No More Back-Alley Vasectomies!

"Do these guys read Hit n Run?" asks reader John Feerick, alerting us to the story of Roe v. Wade For Men, a lawsuit in which a Saginaw, MI computer programmer seeks relief from having to pay support for a child he didn't want. Matt Dubay (didn't we just finish with this whole Dubay controversy?) has to pay $500 a month to his ex even though, he claims, she assured him she could not get pregnant.

Dubay, by his own account, does not expect to win the case. But he and Mel Feit, director of the National Center for Men, hope to get a debate going about the issue of "Men's Reproductive Rights."

It's not a completely unreasonable argument: Feit and his posse aren't looking to infringe on women's reproductive rights, and Feit proposes only a brief time window after the great sport, during which a man can refuse to acknowledge the whoreson. But like all efforts at fairness, this one sets up a goal that can never be reached. Feit says the current regime isn't fair to the father; another observer says increasing the costs of single parenthood wouldn't be fair to society; I say Feit's proposal (to let women who want to go through with the pregnancy either suck up the cost or put the baby up for adoption) isn't fair because men don't have to experience labor pains. Life is unfair. This is why, back in the Decade of the Penis, no less a figure than Magic Johnson advised us all: "Please put your thinking cap and your cap on down there."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Life is unfair; kill yourself or get over it.


    -- Black Box Recorder

  • ||

    I sure thought my wife couldn't get pregnant again. Not by me, anyway. Boy, was I wrong. She's due end of August.

  • ||

    "None of these are easy questions," said Gandy, a former prosecutor. "But most courts say it's not about what he did or didn't do or what she did or didn't do. It's about the rights of the child."

    I'm sure the pro-lifers are going to have good chuckle over that quote.

    Oh and for the record, I'm extremely pro-choice.

    This guy's situation is sort of a hard case, because it's not like he knocked up a one-night stand, where he obviously would be expected to use a condom. He went unprotected based on the false representations of his girlfriend in a committed relationship.

    In a fair world, he'd have a good case for custody if the mother did a wackjob thing like that, but ultimately his sperm did their job, and I think he has to take responsibility for it one way or another.

  • ||

    I guess I should have said "sperm did its job," since I did actually study anatomy in high school.

  • ||

    Life isn't fair, and no one expects it to be. But when the government wants to spend my money in order to enforce a system of unfairness, that is a different question.

    Check out this nightmare senario:
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/blackstock1.html

  • ||

    Yeah, the Right is going nuts over the NOW quote about "the rights of the child." What a hoot.

    If the man were at risk of hemmorhoids, would it then be ok for him to withhold child support?

  • ||

    Ok, RexRhino, that may be a nightmare scenario.

    It's also quite a long shot.

    The person whom that happened to should sue somebody for his $1500 back and for his wasted time and ignominy.

    If Matt Dubay had his alleged "Row vs. Wade for men" law enacted, I'm quite sure that many more irresponsible men would use that proposed regulation to squirm out of financial duties at birth (assuming the woman assumes responsibility for the baby), and then sue for child custody rights later, when the child is no longer crapping its diapers and crying through the night. Fuck that. If such a law were insituted, there would have to be a clause that waives the father of all contact with the child, ever. (In order to avoid a messy custody rights battle later.)

  • ||

    Holy crap that would suck!

  • nofrontin||

    People should just sign contracts when they start relationships. In a perfect world the onus would be on the woman to protect herself from pregnancy or secure a guarantee of (future) child support before engaging in any "activities." Or, you know, you could have pregnancy be the default position and put the onus on the man to get a guarantee of non-pregnancy which, if broken, would not require him to pay anything.

  • ||

    He contends that the woman knew he didn't want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that -- because of a physical condition -- she could not get pregnant.


    Might I add, the fact that he believed that "repeated reassurance" is a good form of birth control makes him a total fuckwit. If he wins this case, then women should be allowed to sue whenever guys claim, "Sure, I'll love you forever baby. Now take off your pants."

  • dhex||

    the basic lesson here is that when it comes to babies, women lose their friggin' minds, so bag it before you tag it, son!

