current system, the mother has no responsibility for the upbringing of the child, but the man does. How is this fair? If a woman has sex and gets pregnant, she has the option to end the pregnancy or put the child up for adoption, but the man does not. This is unfair, and I feel something needs to be done to make it a bit more equal. A man will never have equal reproductive rights (at least under any reasonably free society) because he cannot force the woman to have an abortion, but he should have an option equivelant to the woman’s right to put the child up for adoption - the right to say ‘I do not want this child, nor do I want to be responsbile for raising it’.

63

He does. He can refuse to have sex with a woman.
She does, too. She can refuse to have sex with a man.

once they’ve made the decision to have sex, then all else follows it. Or should we have only the doctor responsible - after all the doctor delivered the child. The problem with your position (and BK’s too) is that you wish to have sex without responsability. The woman does not have that choice at all. Is that fair? well, it’s reality. as was pointed out in the first page: deal with it.
The comprimise suggested to have precoital statements signed, may have some merit. Of course, you may find that few women would sign such a statement or agree to have sex with you if you insist on it, but, then the issue would be in the open.

64

But women CAN have sex without responsibility - if a woman has sex, she knows that she will not be forced to support a child as a result of it. She can either abort it should a pregnancy result, or she can put it up for adoption if she does not want to do that. A man does not have that option - the man can only reduce the chances of causing a pregnancy (though he does not have as many or as reliable methods of doing so), he has NO say once a pregnancy occurs.

65

See, I would say the woman having an abortion is taking responsability. Going through a pregnancy is taking responsability. Both actions are incredibly laden with issues and potentials. See, the man does not have to face potentially life threatening situations (both surgery and child birth have the potential for serious complications, including death). That, to me, is an unavoidable responsability. You don’t see it that way? You seem to only be focusing on the ‘pay child support’ issue (by the way, I let it pass before, but how do you figure that mom’s aren’t responsable for child support? I’m a single mom - I support my son. his dad pays $50 per week in child support - it didn’t cover the cost of day care when he was in it, and currently doesn’t cover the cost of food for our son, so, yes, I support him).

66

This makes no sense. If building a bonfire were itself an illegal act, then yes, we would both be guilty because I helped you build it.

Assuming that building the bonfire was not itself illegal, your analogy is flawed, unless you say that you have the sole legal authority and responsibility to tend the fire. Of course, in that case, you alone would be responsible for letting it get out of hand.

67

BlackKnight, I think the fundamental disagreement comes down to your opinion that a male has no responsiblity whatsoever in the birth of his child, because the woman has the ability to terminate the pregnancy.

To make an analogy, this sounds to me like two people driving to the top of a hill overlooking a populated area. They manage to push a large, heavy rock to the edge of the hill and roll it down, where it rolls right through someone’s house. First person (you) argues that he has no responsibility for the destruction of the house, because the second person had a pickup which he could have driven down the hill and used to prevent the rock from hitting the house. Since the second person did not choose to do this, he bears 100% of the responsibility.

The fact that the first person helped push the rock is irrelevant. If his parents had never had sex, that house would have never been destroyed. How far back do you want to place the blame? If the second person didn’t want to either smash up a house or wreck his truck, he should never have helped the first person push that rock. It’s all his fault.

(A pretty random analogy, I know, but that’s what your argument sounds like to me.)

68

Historically, neither men nor women have had any authority (legal or otherwise) over whether or not a child is born, once the woman is pregnant. Most societies required men to assume responsibility for the children they conceive (although there are of course exceptions).

But, in the last few decades, we’ve developed technology that gives both genders some freedom (birth control), and technology that specifically gives women some freedom (abortion). The fact that this latter technology can’t give men any more freedom doesn’t suddenly make them worse off than before. Things are no more unfair for men than they were before abortion existed.

The difference is that recreational sex is now much more common. You’re acting as if this is some sort of inherent right of men, whereas society expecting men to assume responsibility for the children they father is a brand-new feminist plot. You have it backwards.

American society has always expected men to be responsible for their children. Pre-marital sex has only recently become socially acceptable, and in response, we’ve instituted child-support laws. Same idea as before, but now we’re less rigid about children being born out of wedlock. (We recognize that forcing people to get married may not be best for the people or the child.)

But it’s not like we’ve suddenly stripped you of your right to have 100% consequence-free sex. Men have never really had that right.

