Via Red State Feminist, a pdf file of the court’s ruling can be found here. The court ruled “that the plaintiff’s claim is frivolous, unreasonable, and without foundation.”
Here’s a bit of the ruling:
According to the pleadings, Dubay commenced a personal relationship with defendant Lauren Wells, dated her, engaged in intimate sexual relations, impregnated her, terminated his relationship, and sued her for bearing his child. If chivalry is not dead, its viability is gravely imperiled by the plaintiff in this case.
But chivalry is not the issue here, nor does it provide a basis upon which to decide the legal and policy issues that Dubay seeks to advance through this litigation. Rather, the plaintiff contends that Michigan’s paternity statutes are repugnant to the United States Constitution’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses because he has no say, he argues, in the decision whether to beget and bear a child. Therefore, he insists, he ought not to be saddled with the financial responsibility of the child’s support, and he should receive damages from the private and public defendants who are attempting to exact that toll from him.
The plaintiff’s claims have been rejected by every court that has considered similar matters, and with good reason. The plaintiff’s suggestion that the support provisions of the Michigan Paternity Act implicates the Equal Protection Clause does not find support in the jurisprudence. First, the Act’s provisions apply only if a child is born and essentially do not concern anyone’s right to choose to be a parent.
Second, the statutory provisions are facially neutral, requiring both parents equally to support the child.
Third, the plaintiff argues that enforcing the Act’s provisions, without any deviation from the neutral language of those provisions, still can implicate the Equal Protection Clause because of an underlying inequality: the State’s recognition that women can choose to be parents and men cannot. This argument in turn is based on the existence of a right supposedly grounded in substantive due process, as the plaintiff acknowledged at oral argument. But the Sixth Circuit has squarely rejected the argument that fairness or reciprocity generates a substantive right to avoid child support on the theory that a woman has the right to bring to term or terminate a pregnancy on her own.
Finally, the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate in even the most remote way that state action plays a role in the interference with his choice to reject parenthood. The consequences of sexual intercourse have always included conception, and the State has nothing to do with this historical truism. Because the plaintiff has failed to state a colorable claim in his amended complaint, the Court will dismiss the complaint against all the defendants. In addition, the Court finds that the plaintiff’s claim is frivolous, unreasonable, and without foundation. Therefore, the Court will grant the State’s motion for attorney fees….
The above is pretty much the “executive summary” section of the judgement; read the whole thing if you’d like to see the arguments developed in more detail.
NOTE FOR COMMENTS: Please don’t post about how you have an income of $500 a month and the judge ordered you to pay $2000 a month in child support to your ungrateful lazy ex-spouse who spends all the child support money on dresses she can wear to the track and she earns more than you do anyway and the judge won’t even reply to your motions. Unless I know both you and your ex-spouse, and can hear her side of the story for myself, I don’t think anecdotal evidence of that sort really helps advance the discussion.
Oh, and I find the arguments that women have more options for BC than men to be laughable. Who traditionally insisted that BC was the woman’s responsibility? That would be men, who weren’t interested in taking responsibility for that.
Now, with women’s options for BC and abortion being curtailed, it’s even more laughable to insist that we’ve got all of these options. Abortions aren’t accessible to many women anymore, BC (especially the Pill and Plan B) is often denied to women in the name of religious freedom, and many health insurance plans don’t cover BC (but will cover Viagra).
Some people really do want to go to the bad old days, where boys could be boys and those dirty sluts could deal with babies as a punishment.
Bean, I recognize the validity of your point. Thanks for the correction.
The difficulty with formal vs. substantial equality is this: the legal system can give us formal equality. Formal equality is straightforward, definable objectively, and so on. No human system can provide substantive equality; it can only make approximate efforts, any configuration of which will leave a substantial minority (or even a majority) convinced that they have been treated unfairly. Under formal equality people can at least see that the rules they were fucked over by are the same rules that everyone else got fucked over by, too.
Since legal systems depend upon social acceptance for the ongoing legitimization of their force, it is psychologically important that people have some straw of perceived fairness to grasp at. A legal system tasked with ensuring substantive equality will undermine its own long-term viability with every new “success”.
Note: This comment is stuck in moderation, thanks to my use of the V word. I’m editing it so it won’t be stuck.
I find the arguments that women have more options for BC than men to be laughable. Who traditionally insisted that BC was the woman’s responsibility? That would be men, who weren’t interested in taking responsibility for that.
Now, with women’s options for BC and abortion being curtailed, it’s even more laughable to insist that we’ve got all of these options. Abortions aren’t accessible to many women anymore, BC (especially the Pill and Plan B) is often denied to women in the name of religious freedom, and many health insurance plans don’t cover BC (but will cover drugs like V****a).
Some people really do want to go to the bad old days, where boys could be boys and those dirty sluts could deal with babies as a punishment.
Also, I’m not sure how formal equality would screw over women, if men (and women) were contracting for these resolutions per Sailorman’s suggestion. If a woman can’t possibly support an infant on her own, then she ought to refrain from having sex with men who have indicated via their contract that they won’t be supporting any children that result. Similarly, if a man can’t bear the thought that “his” baby will be aborted, then he ought to refrain from having sex with women who indicate that they do not intend to bear any resultant offspring to term.
I recall having a conversation with a girlfriend about fifteen years ago about vaginal intercourse, and her declaration was that we would not be having it until she was convinced that in the event of a contraceptive failure, I would step up to my obligation. Seemed very sensible to me, and we restricted our sexual choices accordingly.
Why, from a bottom line perspective, is it so important that men who conceive children be held legally responsible for the financial support of those children? Because there is no adequate social system set up such that children could be otherwise provided for financially. In other words, the reliance on a father’s income comes as much from the way society structures who is responsible for the economic well-being of children as from anything else. I also wonder if this focus on the father’s financial responsibility doesn’t have its roots in the patriarchal notion that a child’s legitimacy rests on being the offspring of a man who is willing publicly to claim him or her as offspring.
Seems to me that if men want to argue that it should not be possible for women to force us into fatherhood by choosing to carry to term a pregnancy we would like to see terminated, then the place to focus our energies is not some sort of contractual agreement–it is horribly cynical to make any aspect of a human being’s future contingent on a contract that was signed before he or she was born–but on the kinds of social change that will alter both the social structures surrounding child-rearing and the cultural definition of paternity. Otherwise, I don’t think it matters how carefully one tailors a hypothetical situation in order to get at the core issues of choice for men, you are still asking women to play on an uneven playing field.
I am pretty confused by the “unequal playing field” claim against the contract solution.
BEFORE SEX, the playing field is unequal because men and women do not have equal societal power.
BUT assuming the woman knows her situation, including the physical realities of pregnancy/abortion, and assuming both parties are mentally competent–she can take this into account in the subsequent negotiations. So the contract provides an opportunity to BALANCE the problem. Because she is going to bear more risk, she should/can demand more concessions in exchange for sex.
Or not. Maybe it’s not that big a deal for her to be pregnant. That’s her choice. Similarly it’s his choice as well. Maybe he’s rich and is willing to promise 100% support and no custody. Maybe he’s poor and won’t sleep with anyone who demands custody, even a dollar a day.
How is that a biased playing field?
Richard, the whole “the place to focus our energies is not some sort of contractual agreement” argument is still avoiding the issue of whether the contract is 1) morally sound, and 2) effective.
I think there are four basic reasons that are being thrown about:
(1) People think it’s important that when a woman makes a decision to have an abortion, keep a child, or have an adoption it shouldn’t be made under duress. My making fathers pay support they feel women will be protected from being pushed into making choices they wouldn’t really want to make, and may be very unhappy about, because of concerns about money.
(2) People also think mothers and children (and taxpayers?) are more deserving of money than fathers. Mothers/taxpayers have done nothing to deserve having to take up someone else’s burden (mothers/taxpayers), and feel their happiness is more important than that of adults.