  • ||

    "I'm quite sure that many more irresponsible men would use that proposed regulation to squirm out of financial duties at birth (assuming the woman assumes responsibility for the baby)"

    Um, Smacky, if you read it, you'll find that it's not referring to any pregnancy, just those where both partners had agreed not to have kids and the woman reneged on the deal, or cases where the woman said she was incapable of having children and then later became pregnant. This isn't just about any shady guy who pulls a "hit and run," so to speak.

  • ||

    Um, Smacky, if you read it, you'll find that it's not referring to any pregnancy, just those where both partners had agreed not to have kids and the woman reneged on the deal, or cases where the woman said she was incapable of having children and then later became pregnant. This isn't just about any shady guy who pulls a "hit and run," so to speak.


    No, it's not just about any shady one-night stand. It's clearly a he-said, she-said case. The simple fact remains that, regardless whether they were a long-term couple or not, he was too stupid for taking her word for it without medical documentation to prove her infertility. Also, there is probably no official record of her agreeing to not have kids. Just admit it: he fucked up. Fault = his.

  • ||

    Labor pains and the inconvenience of pregnancy are no reason to hold the man accountable for the child for the rest of its life. If that's really what we're concerned about, we could force the man to compensate the woman for that whether or not she keeps the child. He shouldn't be forced to financially support a child he doesn't want because the woman unilaterally decides to keep it.

  • ||

    "The simple fact remains that, regardless whether they were a long-term couple or not, he was too stupid for taking her word for it without medical documentation to prove her infertility. Also, there is probably no official record of her agreeing to not have kids. Just admit it: he fucked up. Fault = his."

    Smacky: "Well, the woman may be a vile, lying whore, but he's stupid, so let's put all the blame on him."

  • ||

    "The simple fact remains that, regardless whether they were a long-term couple or not, he was too stupid for taking her word for it without medical documentation to prove her infertility. Also, there is probably no official record of her agreeing to not have kids. Just admit it: he fucked up. Fault = his."

    The world according to Smacky: "Well, the woman may be a vile, lying whore, but he's stupid, so let's put all the blame on him."

  • ||

    "I can't get pregnant, really" is at about the same credibility level as "the check is in the mail."

  • ||

    It's also quite a long shot.

    Actually it's quite common, and he's lucky that he was actually notified at all; in the Ladies' Republic of California notification consists of mailing a subpoena to a "last known address," and no response within 30 days means the guy's on the hook. For the next 18+ years.

    The person whom that happened to should sue somebody for his $1500 back and for his wasted time and ignominy.

    It never happens. The abuse is completely "legal."

    Life is unfair.

    Yup. Men don't have the choice to become a single parents, and women do...nevermind having someone else foot the bill for their decisions.

  • ||

    Well, this is one of those "life is unfair" situations.

    I don't think a man should have a right to refuse to support his child, to the best of his ability, no matter what the circumstances. "Sorry, kid, I never sent you any money because your mother and I couldn't reach an agreement" doesn't cut it for me.

    I also think that the decision to terminate a pregnancy should only be the decision of the mother, who has to undergo the procedure.

    While I agree that it is not fair that the woman has the choice to terminate for financial reasons and the man does not, I don't think there is any way to rectify this situation which will not be a legal abomination.

    Maybe someone can enlighten me?

  • ||

    It's also quite a long shot.

    Actually it's quite common, and he's lucky that he was actually notified at all; in the Ladies' Republic of California notification consists of mailing a subpoena to a "last known address," and no response within 30 days means the guy's on the hook. For the next 18+ years.

    The person whom that happened to should sue somebody for his $1500 back and for his wasted time and ignominy.

    It never happens. The abuse is completely "legal."

    Life is unfair.

    Yup. Men don't have the choice to become a single parents, and women do...nevermind having someone else foot the bill for their decisions.

  • Mike||

    Proving that the man was coerced is nearly impossible. Therefore, I think the laws should be changed to include any man who does not wish to have any parental responsibilities. Of course, in the future their kid will hate them (if they ever meet them), they will experience social stigma for abandoning their child, but at least they will be on an equal field with women, who can easily decline their own financial responsibility (with an act that's a lot more disturbing than signing off your financial rights).