69

Please explain why you think I’m acting in this way. I have certainly not mentioned feminism in this thread, have not mentioned anything about plots or conspiracies, and have never claimed that the idea of men having responsibility for their children is a new idea.

Please do not imply that I am saying something that I am not saying.

Tradition does not impress me. For a while, it was tradition to prevent blacks from voting. I care more about whether the tradition in question should be kept.

Just because a right has never been enforced does not mean that right has never existed.

70

The analogy would be a fitting one if:
Two people push a rock up a hill. (And if such a thing is not in and of itself illegal or wrong.)
The first one leaves, or goes far enough away, or is in some way unable to affect things anymore.
The second person then freely decides to push the rock down the hill, resulting in demolished homes.

The second person in this senario is the sole guilty party, unless the first person pushed the rock up the hill for the sole purpose of having the second one push it down towards the homes, in some kind of conspiracy. If the first person pushed the rock up the hill just for kicks, then he is not guilty.

So if a man “conspires” with a woman to have sex for the purpose of procreation, then he should be bound to that.

In any other situation, he should not be held morally responsible.

This is actually quite interesting, as I had not thought about that particular aspect of this before. Thank you for adding something informative to the discussion.

71

I started a then-and-for-some-still famous thread title “Abortion For Men”.

This is my thesis, taken from that thread (For those who don’t know, I am a sterile female, therefore I have no personal investment whatsoever in this topic):

I think the laws regarding reproductive freedom in this country are grossly unfair. Men are stripped of any choice except the choice not to have sex at all, which isn’t reasonable.

Think about it: why should men be totally at the mercy of a woman’s choices for herself?

If a woman becomes pregnant, she can choose to avoid pregnancy and motherhood via abortion. (I believe in a woman’s right to choose, absolutely. No one, be it the state or the father, should be able to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body.) This is right and good. But the father cannot stop her if he wants to become a father. This is also right and good.

But what if she chooses to keep the baby? Can the father force her to abort it if he doesn’t want it? No, and he shouldn’t be able to. Yet SHE is able to force HIM to be a father even if he doesn’t want it. If nothing else, she can force him to be financially responsible. And I think that blows.

The biological differences prevent perfect parity here, but I do believe we can get closer than we are now via a simple change in the law. Men should be permitted to legally reject fatherhood by making a declaration. Very simple. It would work the same way it does for women: they would have to make the declaration in say, the first 5 months of her preganancy. After that, it must be assumed that they are willingly taking on the obligations of paternity.

Furthermore, to prevent women from manipulating men by failing to inform him that she is pregnant until it is too late, the burden of proof would be on her if she claims he knew and failed to do anything about it.

Very simple, and as close to fair as is possible.

I believe that such a system would have a noticable impact on the number of single mothers. IF women understood that having a man’s baby would NOT legally tie him to her forever, perhaps they would think twice about going forward with their pregnancies, or even allowing themselves to get pregnant in the first place. It wouldn’t eliminate it, certainly, but I think it would help.

And why men haven’t bitched about the inequity of this system up to now is beyond me. If I was a guy I’d be screaming bloody murder.

72

They DO bitch about it - we label them ‘Deadbeat Dads’.

I wouldn’t let the fact you are female keep you from screaming bloody murder. I’m a man, yet I am always defending a woman’s right to an abortion whenever the topic comes up. Maybe if more women like you spoke up in the defense of men who are forced to be fathers, something would be done about it.

It’s good that you brought up women who use pregnancy to try to force a man into a relationship with them. One of my wife’s friends quit taking the pill without telling her boyfriend, and admitted it to my wife and others. She’s pregnant, he doesn’t want more kids, but he’s doing the ‘right’ thing and is now engaged to her. I am sorely tempted to tell him the circumstances, but my wife would kill me. I’ve seen this happen many times, I’ve only known one guy who lied about his fertility (claimed he was sterile) and it wasn’t to trick the girl into being pregnant, he just didn’t like wearing a condom.

73

No one can force a man to be a father. All that the mother or the government can do is force a man to provide some financial support for the child. A monthly check does not a daddy make.

What really blows is that there are so many men who are perfectly happy to in effect say to their own children, “Sorry kid, I never wanted you. I wish your mother had had an abortion, but she didn’t. I don’t love you, and I don’t even care about you enough to be concerned whether or not you have enough money to pay for food, clothes, or your education. I never want to see you, so don’t bother me.” I do not feel sorry for men like that if the government forces them to cough up some change for the support of their offspring. Frankly, I do not think I’d feel sorry for men like that if the government decided to hang them, and I don’t even support the death penalty.