(3) People are also worrying about societal inequalities. They think that if people can opt out of supporting children men will do this more than women. If mothers’ energies go into providing for their children, and fathers’ don’t, this will lead to most the money and power being held by men. A method of taking money from fathers and giving it to mothers is a way to partially remedy this.
(4) There’s also an argument from ‘fairness’ between individual men and women. People think it’s unfair that the mother typically faces huge burdens (physical, economic, and so on) from the pregnancy. People think these burdens should be shared equally – or as equally as possible. Where one parent is absent, getting them to pay the other money moves us closer to that situation.
The reason isn’t just that there is no social system of providing for these children financially. Some people think fathers paying the money is preferable to a social system of providing for these children financially, and aren’t willing to get rid of the problem through unwanted abortions or adoptions.
Astounding discussion. Speaking as a long ago divorced single mother scrambling to pay her son’s first semester tuition, I’ve got the giggles here.
My experience is anectodal, but quite typical of the divorced custodial parents I know. Child support is a myth. My ex certainly never paid it, in spite of my spending a lot of money I didnt have for two years dragging him in and out of court. I finally gave up when a family services officer told me that “Hey, he doesnt beat the kid, and he sees him, what more do you want? We see a lot worse here.” I was also told by the state that the only way to get him to pay was to quit my job and apply for government support so the state would chase him. Otherwise, good luck sistah. I finally decided the time and energy spent trying to get him to pay his court ordered support would be better spent on my own career, so I could have some level of security about what was coming in every month. It took a lot of time away from parenting, since I had to work, and still do, very long hours. Did my ex pick up the slack there, either? Nope, he was too busy with his social life. I didn’t have one.
I do have to point out, before one of the advocates here says “Ah you probably trapped him” that we were married when I conceived, that I was lukewarm at best about children, and he was gung ho to have them. The pregnancy was planned.
So now my son is approaching his first year of college, and I have two weeks to find $9000 I don’t have. Additionally, he had an accident this summer, which required $2000 of dental work not covered by my insurance. When I broached the subject with his father (and I use the term loosely), his response, knowing full well he owes me 14 YEARS of back support was “Bummer. Good luck with that. I have no extra money cause I’m going to Mexico on vacation.” I have had *one* five day vacation “away” in 14 years, and that only because a friend offered to help defray the costs.
Spare me, please, from the woe is me coming from deadbeat noncustodial parents of *any* gender. Even if I had received every penny I was due, in no way shape or form would that have taken care of my child’s financial needs. A woman receiving child support is NOT freed of the obligation to contribute financially to her child’s wellbeing.
I believe that PARENTS have an obligation to support their children. I aldo believe that a man who does not wish to become a father should, just like a woman who does not wish to become a mother, take responsibility for his *own* method of contraception (and two is better than one, of course).
The idea that women are willing to *trap* men for a paltry couple of hundred bucks a month that probably won’t show up anyway is ludicrous in the extreme, and probably as common as hen’s teeth. You don’t live in the lap of luxury on a child support payment, unless the child’s father is a multimillionaire…and there aren’t a lot of those floating around to be “trapped” into child support payments, ya know? The child support isn’t going to cover half the cost of raising a kid. When my son was little, going back 14 years, my child care expenses were $800 a month alone, and that’s if I didn’t get stuck working unpaid overtime (I’m salaried and always have been). Half of that is $400, and we haven’t yet covered the increase in rent from needing an extra bedroom, the cost of food, health insurance, medical expenses not covered by insurance, clothing, toys, shoes, more use of utilities (takes more to heat a larger space), school supplies, life insurance so you won’t leave the kid totally destitute if you die, dental bills, toiletries, medications, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Not to mention the cost of educating a child, which even at a state school can run you close to $20K a year, depending on location. I believe Amp’s research indicated the average child support payment was $350 a month, and many states do not require that payment beyond the child’s 18th birthday regardless of educational plans. $350 a month isnt going to cut it. It wouldnt have covered half my child care expenses 14 years ago.
Sailor,
Your tone is hostile. I feel that you have ignored me and you feel I ignored you. We obviously aren’t communicating.
But please do not call me ‘lazy’, etc. That IS a personal attack.
To draw from the oft-quoted phrase with regard to legality of abortion…
If men could get pregnant, “Choice for (Wo)Men” would be law in an instant.
What is it about priveleged groups not recognizing privilege?
Did someone once say that privileged people were loathe to give up privilege?
How does male choice affect female choice? It does not. The option to abort is still hers and only hers.
Which is precisely my point. There are a number of you here that believe that a woman’s choices about her body and about her pregnancy and future childrearing are an equal and equivalent exchange for money.
I am saying that after a certain end point (ejaculation), a man’s choices are severely curtailed and that by all means he should be aware of this and plan accordingly. Men make these types of negotiations all the time. It’s the primary goal of politics the world over. I find it interesting that what men are willing to do on a global level (plan, prepare, accept losses and sacrifices), they are most unwilling to do when it comes to women’s choices and bodies.
Oh, men fight wars and plan ahead sometimes, so they should have no reproductive rights. It all makes sense now.
Why should a woman’s reproductive options not end at pregnancy?
Well since this discussion is going round and around and back and forth, I’ll just make my position know, clear, and be done with it. :)
for the third time
Women who lay with men should do so only with the knowledge that said man may be a potential baby daddy , until all forms of birth control become equally 100 percent effect and 100 percent effective in however they are implemented
Man who lay with woman should do so only with the knowledge that said woman may be a potential babies momma, until all forms of birth control become equally 100 percent effect and 100 percent effective in however they are implemented.
Men should have some sort of way to opt out of the responsibilty of fatherhood without legal consequences. More than likely a time sensative way to dissolve fatherhood. Possible with a no-contact clause and penalties such as if there is a violation of the contract his fatherhood will immediately be re-instated and he is responsible for all back child support and future support.
Men should have some sort of resource besides jail to assist them with child support if they want to pay it but are unable to or support to help cope. I don’t believe most men in this situation are rich, well cultured and well educated in the first place.(well atleast where I come from) they tend to be poor, uneducated, sometimes young and or have a parenthood=doom. They also have a warped sense of manhood and warped opinions of women.
Men whom are able and unwilling to support their children should be punished . Jail time, liscense revocation, wage garnishment and asset seizure. A woman who marries a man that owes childsupport does so knowing that her income becomes part of the support award. If a man has a claim of joblessness his job history will be examined and he will be penalized if it is found he is viable for job or if not, he will be given job assistance and placement. If he fails to keep a job or complete the program he will be exposed to the above penalties for child support non-payment.
Men should be provided a better form of birth control besides a condom or abstinence or being surgical altered to never have children. Hopefully this will come soon.
Women should have access to abortions and all options available to her currently at her whim to end unwanted pregnancy or unwanted parenthood.
If a woman names no father on a birth certification she is thereby assuming total responsibilty for child on her own. No adoption may take place without a vigorous search for a father.
Of course with exceptions.
Rob, I don’t understand what you’re missing. Can you expand?
Z:
And women too? Women can opt out of motherhood without legal consequences? In a time sensitive way? Slowly dissolving their motherhood?
Abortion is a way of opting out of motherhood, or do you disagree? Should there be a legal penalty for aborting? $500/month for 18 years? Why not?
I truly don’t see how men, as a gender, can be held responsible for walking away from the responsibilities of fatherhood when women, as a gender, opt out of having a child frequently.
Z, are there any other debts for which people should be imprisoned?
It would be wonderful if laws were written with the interests of children at heart. They are not. Laws ensure reproductive freedom for women. Why not for men?
he should have used a condom, if he didn’t want a baby, so he should support any children resulting. The slut should keep her legs together, so she should not be allowed to get an abortion and support any children resulting. Compare and contrast.
Sure, Q.
I see no reason why any woman couldn’t contract for (for example): “If I get pregnant, you will pay for my medical care, you will pay for my choice of abortion or delivery, including any prenatal and/or follow-up care, and you will be standing in the delivery room to take the baby, who I never want to see again, and assume all parental rights and responsibilities.”