    Decided this under the Equal Protection clause also would seem more legitimate than Roe v. Wade, at least from a constitutional perspective.

    I think men deserve a lot more rights when it comes to children, including women not being able to abort the baby with at least an attempt to contact the father. I mean, can a guy force a woman to have an abortion and lose her baby? No. Can the woman force the man to stand idle while she does it? Yes.

  • Timothy||

    A friend of mine watches his girlfriend take her BC pill every day. My gal uses the patch and I feel for it every time out of anti-baby paranoia. Eventhough I KNOW that she wants kids even less than I do (which is not at all).

    Like in journalism: Trust, but verify.

  • Mike||

    Proving that the man was coerced is nearly impossible. Therefore, I think the laws should be changed to include any man who does not wish to have any parental responsibilities. Of course, in the future their kid will hate them (if they ever meet them), they will experience social stigma for abandoning their child, but at least they will be on an equal field with women, who can easily decline their own financial responsibility (with an act that's a lot more disturbing than signing off your financial rights).

    Decided this under the Equal Protection clause also would seem more legitimate than Roe v. Wade, at least from a constitutional perspective.

    I think men deserve a lot more rights when it comes to children, including women not being able to abort the baby with at least an attempt to contact the father. I mean, can a guy force a woman to have an abortion and lose her baby? No. Can the woman force the man to stand idle while she does it? Yes.

  • Mike||

    Sorry for the double post, server was backed up...

  • Gimme Back My Dog||

    This debate always brings out the same arguments:
    If you don't want a baby, don't have sex and if you don't want a baby, you should use birth control. These are the same arguments the anti-abortion crowd uses against women.

  • ||

    I don't think a man should have a right to refuse to support his child, to the best of his ability, no matter what the circumstances.

    Women have the right to refuse to support their children, no matter what the circumstances. Their options are:
    - Kill the kid before it's born.
    - Abandon the kid shortly after it's born.
    - Put the kid up for adoption long after it's born.
    - Keep the kid and get someone else to pay the bills, either the putative father or taxpayers.

  • ||

    "if you don't want a baby, you should use birth control. These are the same arguments the anti-abortion crowd uses against women."

    Except the one's who are against birth control... Oh, they're insignificant? Then why did so many people give a fuck when His Crustyness died last year in Roma?

  • ||

    Mike,

    You seem to be missing a crucial point about pregnancy, childbirth, etc. The partners are equal when it comes to sex. The partners are not equal when it comes to pregnancy. The woman is the one who goes through the physical and chemical changes; the man does not. How hard is it to understand that a woman has greater stakes in the matter than a man? You don't have a womb. Get over it. And take remedial Sex Education 101 while you're busy licking your wounds.

  • Gimme Back My Dog||

    Andy,

    In the context of the American Legal System, those people are insignificant. Birth Control is widely available in the U.S.

  • KipEsquire||

    "It's not a completely unreasonable argument..."

    Of course it is. He had the choice of wearing a condom. Beginning, middle and end of discussion.

  • ||

    I don't think a man should have a right to refuse to support his child, to the best of his ability, no matter what the circumstances.

    So, no more sperm banks unless the donor agrees to pay up?

  • ||

    Hi smacky -

    As a feminist who wants to invite the government into your private life and the private lives of others, why not just say "Women have choices. Men have responsibilities for those choices," rather than making up silly red-herrings about wombs?

  • Gimme Back My Dog||

    Kip,

    So you would be OK with a law that allows abortions only in cases where the woman can prove she was using birth control?

  • Mike||

    If women really care about the right to choose and be independent with regards to pregnancy, why can't they see that the same should apply to men? If you can abort someone's child no matter what he says, that's a helluva lot more power than him saying "if you really want this baby, YOU pay for it".

  • ||

    Thank you, Mr. F. Le Mur.

    I noticed Smacky loudly ignored my comment to her. Apparently the thought of blaming the lying female in addition to the "stupid" male is too much for her.