74

I think you should tell your wife to stuff it and tell the guy. What that woman did was EVIL. Not only to him, but to the unborn child. And if there is still time for her to abort, maybe she would if she knew she wasn’t going to get him to marry her. And even if not, that is a terrible, doomed situation.

What a dreadful, sick bitch she is. And what the hell is up with your wife that she is supporting this behavior? What kind of people does she choose for friends?

This is a screwed situation on all fronts, and if I was anywhere in the neighborhood of it, I would spill the beans.

stoid

75

My wife doesn’t exactly support it, but I know she would be furious if I told the guy what she told me in confidence. The weird thing is she was friends with the guy first, yet apparently feels no responsibility to tell him.

Bad thing is I’m pretty sure the marriage won’t last long. He’s not the kind of guy who can stay faithful, has already cheated on the woman with at least one other woman I know, and probably lots others. He’s paying child support on another kid from a past relationship and has others (we joke about how fertile he is).

76

Umm, I think she already covered that when she said:

I guess you just skipped that sentence.

cut whole rant about hanging fathers

So I guess you would have no problem with a girl lieing about not being on the pill, and then when the guy was going to go start his new job in another city, force him to stay where he was under threat of death. Getting pregnant really is a good way to gain complete legal control over a man! Hey, if you can set up straw men, so can I. :slight_smile:

PeeQueue

77

Are you denying that there are men who wish to have no contact with their offspring, and who do not wish even to help provide money for their children’s upbringing, no matter how poor the children might be without this help? Because there are, and there are men in this thread who have said themselves that they do not think it is fair that any man should have to provide for any child he did not want. That’s the way things are. It’s not a straw man.

I don’t think men should be forced to support or have anything to do with the mothers of their children if they don’t want to. There are certainly some mothers who are horrible people and who don’t deserve love or financial support from decent men (or indecent men). But children are innocent. Children do not deserve to be abandoned or left to go hungry. There is no punishment I would consider too harsh for people who knowingly do physical or emotional harm to children, and there is no way you are going to convince me that it doesn’t hurt children to be abandoned by their fathers.

I suspect that someone might try to bring up adoption here, but a woman who gives her child up for adoption is not simply abandoning it. She is arranging for it to be cared for by people who will do a better job than she thinks she could do. That is being responsible, not avoiding responsibility as some people here seem to think. Now, if someone were to propose a system by which a man who was unwilling or unable to care or provide for an unwanted child could transfer his legal obligations to an unrelated but willing third party then they would receive no argument from me. But a man who simply ditches his children is in no way comparable to a woman who gives her children up for adoption. He is much closer to a woman who drops her baby on a park bench and runs away.

78

In Ohio, now, there’s a law that an infant can be droppped off anonymously- at say an emergency room- and the only questions that will be asked concern the medical history of the baby.

It’s a safety net for the babies who would be abandoned anyway- in worse circumstances.

Which also begs the question- why, if giving a baby up for adoption is apparently a simple thing , are babies abandoned, or killed, sometimes by their mothers, sometimes by both their parents?
I myself, know very little about the adoption process, but if it were as easy as it has been made to seem earlier in the thread (as another option for women who cannot/did not have abortions) why do people do this? Why does there need to be a law of this type to protect newborns?

79

Putting a child up for adoption requires going through certain legal channels, and there are people who would never go through the paperwork necessary, perhaps because they are on drugs or are mentally ill.

Women, even under my proposal, would still have more reproductive rights than men. Under my proposal, there is no way the man can prevent the woman from having the child, nor any way he could force her to - he can only opt out of having responsibility for it, the same way the mother can. This is fair, because biologically women DO have more responsibility, simply because the embryo is going to be in them.

80

Men and women, fighting for the best genes and the best for there children. Not new.

At the end of the day the woman has to carry the baby, give birth and usually rear the child so I think they have the biggest job to do and deserve all the support from the father they can get - emotional as well as financial would be nice !

A woman who gets pregnant on purpose is probably doing so because she believes this is the best chance of a child with that person.

Its the selfish gene - check out the book of the same name by richard dawkins of oxford uni… all will be made clear.

awwwwwwwwww what rubbish, look if you are sleeping with someone its always a risk, i mean, do people not know how children are created ?, grow up !