You could also contract for the current status quo: “If I get pregnant, you will abide by my choice in the matter. You agree to be liable for 1/2 the child support whether or not you wish to parent the child.”
And you could contract for MORE than the status quo, even more than the first example: “If I get pregnant, you will pay for my medical care, you will pay for my choice of abortion or delivery, including any prenatal and/or follow-up care, you will relinquish all parental rights, and you will pay $20,000 per year in child support until the child is out of college, including any college tuition.”
If you can’t agree, you take your chances and go with the status quo.
THIS is a “negotiation” as you put it. Sex is not a negotiation. One crucial part of a negotiation–the part I am proposing, and the part you seem to be unwilling to address–is enforceability. If you negotiate for something and you don’t get it, you should account for what heppens next.
Under the current legal system, no matter what people say prior to sex, there’s a “do over” when they’re pregnant. This doesn’t really benefit anyone.
Because there’s a baby that needs to eat?
Because there’s a baby that needs to eat?
There is sufficient public welfare assistance available in the United States that very few babies will starve.
Q Grrl
Time sensative meaning you can’t wait 5 years and decide you don’t want to be a father anymore.
Woman have 3 legal ways of opting out of parenthood. Abortion, Safe Haven, and Adoption.
A man cannot abort a woman’s baby without it being a criminal act. And he has no right to dictate a woman’s right to an abortion. A man cannot take a child from a wanting mother and drop it off, that is kidnapping, a man cannot remove a child from its wanting mother and place it up for adoption, that would be kidnapping. Men without certain ressources available to them have an extremely difficult time fighting and succeeding in an adoption that might already be in the works for whatever reason.
“They also have a warped sense of manhood and warped opinions of women.”
This is not a reason to exempt them from responsiblity for the children they father. It’s a reason for them to grow up and learn how reality works, just like the rest of us have to do.
Broce
Thats easy for your to say when you don’t have to deal with generational mental poverty.
“There is sufficient public welfare assistance available in the United States that very few babies will starve. ”
Are you kidding? Sufficient public welfare? As I understand it there is a 5 year lifetime limit on TANF, with a 2 year at any one time limit.
“Thats easy for your to say when you don’t have to deal with generational mental poverty. ”
No, it’s easy to say because it’s reality. Are you suggesting that any man with a warped idea about women should be exempt from taking responsibility for children? Because an awful lot of men who did not grow up in poverty, mental or fiscal have warped ideas about manhood and about women.
A lot of women have warped ideas about womanhood and men, but that does not exempt them from caring for the children they birth.
In researching to try and answer Q Grrl’s question about the relative prevalence of deadbeat dads vs. aborting moms, I came across something which I didn’t know.
The majority (70% I think it was) of child support arrears – back payments that are owed – are not owed to custodial parents. They are owed to states. Most of the non-custodial parents who owe child support or don’t pay child support are involved with custodial parents who are on public assistance. When a custodial parent is on public assistance, they get their check, and the state goes after the non-custodial parent for “child support” – but the support is actually owed to the state to reimburse it for the welfare that the state shouldn’t have to pay, if there was a working dad in the picture.
So the “but babies will starve” argument doesn’t seem to work very well; moms who are at that level of desperation will get support from the state, not from the man, if the man doesn’t step up. C4M might make welfare dependency worse but it won’t starve any kids.
The population of deadbeat dads is, by and large, a singularly unskilled and socially underclassed group of men. A realistic policy on support should probably recognize that.
Are you kidding? Sufficient public welfare? As I understand it there is a 5 year lifetime limit on TANF, with a 2 year at any one time limit.
So you stay home with your baby for two years, and then you get a job.
Robert, I said nothing about starving. A baby needs to eat well, have clean clothes, a safe car for transport, adequate heat and cooling in their house, etc. etc. What world do you live in where these things come free or even inexpensively. Oh wait, you already know these things: you just hate having to admit that women have legitimate complaints in this world. Grow up.
Broce – These women get government and public assistance. Available to them are parenting classes, support groups, financial benefits, medical benefits, nutritional benefits, housing assistance, daycare assistance, educational assistance, self esteem classes, and mentorship programs all provided by tax payers dollars and enforced by the government. They are also no longer socially penalized for any behavior conductive of producing children out of wedlock and out of the bounds of any stability that is nuturing for the child.
These men, usually from single mother households themselves, get either their own deadbeat dad to look to or the rooster that hangs out on the corner. Maybe if they are lucky someone will privatley have a resource available to them, but more than often those are aimed at mothers.
again, its possible that we live in two different realities. Mine is that many, whom become fathers and whom become the father that are such loathed aka deabeats are usually low in self esteem, poorly educated, jobless or poorly employed, low skilled, and no one said that should absolve them from their reponsibilities automatically but they should be assisted.
Precisely. And why is it that men forget this so often? If men are only using birth control at about 20%, then they’re sending a very clear message that they don’t give a rat’s ass about the women they’re fucking or the children they’re creating.
Birth control for men is easy to use, widely available OTC, inexpensive, and has a high rate of success. Why aren’t men using it? Especially if the cards are so obviously stacked against them?
Don’t want child support payments? Use birth control. Your own.
Q Grrl,
You can get pregnant, men cannot. its your 100 percent your responsibilty to prevent it and your reponsibilty 100 percent the outcome.
Cry Foul
Well, then, Z, if women have all the responsibility,t hen they get all the rights, too, and the subject is closed. Christ.
Women form the majority of those getting raped, so I guess to take your reasoning where it logically goes, when bad things happen to people, it’s their responsibility to prevent them?
Yeah, sure is a shame there’s all those well-paying male-dominated fields out there that men don’t take. Poor babies.
Child support is owed the child. And the child does not give a flying fuck that you feel you didnt have as many options. The child had even less than you did, and absolutely NO involvement in the act that got her into this world.
The excuse that the choice wasnt equal falls flat when you correctly apply it to the one you actually owe the support to. The child had even less choice in the matter than you did and the child is the one you’re answering to for it’s existance and support.
“Well I didnt want to have you” will get a “tough shit, you DO “response from the child.
Abortion is a way of opting out of motherhood, or do you disagree? Should there be a legal penalty for aborting? $500/month for 18 years? Why not?
WTF?
Child support is not a penalty for being a non-custodial parent. If the parents were living together, they would both contribute in cash or in kind towards the household expenses the existence of the child entailed. If one parent is non-custodial, sie still has to make that contribution. Usually in cash, since it makes the accounting easier, although the Child Support Agency here in the UK makes allowances for contributions in kind when calculating the level of support payable.
Child support isn’t a punishment for not wanting to be a parent: it’s a recognition that the child exists and needs parents whatever the parents may feel about it. If a woman has an abortion (I cannot believe I have to type this) there is no child to be in need of support.
okay Ginmar,
what the hell does rape have to do with anything
I thought we were talking here about two consenting folks having sex and resulting in an unwanted or unexpected child.
>.Are you kidding? Sufficient public welfare? As I understand it there is a 5 year lifetime limit on TANF, with a 2 year at any one time limit.
So you stay home with your baby for two years, and then you get a job.
>>
Robert. TANF requires that you work, I believe, from the postpartum period onwards. If you are talking strictly about a population of women who qualify for TANF (and I don’t know why you are limiting it this way, the vast majority of single parents work), you’re talking about a population of people whose job skills are limited. They are unlikely to land a job that has good benefits, pays a living wage, including enough to cover child care costs.
Your knowledge of biology is somewhat lacking, my dear. Women don’t “get” pregnent. They get impregnated.
I assume that you’re in favor of castration for males then? Since they don’t need their balls or anything.
If your ‘logic’ works, Z, it works for all things.
Rape has everything to do with becoming pregnant. This again, however, is the glaring blind spot in your knowledge of human biology. Sperm, even sperm from icky, nasty, raping men, can cause a pregnancy.