  • ||

    Thank you, Mr. F. Le Mur.

    I noticed Smacky loudly ignored my comment to her. Apparently the thought of blaming the lying female in addition to the "stupid" male is too much for her.

  • ||

    I blame gay marriage.

    It's unfair that homosexuals get to have sex without fear of pregnancy but heterosexuals have to wander through the fertility minefield when they engage in coitus.

    Surely someone should pass a law or something to make this more equitable.

  • ||

    Goddamn server.

  • ||

    Why do these sorts of debates seem to end up dividing pro-choice and pro-life people, or men and women? Sounds like a guy who accidentally gets a woman pregnant would be a big fan of the abortion option. And a woman who wants to make sure that any baby she has will be supported by the father should make sure to get married to the guy, right (or else she'll be a big fan of the abortion option too). What am I missing?

  • Mike||

    I wonder, if two lesbians in Massachusetts are married and one of them gets pregnant from some source, can the other opt out of child support?

  • ||

    I can�t wait for a male oral contraceptive. I can pretend like I�m interested in having children, and just have sex sex sex. Lying really should be an equal gendered opportunity for ALL!!

  • ||

    "Well, the woman may be a vile, lying whore, but he's stupid, so let's put all the blame on him."
    As I've said already once this week, welcome to manhood son. If you don't like it, the shears are in the garage.
    Mr. Le Mur, When men decide, after impregnating a woman, that they don't want to take care of it. THAT invites state coercion more than anything. Liberty necessitates taking some responsibility for one's actions. Of course, if that is too much of an inconvenience for you, I'm sure the state will step in in your stead.
    Jaybird,
    You have captured the absurdity of all this perfectly. THank you.

  • ||

    Or if not get married, get some contract or something.

  • Captain Holly||

    My take:

    Yes, this is patently unfair.

    No, the Courts won't do anything about it.

    Yes, the feminists are all hypocrites on this issue.

    No, we can't expect anything different.

    Yes, there is a double standard when it comes to child support and visitation.

    No, publicly abandoning your kids isn't the best way to generate sympathy.

    The bottom line is if you're going to stick your penis in a vagina you'd better be damn sure you're ready and willing to support any resulting kids, because aside from total abstinence there is no 100% effective fool-proof method of birth control.

    For you single guys, it's easy: just assume every woman you sleep with is a total Jezebel and is out to financially screw you after she gets done physically screwing you. That way you'll be far more rational when you approach relationships and far less surprised when something like this happens.

    Of course, you could find a nice, trustworthy girl to get married and settle down with, but that would be a little too Catholic now, wouldn't it?

  • ||

    I keep hearing all about how since the the woman has to bear the child, the man has little rights to it. I just want to ask how does that make a difference as reguards to who has legal rights to the child? Genetically, it's still 50/50.

  • ||

    I noticed Smacky loudly ignored my comment to her. Apparently the thought of blaming the lying female in addition to the "stupid" male is too much for her.

    andy,

    There is no proof that the woman is a "lying female", or as you otherwise put it, a "vile, lying whore". Maybe this issue is hitting a personal nerve with you?

    Mr. F. LeMur,

    I don't think I claimed to be a feminist at any point. You can cry "statist" all you want, but yes, I do think people need to be held legally accountable for their actions, particularly if they are trying to weasel their way out of something by creating a "he said, she said" situation. If he had enought foresight to begin with, he probably wouldn't be in this situation. Calling someone a liar doesn't really hold up in court as evidence.

  • ||

    Andy,
    I notice that a lot of my male friends have dated "stupid, lying whores" at one time or other. I guess there are a lot of those out there and they all have some kind of mind control ray they use to render men helpless.

  • ||

    "I can?t wait for a male oral contraceptive."

    There is, it's called "Mountain Dew" ;)

    Also, I'm pretty sure that tappin' it from the back won't cause pregnancy, but sometimes I wonder how lawyers are born...

  • ||

    smacky,

    Obviously there's "he-said, she-said" issues with which to contend. That's why there should be some form of legal contract they can both agree to before humping. I know that's not very romantic, but neither are pre-nups, and lots of people get those.

    I realize that a weasel of a guy could try to lie his way out of responsibility, but it's a two way street, and you seemed to want to absolve her of any wrongdoing.

  • ||

    "I guess there are a lot of those out there and they all have some kind of mind control ray they use to render men helpless"

    Well, it may not be a ray, but pussy is a damn good way to influence a guy's behavior.

  • ||

    pussy is a damn good way to influence a guy's behavior.

    You've just told everyone quite a bit about the mentality from which your arguments derive Andy, far more than you meant to I would guess.

  • ||

    mk,

    You took the words right out of my mouth.

  • ||

    Smacky,
    If we (men) could lick our wounds, very few women would find themselves pregnant.

  • ||

    "You've just told everyone quite a bit about the mentality from which your arguments derive Andy, far more than you meant to I would guess."

    I was merely stating a commonly acknowledged fact. The fact that you assumed that it was so very telling of me to state it probably says more about you than what I said did about me.

  • ||

    In any event it detracts from the argument at hand, one whose discussion is less preferable to smacky than insulting me.

  • ||

    andy,
    I'll stand by every one of my comments and all that they imply. You do the same.

    Deal?

  • ||

    Anyway, our quibble detracts from the argument at hand, one whose discussion is less preferable to smacky than insulting me.

  • Timothy||

    Andy: I'm with mk on this one. I'd also like to let you in on a secret: women like sex too! I'd say I have as much influence over my girlfriend's behavior with my penis as she does over mine with her vagina.

    Gee, there are consequences if you get a girl pregnant! SHOCKING! I'm sure for every "I'm totally on the pill" there's at least one "just let me put the tip in" or "I'll stop before I get close to coming".

  • Timothy||

    Andy: I'm with mk on this one. I'd also like to let you in on a secret: women like sex too! I'd say I have as much influence over my girlfriend's behavior with my penis as she does over mine with her vagina.

    Gee, there are consequences if you get a girl pregnant! SHOCKING! I'm sure for every "I'm totally on the pill" there's at least one "just let me put the tip in" or "I'll stop before I get close to coming".

  • Mike||

    So this guy has been ordered to pay $500 a month child support, which I guess is about the going rate these days. That seems rather expensive, considering most dads only see their kids 2 weekends a month. Shouldn't the custodial parent be footing the 90% of the money?

  • Mike||

    Also, all these feminists are saying that they should have all the choice because its their bodies, men don't get pregnant, etc, etc.

    But if we are playing the responsibility game, shouldn't the woman be held 100% accountable for getting pregnant, since they should know its possible and that its THEIR bodies?

    Reiterating, if you get to choose whether something lives, dies, or gets sent to another family, and nobody else has a say, nobody else should have to pay.

    Just because she forgets to take a pill shouldn't make the guy liable for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Put the blame where its due, on the source of the problem.

  • ||

    "Gee, there are consequences if you get a girl pregnant!"

    Of course there's consequences. I'm just saying that women have responsibility too. I would even go so far as to say that the burden of being pregnant for nine months is outweighed (bigtime) by having to pay 6 grand a year for 18 years. That's all I'm saying. The argument "Well, the women carries the baby, so she should have all the say and the guy should always just have to cough up the money" doesn't hold water.

  • ||

    Maybe if there were some way of agreeing to a pre-whoopee agreement without wrecking the mood.

    Like, say, there are a set of prefab standard contracts that lay out various situations -- Contract A, Contract B, Contract C, etc.

    If a guy rips off a woman's panties with his teeth, it means he is proposing Contract Form A. If he is wearing a cowboy hat, he is proposing Contract Form B. If he is wearing a maintenance worker's coveralls and a toolbelt, and carrying a clipboard and says, "Ma'am, I've come to check all your sockets and outlets," he is proposing Contract Form C, etc.

    If the woman lights a scented candle, it signifies that she agrees to the contract form that is proposed by the male. If she mentions that maybe she is starting to get a headache, it means the proposed contract form is not agreeable to her and the male should suggest another or withdraw.