So, again, since it is 100% my responsibility to prevent my pregnancies, I now solemly declare that the 3rd Wednesday of every 2nd month is the Q-Grrl Free Clinic, offering free castration services with minimally invasive techniques, the best in Jack Daniels anesthesia, and a free lolly-pop for the trip home! Come on boys! I’ll see you soon. *smooch*
“These women get government and public assistance.”
Which women, Z? I got jack. I didnt get child support, and I didnt get any other kind of assistance when my ex decided not to pay. I was on my own, right from the get go, with no family support, no support from anyone.
“Available to them are parenting classes, support groups, financial benefits, medical benefits, nutritional benefits, housing assistance, daycare assistance, educational assistance, self esteem classes, and mentorship programs all provided by tax payers dollars and enforced by the government.”
Baloney, Z. Self esteem classes? Mentorship? Where?
“They are also no longer socially penalized for any behavior conductive of producing children out of wedlock and out of the bounds of any stability that is nuturing for the child.”
Why those horrible sluts, opening their legs like that! I provided a stable and nurturing environment for my child without assistance from my ex, Z. I was lucky, damned lucky that I was intelligent, and landed in a career field entirely by accident at a time when that was really the only requirement – no one was looking for a college degree. I make more than most men, but the bottom line is the only difference between me and “those sluts” is that I had the bad judgement to actually marry the man who eventually fathered my son, and I was damnably lucky to find a way to raise him without assistance.
“These men, usually from single mother households themselves”
And the women you’re disparaging here are not?
“Mine is that many, whom become fathers and whom become the father that are such loathed aka deabeats are usually low in self esteem, poorly educated, jobless or poorly employed, low skilled, and no one said that should absolve them from their reponsibilities automatically but they should be assisted. ”
Ya know Z, I live a pretty middle class existence. So do many of my single parent friends. NONE of them receive child support from the fathers of their children, all of whom are also middle class. I know it’s comforting to believe that this is a “ghetto problem”….but it is not.
Many middle class single mothers are like me, they work 80 hours a week and forego chasing the father for support, because they don’t have enough energy to chase him, work, and spend time with the children.
And a lot of single mothers who come from the backgrounds you site also have the same issues, yet no one says “Poor thing” when she screws up, they just come take the kids away.
There are, by the way, a number of programs in existence now to support especially teen fathers from the socio-economic groups you mention. They are great programs, and I am all in favor of them.
But getting back to your earlier statement that the poor things had twisted opinions of women, as though somehow that makes it all ok….it doesnt.
When my ex and I split, I’d been a SAHM. I got up off my ass and took a job, any job, and slept on a sofa for four years so I could take care of both *my* responsibilities as a parent, and me ex’s, since it was apparent right from the start that he had no intention of paying *any* support. His first check bounced, costing me $40 I didnt have, and there wasn’t another one. All I am suggesting is that anyone who has a child needs to do whatever it takes to support that kid, period. Add in any programs you like to help develop job skills or whatever, but in the meantime, the kid needs to eat, needs to having clothing and medical attention, etc. No parent should be off the hook for *any* reason short of death or disability.
Q grrl
yeah I’m an idiot in regards to biology. Thanks for pointing that out for me. I forgot, dummy that I am an all…
Replace pregnant with impregnanting and BEING pregnant. Now what.
Castration??
now your just getting dramatic (Cried Foul)
I’ll be dramatic too
I believe men should be castrated and woman should have their breast and clitorises cut off because they don’t really need to them.
Whatever, that makes you happy?
Strawmen.
How/why did people deliberately detour so far off topic? What on earth does a discussion about contractual agreements and child support have to do with… rape? With… castration? WTF?
We all know about straw feminists; they’re bad, like ALL straw people are bad. But here some folks are gleefully setting up straw arguments left and right: “Rapists!” “Abortion!” “Rape AND abortion!” “AAAA!!!” and (surprise!) the straw people are losing.
Wow, that makes for a fun discussion! Not. You folks are mirroring–almost exactly–the behaviors of the trolls we all despise in other contexts. Ain’t it grand?
oh my god. This conversation isn’t about Rape, its about constenting people having sex and an unwanted child. Rape is violent criminal act. Unless your of the camp that believe all heterosexual sex is rape against women?
again, taking things way out of context. Obviously you have nothing to add because your injecting something into the discussion that is totally not in the boundries that this discussion is taking place. Unless I have been mistaken the whole time and this conversation was about men raping women and not about two people agreeing to have sex together.
Again Q grrl is pointing out my lack of intellegence, so maybe this is the case. I’ll go find the other thread. I might have made a wrong turn somewhere.
Hey, at least strawmen can’t run out on child support payments.
Z: you’re the one that came in with the “women are 100% responsible for 100% of their pregnancies so teh damn bitches betta keep their skanky legs shut” argument.
Don’t go screaming around the blog crying “foul” when we point towards your sophmoric attempts at debate.
I’m having a hard time believing it is 2006 and I have to explain to another adult (?) that women cannot get pregnant in the absence of male ejaculate.
Pray tell Z, how does that ejaculate get inside a woman?
Chill out Sailorman. I’m just talking about hypotheticals and all. ‘kay?
Q Grrl I don’t know what you are even talking about anymore. As you keep pointing out I’m too stupid to know the basic rules of how conception works, so maybe I’m too stupid to follow you. And I don’t agree with you. Lets just leave it at that?
Sailorman, maybe it you actually tried, you’d get it.
pheenobarbidoll wrote:
Thank you!
I don’t understand this debate at all.
If a child is born then it’s about the child’s rights not the parents.
It doesn’t matter if the father or mother wants to sign away their rights – none of them can sign away their child’s rights to be supported by its parents.
The other aspect of this debate is just the usual abortion – anti-abortion debate. As a woman I decide who will have the use of my body, and whether to give a parasitic emryo the housing and means to, possibly, eventually develope into a child.
Z, let’s make this simple:
You can impregnate a woman. It’s 100 percent your responsibilty to prevent it and your responsibilty 100 percent the outcome.
This statement is no less (and no more) valid than yours.
What is all this talk of a “child”, and the child’s rights?
We’re talking about fetuses, and the right of both sexes to walk away from caring for fetuses. Fetuses don’t have any rights.
Sure, that fetus might later become a child, and then it will need support.
But that strikes me as being the problem of the person who decides whether or not to let the fetus become a child. Nobody is forcing women to bear children – to do so would be horrible and wrong, according to feminists, right? So, you have all the choice in the world.
I don’t see a problem with the people who have all the choice also having all the worry.
Richard
that is essentially the point.Once there is a child it need to be supported However as things stand now, if a mother does not want to support her child being she doesn’t want the responsibilty or she cannot care for a child she can physically and financially give up or physically and financially abandon (with some time restrictions) it without penalty. These laws are gender neutral but they are implemented with bias towards the mother. And in the later case a change of mind can result in returned custody
There are also government implemented progams that provide women with assistance in caring for children who may not be able to. This should be the case for men who have a the desire but not the means or the assistance.This is something that would benefit the child on both ends.
I have little to say. I strongly support Sailorman’s comments in this thread.
Q Grrl, I think your comments here have been exceedingly aweful. You can reedem yourself in my eyes (not that I expect that you will or ought to care about my opinion of you) by addressing how exactly you think that the “keep your legs crossed” argument is more valid here than when it’s used against abortion, which has been asked of you several times in this thread, and which you haven’t addressed.
About the “it’s the child’s right to support” argument. I think that the child should not have a universal right to support from both of its biological parents. I think that the child should have a universal right to support from at least one person.
In fact, the way the laws currently work, it’s not apparent that such a right is recognized. If the child has a universal right to support from both biological parents, how is adoption possible? Why are safe haven laws permissible? The argument is not a strong one.
So you’re proposing that we define living children as “unaborted fetuses” or some such, and that we shouldn’t sweat guys not wanting to support an unaborted fetus who exists outside the womb because this guy actually made his real choice sooner, when it was still inside the womb, and that’s what should count? And this “virtual abortion” that a man has is made a reality by the woman’s actual right to abortion? Are you seriously suggesting this? It’s only by defining abortion in the most abstract terms (as you do, in defining it as merely the right to “walk away from caring for fetuses”) that one could make such an equivalence.
No, Imani, I’m not seriously suggesting that. It’s monstrous.
But it is the logical extension of pro-choice values and logic. Sauce for the goose, etc.
Wow, Robert, nice strawfeminst you got there.
Robert, either state this “logical extenstion” in the form of a proof starting from Amp’s post on personhood and dendritic spines, or withdraw that absurd claim.
pdf: I addressed it in my comment about men’s lack of committment to using thier own birth control. I listed abstaining from one.form.of.sex as an adequate method of avoiding pregnancy. I would give the same advice to women. Surprised? Ah, but I didn’t tell the useless skank to keep her legs shut, so I guess it doesn’t count in the haters’ book.
Robert and Z: what are women to do in Mississippi, South Dakota, and Ohio? You make it seem as if abortion clinics are as easily accessible as Ben & Jerry’s. Or that having an abortion is less risky than a choice between Rocky Road and Vanilla Bean. Are you truly suggesting that the idea of male contraception is as foreign as humans walking on Mars? Come on now.
I think the C4M people are trying to fight the phsyical realities of gender in a way it hasn’t even occurred to feminists to begin fighting! But then again, (re)writing the law so that men are always in the better starting position out of the block is pretty much par for the course for male supremacists.
You’ll need to find a doctor willing to sterilize young fertile women too. It’s not as easy as it sounds.
“But it is the logical extension of pro-choice values and logic.”
Umm, no. You’re the first person to bring up the equivalence in support of the (sort of) pro-C4M side of the argument. I don’t believe Sailorman’s or Z’s argument depends on that equivalence at all.
I find it very telling that so many men (on this thread, even) think of child support as a “penalty.” You are so bitter and resentful about having to give up any possible privilege that you will suggest with a straight face that men shouldn’t have to pay child support because women can just go on welfare. WTF?? Living on welfare is HORRIBLE. It is deeply stigmatized, and it is *not* enough money to live on, let alone to support a child. Whining that “I don’t want to pay child support, she should just go on welfare” indicates that you have absolutely no respect for women as people.
Bean, I’d appreciate your thoughts about my argument against the “it’s the child’s right” position.
Q Grrl:
“I addressed it in my comment about men’s lack of committment to using thier own birth control.”
Many anti-abortion folks would assign the greater blame to women who are inconsistent in their use of birth control, so this doesn’t serve to differentiate the positions enough.
“I listed abstaining from one.form.of.sex as an adequate method of avoiding pregnancy.”
So do those who use that argument to oppose abortion.
“In fact, the way the laws currently work, it’s not apparent that such a right is recognized. If the child has a universal right to support from both biological parents, how is adoption possible? Why are safe haven laws permissible? The argument is not a strong one. ”
Adoption and safe haven laws create the opportunity for a child to recieve support from 2 parents.
Both biological parents are needed for an adoption to take place. Every effort WILL BE MADE to ensure that. Adoption agencies hire private detectives to seek out the biologiocal fathers before 1 parent will be allowed to surrender a child for adoption. In cases of safe haven, efforts ARE made to find willing relatives, efforts are made to find the father as well. In each case, every effort IS made to give a child 2 parents.
The responsibility to replace 2 biological parents falls to the biological parents in cases of adoption. Adoptive parents serve as biologocal parents. In cases of safe haven laws, the responsibility to replace 2 biological parents with adoptive parents falls to the state, after BOTH parents (if and when possible) consent to the state taking that responsibility on.
Karolena
Well I for one suggested that men that wanted to support their children get welfare assistance also. Saying this as a woman who has been on welfare twice.
“Robert and Z: what are women to do in Mississippi, South Dakota, and Ohio? You make it seem as if abortion clinics are as easily accessible as Ben & Jerry’s. Or that having an abortion is less risky than a choice between Rocky Road and Vanilla Bean. Are you truly suggesting that the idea of male contraception is as foreign as humans walking on Mars? Come on now.”
Q grrl,
what about the baby girls in India?
Q Girl, are you the strawfeminist other feminists are always complaining about?
You consistently misunderstand. In the first trimester, there is no child. There is just a woman with a choice.
Let’s say 2 people go out for a drive. The woman drives. They get a flat tire. The man says, I think you should get a new tire. She says “its my car, its my choice, you can’t make me replace the tire” She drives on the bad tire and ruins the rim. Are they 50/50 responsible for the additional damage?
I agree that women who have children in extreme desperation are committing a crime.
On the plus side (for some) the men who are imprisoned for child support arrears are probably disproportionately black.
“Both biological parents are needed for an adoption to take place.”
Yes, and I think this is proper, as long as neither of the biological parents has signed off on their parental interest in the child. The default should be that both parents are responsible for the child. But I don’t think this fact gives any support to the “child’s right” argument. No, in this case, it’s more about the parent’s right–the right to have a say in what sort of care their child is placed under.
“In each case, every effort IS made to give a child 2 parents.”
Not because two is any magical number (though I’m sure this is a widespread view) but because single-parent households tend to be much less suitable as adoptive families, and triple-parent households are very rare. For instance, I presume that you would support the right of competent gay couples to adopt?
“Adoptive parents serve as biologocal parents.”
No, adoptive parents serve as parents–parents that replace what is traditionally the role of the biological parents. But the task of raising a child has little to do with biological relatedness. And to the extent the raising a child *does* have to do with biological relatedness (such as being familiar with family diseases and psychological problems, and infant-mother bonding,) adoptive parents serve as poor replacements. Adoptive parents do not serve as biological parents.
“In cases of safe haven laws, the responsibility to replace 2 biological parents with adoptive parents falls to the state”
Again, 2 is not a magical number. If a single person could demonstrate that they would make a good parent, the state, ideally, would consider them eligible as an adoptive parent. And anyway, the state often places orphans in the care of single relatives, like aunts, uncles, and grandparents, in preference to dual parent unrelated families.
Thats the most inaccurate analogy I’ve ever read.
A general philosophy post before I wash my hands of this one.
I don’t want to pay child support because I don’t have any children who aren’t being supported in a marital relationship. I “pay my child support” every day by being a dad.
I also don’t mind paying taxes to support some kind of social welfare net to help parents who, for whatever reason, don’t have a partner to help raise their child. That’s a difficult situation to be in, and as noted, it’s not the child’s fault.
That said, I really don’t understand the pro-choice position being articulated (or avoiding being articulated) here. If it’s OK for a woman to decide she doesn’t want any part of the reproductive consequence of her sex life, why isn’t OK for a man?
Answers about “the welfare of the child” don’t fly. The woman gets to choose whether the child comes into existence. She’s not being forced into child-rearing. If she doesn’t want to raise the child herself, then she has options. The concomitant of power is responsibility; if women have 100% of the choice and 100% of the options, guess where 100% of the responsibility is going to wind up?
Yeah, those options aren’t great sometimes. That’s life. Perhaps if you can’t get an abortion where you live, and can’t afford birth control, and don’t have a man in your life who will step up and BE a man, and can’t face bearing a child only to give it up for adoption or to an orphanage, and can’t live on public support…perhaps that’s the time when you should consider the fact that vaginal sex is an optional part of life, and cock – just like pussy – is not a human right.
Alternatively, people can accept that babies are a duh-obvious predictable consequence of intercourse – and that people who are not prepared to deal with those consequences, one way or the other, ought to refrain from intercourse. And men and women can both step up to their unique responsibilities, and do the right thing.
But “these guys aren’t stepping up to their responsibility!” is a laughable position from people whose entire gender philosophy is predicated and centered around ensuring that women are able to sidestep their own responsibilities. (And kudos to the group of feminists who recognize this and disavow pro-choice arguments as being central to feminism.) I don’t think some of you perceive how absolutely flailing your responses to C4M arguments are – and that’s just the arguments that aren’t cut-and-paste jobs from patriarchs and theocons with “woman” crossed out and “man” penciled in.