    Instead of a signature, a videotape of these actions would constitute proof of agreement.

    Problem solved.

  • ||

    Mike,
    It's not so much money, although that is definitely a part of it, it's time.
    You know "Time value of money" and all that. Also, 500$ isn't much money. That might cover childcare expenses while the mother works at a job.
    Still, that guy will have 500$ less a month to spend on beer. Clearly, the terrorists have won.

  • ||

    Stevo,

    To paraphrase Paris "Tons o' Cum Recepticle" Hilton: That's hot.

  • ||

    I realize that a weasel of a guy could try to lie his way out of responsibility, but it's a two way street, and you seemed to want to absolve her of any wrongdoing.

    andy,

    Please point out where I insulted you.

    And to restate the facts: there is no proof that the woman in this case did anything wrong, but there is implied proof that the guy was not using protection, for whatever reason he claims.


    I think it's really funny that commenters like Mike (who obviously has a chip on his shoulder) like to talk over the "feminists" (a.k.a. anyone female) in the thread and direct their conversation at other disgruntled, overgrown, perpetually-adolescent guys like andy. There, now I insulted you, andy. Satisfied?

  • ||

    "Please point out where I insulted you."

    OK:

    mk,
    You took the words right out of my mouth."

  • ||

    "And to restate the facts: there is no proof that the woman in this case did anything wrong, but there is implied proof that the guy was not using protection, for whatever reason he claims."

    Was she using it either? See, you're all to eager to put the blame on just the male. Of course, ultimately she is the one who carries the kid, but read my post at 3:15.

  • ||

    Hooray for this case. Yeah, the guy has no chance of winning, but it's about time someone started talking seriously about the legal bondage that men experience when it comes to reproduction. Basically, women can commit any kind of reproductive fraud, face no consequences, and force the men to "take responsibility" for the woman's misdeeds.

    Women can lie about their own fertility, sabotage contraceptives, or retrieve discarded sperm to fradulently conceive, yet they face no adverse action at all, and society tells the man to "live up to his responsibility". Further, the mother can name men she knows not to be the father, or not inform the man who assumes he is the father that there is a possibility he is not the father. She can essentially pick the man she thinks will be the best economic provider or the best father without regard to the probability that he is the genetic father. At that point it is incumbant on the man to conclusively prove he is not (guilty) the genetic father, if he fails to do so in a timely enough manner, no amount of DNA proof will release him from his "responsibility".

    Lastly, it's pretty disingenous to assume that men and women are equal partners in any unplanned or "accidental" birth. Women have 11 different forms of contraceptives to choose from, and the ultimate "power to choose". There is no such thing as an accidental baby. Babies are born because women want them.

  • ||

    andy,

    I'm pretty sure agreeing with mk's assertion (which happens to be correct) isn't an insult.

    This is an insult: You are a big waste of time.

  • ||

    andy,
    If the insult was that smacky agreed with me. Then why are you giving her the business and not me?
    Oh, that's right. Smacky is a girl.
    I'll leave everyone who ever took Psych 101 to fill in the blanks themselves. I'm finished with this discussion.
    Time for mk to get ready for his date tonight :)

  • ||

    Remember when people found a couple having sex and, if they were unmarried, they'd force them down to the courthouse and force them to get married?

    Those were the days.

  • Mike||

    I wonder what the "iFeminists" would have to say about this.

    And Smacky, I have nothing against women, but unless a man can prevent a woman from having an abortion, he shouldn't have to pay a dime.

  • ||

    "Well, the women carries the baby, so she should have all the say and the guy should always just have to cough up the money" doesn't hold water.
    Actually, before I go, I'd like everyone to appreciate the unintentional humour in that last lin.
    You should market this stuff andy. It's pure gold.

  • ||

    Hooray for this case. Yeah, the guy has no chance of winning, but it's about time someone started talking seriously about the legal bondage that men experience when it comes to reproduction. Basically, women can commit any kind of reproductive fraud, face no consequences, and force the men to "take responsibility" for the woman's misdeeds.