If we want people to be obliged to meet their responsibilities as adults, then that’s fine – from my POV, it’s more than fine, it’s the best way to handle things.
If we want people to be empowered to avoid the responsibilities and consequences of sex, then that’s fine, too, if that’s what the bulk of society’s members want. But then we can’t be surprised when everybody wants into the lifeboat.
Either everybody who’s able-bodied swims, or everybody rides. “My magical uterus powers are a ticket to ride in the lifeboat – you boys get back into the water” is a non-starter.
If feminists want to seriously address these issues, then you’re going to have to put in a lot of work. Right now, C4M is the province of the bozo fringe – people who weren’t raised right and have a pretty lame stock of legal and mental capital to put into the fray – and in the court of public opinion, they’re starting to kick your ass. I was hostile to C4M arguments two-three years ago – and in the meantime I’ve been hearing from their loser brigade and from feminism’s best and brightest. And the loser brigade is winning the argument in the public mind. They’ve convinced me; there’s no justification for giving one gender a special power in the reproductive arena.
What do you think is going to happen when the next couple of generations of men – the ones who have been raised with “reproductive autonomy” and “choice” drilled into them from childhood – hit maturity? They’re not going to put any more credence in magical uterus powers than I do, and fifty years of egalitarian teaching is going to put the kibosh on the idea of “substantive justice” and special rules for one group. Add that to the baseline level of misogyny already in the culture, and what do you think the outcome will be?
If she can choose, so can he.
“No, in this case, it’s more about the parent’s right–the right to have a say in what sort of care their child is placed under.”
Hardly. If the parents picked an inappropriate environment or unfit adoptive parents, that child would be taken out of the situation. After you sign away rights, you have no say. The state and the adoption agency will place the child with adoptive parents that best suit the childs interests and rights.
“Not because two is any magical number (though I’m sure this is a widespread view) but because single-parent households tend to be much less suitable as adoptive families, and triple-parent households are very rare. For instance, I presume that you would support the right of competent gay couples to adopt?”
So far, data on 2 parent households does indeed suggest this is the ideal enviroment for a child to recieve rights such as proper housing, clothing, nutrition, and other variations of support. 2 parent household does not= male/female. A parent is without gender.
“No, adoptive parents serve as parents–parents that replace what is traditionally the role of the biological parents. But the task of raising a child has little to do with biological relatedness. And to the extent the raising a child *does* have to do with biological relatedness (such as being familiar with family diseases and psychological problems, and infant-mother bonding,) adoptive parents serve as poor replacements. Adoptive parents do not serve as biological parents.”
Family history is given in cases of adoption. Adoptive parents are aware of family dieases, problems ect. Infant-mother bonding happens through day to day care and emotion between infant and mother. Adoptive parents are in no way poor replacements providing they put in the effort it takes to truly care for a child and invest the emotion needed to form bonding.
“Again, 2 is not a magical number. If a single person could demonstrate that they would make a good parent, the state, ideally, would consider them eligible as an adoptive parent. And anyway, the state often places orphans in the care of single relatives, like aunts, uncles, and grandparents, in preference to dual parent unrelated families. ”
And one of the requirements is the financial stability to raise a child without welfare assistance or burden to the state. In other words, a single family member making or exceeding an average 2 parent income, or access to support that meets or exceeds an average 2 parent income. They dont hand them off to people who cant feed them.
pdf: are you saying my arguments are unsound because someone else wants to restrict women’s access to abortion? I’m really not sure where you are going with your statements.
Q Grrl: I’m saying that your argument is exactly as sound whether used against C4M or used against abortion choice. I happen to think it’s quite unsound in both instances.
I am finding myself increasingly frustrated as I read through this thread. Here is some of what I have been thinking, not necessarily in the most logical of orders, as I read:
1. When a couple gets divorced, there are two forms—and, as far as I know, only two forms—of payment that one spouse makes to another, alimony and child support. The first, according to my understanding, is to help the less financially well-off spouse to maintain a standard of living comparable to what he or she enjoyed while married; the second is to support the children of the marriage. It is not money that is owed to the custodial parent and it is not a penalty; it is a payment intended to continue to provide the children of the marriage with the kind of financial support they had while their parents were married. The money that would be paid to the mother of the child who is at issue in this argument is no different; it is not her money and it is not a penalty to which a man is subject because he has helped to conceive a child. It is money earmarked for the child.
2. I realize that the child support payments a man would have to make for a child he didn’t want might feel like a penalty, and I do not want to trivialize the enormity–and while it is certainly not as enormous as being pregnant and giving birth and then being a child’s primary care giver, it is still enormous–of a man’s realization that a woman’s decision not to abort will turn him into a father and legally obligate him to that child for a significant number of years, the fact remains that the relationship we are talking about here is not the one between the man and the woman with whom he conceived the child; the relationship we are talking about is the one between the man and that child, and that relationship exists from the moment the child is conceived. When my wife and I conceived our son, the fact that my son was not yet in the world only meant that, just as he was still a potential child, I was his father in potentia. The fact that my wife, if she wanted to, could have gotten an abortion without even informing me does not change this fact. I helped to make the fetus that eventually became my son. Leaving aside, for the moment, the kinds of contractual agreements that Sailorman is talking about, to walk away from the fact of this relationship is to fail to take responsibility for my own actions.
3. Now, as far as I know, the only kind of support a parent can be legally compelled to provide for a child is financial. We cannot compel a parent to love a child; hell, we can’t even compel a parent to treat his or her child kindly or non-abusively—what we can do is punish the parent after the fact of the abuse. So, since the choice-for-men that started this whole discussion is ultimately nothing more than the choice of whether or not to pay child support, it seems to me we are back to the question of how society structures itself to provide financially for born children. We do not live in a culture that says, “The overwhelming majority of people have sex for pleasure and not solely for reproduction; this means that there will be, in any given year, a given number of unplanned pregnancies, and out of those pregnancies, a given number will result in a child that was not planned, and some percentage of those children will be born to parents either one or both of whom will not want to be parents. We need, as a sexually active society, collectively, to figure out how to provide for those children and offer support to whoever ends up being the child’s parent/caregiver.”
Rather, we live in a culture that is not only ridiculously conflicted and neurotic and hypocritical about sex, but also says you are solely responsible for your own actions, which is why the relationship that is at issue in this discussion and in the whole choice-for-men argument is not between the father and his child, and how that relationship is/ought to be shaped by the fact that the child had no choice about being born, is entirely dependent, etc., but rather between the man and the woman, i.e. “She shouldn’t have the right to force me to become a father.” (And here I return to something I said above: he was a father the moment that child was conceived.)
4. And so we come to the contract: The problem I have with the contract idea is that it presupposes two entirely rational, relatively well-educated and highly privileged individuals who are not only able to think logically before they get sexually involved, but are sophisticated enough to really think through all the implications of what such a contract would mean; as a hypothetical, for example, it does not account for the men to whom Z refers, who are so disadvantaged and demonized in so many ways that such a contract would, I think, be meaningless to them. The contract idea is, in other words, so divorced from the reality of how actual people behave when they are sexually involved that even if it is internally consistent, it is not a workable solution to anything. (And I am not suggesting that Sailorman actually meant the contract idea should or could be implemented; I am explaining why I think it’s not worth talking much about.)
5. Q Grrl’s point about castration is an important one, not because it should be put into action—obviously—but because it raises, graphically and disturbingly, the question of male heterosexual responsibility solely in terms of the male body, which is something that I think has been given short shrift in this discussion. Male reproductive choice, if it is going to have any kind of moral/ethical authority, needs to be located in the realities of the male body, in the same way that female reproductive choice is located in the realities of the female body. Anything else, given that we live in a male dominated culture, is going to end up being, almost by definition, an expression of male power and privilege.
Okay, I have gone on long enough. I apologize for the lenght of this.
This is why it is so hard for a single father to contest an adoption and win if he doesn’t have an army backing him. A 2 parent household with a stable income is an ideal setting for a child.
Single parents can adopt but the have to shown exemplorary proof of financial income and assistance with raising the child(nannies, family, etc). However if the price is right, adoption agencies will fudge stuff for the parent.
Pheenobarbidoll: As far as I know, you get all the facts about adoption right. But I don’t see how your post makes the argument that the biological relationship is somehow privileged, such that a child being raised by one parent has a right to support from the other parent.
I’m open (and somewhat favorable) to the argument that, given the realities involved, that making the biological parents responsible is the best practical solution, but I still strongly object to saying that the child has a right to that particular form of support.
Oh, and I strongly support the position that each parent has an obligation to support the child if they’ve previously committed to do so. No backsies. So, in Sage’s situation, I would say her husband was a real asshole, and would support much stronger enforcement of child support payment collection.
Oh, and I strongly support the position that each parent has an obligation to support the child if they’ve previously committed to do so. No backsies. So, in Sage’s situation, I would say her husband was a real asshole, and would support much stronger enforcement of child support payment collection.
Absolutely. Once a relationship is established and an obligation voluntarily assumed, that’s the ball game.
I can endorse Richard’s 3rd point. In our current political situation, and with the current state of welfare, I would not necessarily support changes to lessen men’s obligation to support their biological children. While I believe that the situation is unjust, I think the welfare of the child could be an overriding concern. (Yes, I’m waffling a bit about it.)
But “these guys aren’t stepping up to their responsibility!” is a laughable position from people whose entire gender philosophy is predicated and centered around ensuring that women are able to sidestep their own responsibilities. (And kudos to the group of feminists who recognize this and disavow pro-choice arguments as being central to feminism.) I don’t think some of you perceive how absolutely flailing your responses to C4M arguments are – and that’s just the arguments that aren’t cut-and-paste jobs from patriarchs and theocons with “woman” crossed out and “man” penciled in.
No, what’s “flailing” is your giving cover to those who would hijack pro-choice language to create some new “right” for men rather than doing the more difficult work of trying to establish an independent philosophical foundation for it, and the only thing that’s “laughable” is any suggestion that feminists drop everything they’re doing to educate those who are too obtuse to see the difference between the right to an abortion and some ersatz right to “walk away” from responsibility to living children. If the right to refuse to be a parent to a living child is truly the cause you wish to take up, then at least make it clear that you’re arguing for something new, rather than proceeding from the fallacious assumption of an obvious and there-from-the-start kinship between C4M and pro-choice ethics.
Not to be unkind, but I’m having a hard time not reading into your words a passive-aggressive stance toward women’s reproductive freedom. It shows up in your “sauce for the goose” comment, as well as your characterization of abortion as an “evasion of responsibility,” an oft-used anti-abortion talking point. It’s as if you don’t really think C4M will gain any legal traction any time soon, but if in the meantime one can delegitimize pro-choice discourse through the specter of would-be deadbeat dads taking up the same rhetoric, and bully feminists into dropping everything they’re doing just to deal with that possibility (even backing away from their strident pro-choice-ism, if that’s what it takes) that’s not a bad consolation prize.
too obtuse to see the difference between the right to an abortion and some ersatz right to “walk away” from responsibility to living children.
I know I said I was walking away, but I want to clarify this.
I’m not talking about what happens after birth.
I’m talking about a fetus. I’m talking about a woman and a man who have together conceived a fetus, and whether they can each walk away from their present and future responsibilities from that point forward. Currently, the woman can do this via a physical abortion, and the man has no recourse. All a properly-formulated C4M law would do would be to enable either party to file a “paper abortion” declaiming rights or responsibilities to the child.
The fetus doesn’t become a child until the woman bears it; if she has knowledge that the man doesn’t want it and bears it anyway, then I have no problem with the idea that caring for and supporting the child is then her problem. Responsibility for problems is the logical consequence of having all power over the decision that leads to the problem. (Rape is a male problem for that very reason.)
(To answer Bean’s query in #70, if a woman doesn’t inform the father of the existence of the child, then that would also seem to be her problem; if he decides to step up voluntarily, great.)
Rob: so the below named woman is a slut, but the man in your scenario is just a man? That frankly speaks volumes about what you think of women.
It would be wonderful if laws were written with the interests of children at heart. They are not. Laws ensure reproductive freedom for women. Why not for men?
he should have used a condom, if he didn’t want a baby, so he should support any children resulting.
I agree with this statement.
The slut should keep her legs together, so she should not be allowed to get an abortion and support any children resulting. Compare and contrast.
Yes, lets.
Clearly women who have sex are sluts. Men who have sex are just men though. Men should support their children, as should women. However, women should not be ALLOWED to decide what happens to their slutty bodies, once they’ve sluttishly allowed some MAN to put his penis in and wiggle it around. The sluts! She should close her legs… and that man should stop wiggling his penis around inside sluts. It occurs to me, that if allowing a man to place his penis in my vagina and wiggle it somehow turns me from a human being into a mere slut… why don’t we lock up all the penises? Clearly they’re the source of the evil.
It would be wonderful if people weren’t so shitty as to need laws to tell them to do that which is obvious and moral. But unfortunately, the shitheads reign.
Birth control for a slut:
Hysterectomy: An operation to remove my reproductive organs. Painful, with associated risks, and insurance won’t cover an elective hysterectomy (unless you’ve already had kids).
Tubes tied: great unless I get a tubal pregnancy, and that’s a bad thing. Costs, pain.
I pay $42.00 a month for the pill. I have an annual exam, subsidized by Planned Parenthood, which costs me $100.00 (providing I have no STD testing done). I must have this exam yearly to get the pill. My insurance doesn’t cover this. 42 x 12 = $504.00 anually + $100.00 = $604.00 anually for birth control. On the plus side, hey! Any opportunity for someone to see my vagina, because y’know… Slut.
My risks:
Pregnancy
High blood pressure
clotting disorders
cancer
To get my pills, I have to take the day off work, losing a couple hundred dollars for the day I miss. I then go to a pharmacy, where I risk being denied that pill because Jaysus says so.
A man’s birth control:
Vasectomy: a day surgery, requiring no hospital stay. Still costs money, heals pretty quickly, feels like a kick to the nads. Pretty damned effective. Makes you less of a man… uh… according to other men… who usually don’t want kids, but still want to be “virile.”
Condoms: $3-5 bux anywhere…. and I mean *anywhere*. Any gas station, convenience store, grocery store, the machine in the bathroom… and they protect against STDs.
I’m sorry, but wear a condom. I’m sorry if you get stuck with parental responsibility you didn’t want, but wear a condom. There is just not one logical or acceptable excuse for not wearing a condom, especially not the selfishness that is the usual reason. If you can’t wear a condom, then again, very sorry, but you’re responsible for supporting any child that comes from the sex. This doesn’t absolve women from maintaining their own birth control, but still, wear a condom for YOURSELF.
But who will BAKE the bread?!
Z… you actually think fobbing male irrisponsibility off on the states is a *good* thing? You are aware that every social program is getting it’s budget drastically cut under this administration, right…? And while I congratulate you on your impending motherhood, and sympathize with your childhood issues, I don’t consider either to be valid for any purpose, other than to push me to scroll through the personal anecdote to another commentor with valid, logic-based replies.
Ampersand:
So how do you feel about laws that prohibit people from inducing abortions in other people’s bodies, or providing drugs to other people for that purpose? I think that is what the laws were in my state. I really don’t think the state prohibited women from doing whatever they wanted with their own body, except for things like prohibiting them from doing things with their own bodies that affected other people.
I’m open (and somewhat favorable) to the argument that, given the realities involved, that making the biological parents responsible is the best practical solution, but I still strongly object to saying that the child has a right to that particular form of support.
The act that created the child involves 2 people. Both are responsible for the sperm and egg meeting and having their little merger. If a child has the right to support from a parent (be it biological, adoptive whathave you and that right IS enforced, ie you must school your child, feed your child, clothe your child ect or face charges of neglect) it has the right to support from both responsible for its conception. One is not more responsible for conception than the other.