    Women can lie about their own fertility, sabotage contraceptives, or retrieve discarded sperm to fradulently conceive, yet they face no adverse action at all, and society tells the man to "live up to his responsibility". Further, the mother can name men she knows not to be the father, or not inform the man who assumes he is the father that there is a possibility he is not the father. She can essentially pick the man she thinks will be the best economic provider or the best father without regard to the probability that he is the genetic father. At that point it is incumbant on the man to conclusively prove he is not (guilty) the genetic father, if he fails to do so in a timely enough manner, no amount of DNA proof will release him from his "responsibility".

    Lastly, it's pretty disingenous to assume that men and women are equal partners in any unplanned or "accidental" birth. Women have 11 different forms of contraceptives to choose from, and the ultimate "power to choose". There is no such thing as an accidental baby. Babies are born because women want them.

  • ||

    Have fun on your date, mk! :)

    Remember, bag it before you tag it! :P

  • ||

    Time for mk to get ready for his date tonight :)


    Make sure you put your thinking cap and your cap on down there.

  • ||

    Life may be unfair, but we aren't talking about life. We are talking about law. Law can be anything you want it to be, and fair law is better than unfair law.

    A man should be able to contract out of potential support in advance. Absent such contract, he is assuming the risk, as it were.

    Note that since nobody would sign such a contract, the effective choices would be abstinence or child support for the dad - same as it is now. Even so, the option should be there legally.

  • ||

    What everybody seems to be ignoring is that what is *really* unfair is that anybody has to live in Saginaw.

  • ||

    >If two lesbians in Massachusetts are married and one of
    >them gets pregnant from some source, can the other opt
    >out of child support?

    Interesting question, isn't it? I maintain that if it should come to that, feminists will say yes. Because it isn't really about the rights of the child, it's about women being able to whatever they want. Being beholden to another person's parental choices is a fate for the underclass (men). If artificial wombs were a reality, so that "my body, my choice" didn't apply, does anybody really believe that women's groups wouldn't protest vociferously any attempt by a man to demand child support from the mother? The principle behind "your sperm, pay up" would be instantly abandoned the moment "your egg, pay up" might become reality.

    If it were about the child, feminists wouldn't have supported child abandonment laws. "Let me abandon my child without criminal charges or I'll hurt or kill it" is extortion, not good citizenship, yet the supposed harm to the baby was putatively why they support such laws.

  • tomWright||

    Hey, maybe the kid isn't his:
    http://www.canadiancrc.com/articles/Globe_and_Mail_Moms_Little_secret_14DEC02.htm

    Accroding to this, anywhere from 5-30% of all kids are NOT fathered by the man a woman is married to.

    Monogamy? HAH!

    No wonder women were kept locked up for so many centuries. (troll)

    I am still waiting for the suit demanding rights to RETROACTIVE abortion.

    C'mon mommy Bush, you KNOW you want to...

  • ||

    Okay,
    Let's take the plight of MK into question. MK's date tonight leads to a bit of randiness. He bags then tags as Smacky requested. But the bag is faulty unbeknownst to either of them (or to make this sinister, sabotaged by her or the terrorists).

    One month from now his date calls up and informs him of his impending fatherhood. What are his legal recourses? He made a 'good faith' effort at not procreating. But of course since any evidence of this has long since been deposited at the landfill it becomes another 'he said, she said' argument. Should the impeding mother not take any responsibility for not having double protected herself by taking some form of contraceptive? How do you prove who is at fault. In this scenario, the female holds all of the cards and poor MK is screwed, not just once but for the next 18 years.

    Barring the whole "carries for 9 months, gestational diabetes and other physical risks" bit what are the 'responsibilities' of the individuals involved in a sexual relationship to avoid pregnancy?

  • ||

    Note that since nobody would sign such a contract, the effective choices would be abstinence or child support for the dad - same as it is now.

    Requiring someone to abstain from sex if they don't want the responsibility of a child?

    That line of thought ain't gonna fly on H&R. Some here are atheists, some agnostics, but virtually all worship Sex.