From the resulting childs point of view, both are parents, both chose the act that resulted in becoming a parent, both had more by way of decision making and both owe the child, since without 1 or the other, the child would not exist. If the child does NOT have a right to both parents, custody would simply be a matter of who is in possession of the child. Fathers would be SOL at that point. FRA’s argue that fathers have a right to their children. They also argue children have a right to a father. Why does this change now? Children only have a right to fathers when the father agrees? Thats a bit contradictory coming from the fathers rights camp, who are behind this mans suit. If you’ve argued children have a right to fathers, then children have a right to fathers. Maybe Im being unreasonable to hold them to their arguments. *shrug*
Both women and men have access to birth control. Not using birth control implies a consent to face any and all possible consequences, through CHOICE.
You choose to forgo birth control and you are actively choosing several possible consequences. 1) pregnancy and parenthood for both 2) pregnancy and termination of pregnancy 3) pregnancy and miscarriage resulting in no parenthood for either. 4) pregnancy and adoption.
Not one of those possible outcomes changes before, during or after sexual relations.
I really don’t see why this is such a hard concept for some people.
Sex has several possible outcomes. Having sex voluntarily means you are conciously, actively and implicity choosing these possible consequences. You can either take measures to limit these possible consequences or not. Risk is always a factor, you’re aware it’s a risk and you’ve chosen to roll the dice.
“Responsibility for problems is the logical consequence of having all power over the decision that leads to the problem. ”
But she did NOT have all the power over the decision that led to the problem, unless she had sex with herself and impregnated herself.
What led to the problem was a sexual act, not pregnancy.
The man has 100% control over his own penis and sperm.
The woman has 100% control over her uterus and ovaries.
At no point does that change. It’s still equal.
What led to the problem was a sexual act, not pregnancy.
This is quite clearly not true. A person can engage in sexual acts for twenty years and never run into this problem. Therefore, it is obvious that the problem is not predicated on “sexual acts”. The problem is predicated on an unwanted pregnancy – or on a pregnancy that one party wants and the other does not. No pregnancy, no problem.
Oh and just an aside
Unless child support is now being determined by taking the sum total of expenses needed to raise a child and divided by 2, the father is NOT being held to equal responsibility in support. So the claim ” Im having to share EQUAL responsibility in a decision I didnt have EQUAL say in” is still erroneous. He does indeed have equal say in engaging in sex and equal control over his body and organs just as she does. BUT his income support and responsibility do NOT reflect an equal obligation after a birth.
So it evens out rather nicely as is. She had slightly more decision making ability (though truthfully, its the exact same amount of decision making ability he has over his own body, but Im being generous) and has more responsibility as a result if she keeps the child. His never drops to zero because he still retained 100% of power of his body and 50% responsiblity for conception.
“This is quite clearly not true. A person can engage in sexual acts for twenty years and never run into this problem. Therefore, it is obvious that the problem is not predicated on “sexual acts”. The problem is predicated on an unwanted pregnancy – or on a pregnancy that one party wants and the other does not. No pregnancy, no problem. ”
No sex, no pregnancy.
As I said, it’s a risk people ARE aware of. The possible consequences are clearly known before sex is had. They dont change afterwards. Every single possible option, outcome and possibility are all present before, during and after sex. You choose sex, you choose the whole package that comes with it. And you do so fully cognizant of every single possible outcome, you know your options and limitations beforehand.
No sex, no pregnancy.
Empirically untrue.
And you do so fully cognizant of every single possible outcome, you know your options and limitations beforehand.
Absolutely. So if a man tells a woman before sex, “I am not going to provide any support for any baby that results from this – it’s not my problem, it’s yours” and she agrees to sex under those terms, she knows the options and limitations and there should be no question of whether she or anyone else would seek support from him. Glad we settled that!
Empirically untrue.
Barring in vitro fertilizations and the like…and the remote chance of immaculate conception, what leads to pregnancy ? Sex. If you do not engage in sex, pregnancy will not occur. (and dont even try to introduce the stolen sperm strawman, we’re discussing 2 consenting adults)
“Absolutely. So if a man tells a woman before sex, “I am not going to provide any support for any baby that results from this – it’s not my problem, it’s yours” and she agrees to sex under those terms, she knows the options and limitations and there should be no question of whether she or anyone else would seek support from him.”
The child did not enter this contract and the child is to whom the support is owed. Not the mother.
The child.
The child enters into a new contract, and since it had absolutely ZERO contribution to the contract between mother and father, its not subject to the terms of the agreement.
The child did not enter this contract and the child is to whom the support is owed.
I concede your point.
Very well. I have a question. At what identifiable point in time does this “child” entity, the one whom a debt of parenthood is now owed, come into being?
“As I said, it’s a risk people ARE aware of. The possible consequences are clearly known before sex is had. They dont change afterwards. Every single possible option, outcome and possibility are all present before, during and after sex. You choose sex, you choose the whole package that comes with it. And you do so fully cognizant of every single possible outcome, you know your options and limitations beforehand”
And some would believe this is why abortion and other means of dissolving parental rights for women should not be legal. Barring medical emergencies.
Women know choosing sex is to choose an outcome that could possible result in a embryo.
And what if she knowing has sex with a man that she knows is irresponsible or unable to provide for himself let alone a child, should she be penalized and forced to have the child and raise it? I don’t think so.
Birth? Do you mean the beginning of the birthing process, or when the baby is 80% out of the woman’s vaginal canal, or what? I’m not trying to be pedantic, I really want to know.
I would say when the child takes it’s first breath and the doctors declares “time of birth.”
Oh. So it would be OK for the father, or his paid assistant, to swoop in right before the child breathed, and kill it?
“And some would believe this is why abortion and other means of dissolving parental rights for women should not be legal. Barring medical emergencies. ”
The fact remains that it IS legal and IS one method of controlling birth and procreation. It is still a consequence one has to face, regardless of what one chooses. An abortion is a possible consequence of sex. So until it’s taken out of the equation AS a consequence, you have no excuse not to be aware that it could be a possible outcome stemming from your direct actions.
Bean – technically I agree with you.But with few things
1. Fathers should be given a way to opt out with restrictions. Perhaps resolved to showing intent before or within a certain time period after.
2. Fathers should receive welfare and other program assistance if they are willing to support their child but for whatever reasons are unable
3. Women whom do no put a birth fathers name on a birth certificate thereby acknowledge no existence of a father and assume sole responsibility for the child financially and emotionally. If father pops up and decides he wants to be a part of the childs life then he becomes legally responsible for the child just as the mother is.
Maybe even DNA test at birth should be done routinely, and filed, in case proving paternity in a child support case, adoption proceedings, medical issues, etc. But I don’t know how much that would consist of a violation of privacy.
I would say it becomes an entity owed the second its no longer subject to legal abortion. From that moment on, you’re either preparing to be a parent, preparing to act as a form of support, or preparing to find suitable replacements.
Why is it a ludicrous question? It’s OK for one parent to kill the entity in question ten minutes or ten weeks or thirty weeks before it draws breath. I assume on equity grounds that the other parent has a similar right to killl, and based on the definitions you’ve offered of when it’s a child (when it breathes) and when it’s operating solely under the mother’s right to kill (when it’s inside her). That seems to leave a window of opportunity, not a very long one, but perhaps long enough. Is that not the right window?
Robert,
Give it up, this is just dumb.
You are smearing distinctions and making grandiose equivalences that just don’t make any sense.
The responsibility to care for the created child is not identical with the responsibility not to kill a fetus or a child. No unconnected third party has the right to kill the fetus (except as the selected agent of the pregnant woman) or the child, even though they don’t have a responsibility to pay for its care, so the fact that the expectant father has to pay for care of the child after point x doesn’t mean he is free to kill it before point x. Likewise, a pregnant woman can both have a legal obligation to seek proper prenatal care for her unborn child, and a right to kill her fetus, so you can see that the responsibility to the child, should it be born (and once it is born) is a separate issue from the right of the mother to have an abortion. No child, no responsibility of care.