  • Mike||

    That article tomWright posted was rather disturbing, especially the part about the guy forced to pay $1100 per month in support to 3 kids that weren't his, based on 500 years of common law that basically says, no matter what, if a woman gives birth to a child and is married, that man is automatically responsible.

    However, I believe paternity fraud could probably be treated as plain old fraud and the father could sue the slut to recoup the money... hopefully.

  • Captain Holly||

    Time for mk to get ready for his date tonight :)

    Make sure you put your thinking cap and your cap on down there.

    Have fun on your date, mk! :)

    Remember, bag it before you tag it! :P

    I got a better method: Look into your date's eyes, and then visualize paying her about $500 a month for the next 18 years.

    More effective than a thin layer of latex...

  • Mike||

    Maybe its true what they say: the best form of birth control is using a fake name!

  • ||

    I had a date tonight, but you guys have ruined it for me. I may just have to triple-bag.

  • ||

    "I can�t wait for a male oral contraceptive. I can pretend like I�m interested in having children, and just have sex sex sex. Lying really should be an equal gendered opportunity for ALL!!"


    I agree. I also agree with other posters here who say a guy who doesn't want to be a father should use condoms, but it does create a small problem. It suggests to the woman that he doesn't trust her when she says she is on the pill, which is sometimes going to keep the guy from getting laid in the first place. And maybe the guy - any guy - should not trust any woman who says she is on the pill. And for how long? After you've been dating her two years? Three? A male birth control pill is the solution to the problem.

  • ||

    Oh crimethink, you're such a pain in the butt. I'm one of those evil heathen atheists, but I don't "worship" sex. I just consider it to be a vital part of a normal, healthy romantic-type relationship. There are many other vital parts of that kind of relationship, too, like mutual respect for each other, intellectual connection, friendship, etc. There is just something that freaks you out about people who want to have normal, healthy sexual relationships but who refuse to have kids. I think you just hate to see us having so much fun and getting away with it.

  • Timothy||

    I'm firmly of the opinion that all parties new the risks and are therefore each 50% responsible for whatever consequences result.

    My take on the men-and-abortion issue is that we're on the hook for 50%: If the kid is going to be aborted, well, we're on the hook for 50% of that cost. If it's going to be adopted, same deal. If it's going to be raised by the mother, half our fault.

    The lesson is simple: trust, but verify. Is it that hard in a long-term relationship to say, "I know you think you're infertile, love, but would you mind going on the pill anyway just in case?" I mean, honestly, be selective about your partners, carry your own condoms, and maybe pick up some spermicide.

    That said, the sooner there's a male pill the better. I'll put myself on it, that's for damn sure. Barring that, if my girlfriend and I get married I'll likely have a vasectomy.

  • ||

    Mike, $500 would be nothing here in CA, where it can be 1/4 the guy's (usually the guy's, that is) income. Oh yeah, and: get help. Nature is neither fair nor equal, but with female responsibility come female rights.

    I agree that there seems to be a huge untapped market for male birth control, of which there are many potential consumers on this board.

  • ||

    What century are you people from? Don't you watch porn? Pearl necklace that chick!!!!

  • Mike||

    Poco,

    Hope that 25% income is post-tax. if not, i'd fake my own death to get out of it!!!

  • ||

    That's because you're a big piece of shit, Mike.

    You're a fucking fucktard, Mike.

    hope your penis falls off and disintegrates, Mike

  • Mike||

    Hopefully they will make Plan B (morning after pill) over the counter. Then the guy could just slip it into her drink the next day, just in case. ;-0

  • ||

    The problem, as I see it, is that it legitimizes the right of a male not to support the child. Now if the child is not supported by its father, who will foot its bills? Somehow I suspect that I, as taxpayer will be stuck with it.

    And since I never had any relation, sexual or otherwise with the mother, why should I be the one stuck with the bill?

    (It might be depressing, but if the mother aborts, there is no child to feed, or clothe, so it puts no burden no me)

    As it is, you have sex, and if you are the woman, you are stuck with the caretaking of the baby, and if the man, you are stuck with the bills. Do not dump the results of your bad judgement on people who had nothing to do with it.

  • Mike||

    OK all, fun dialogue but I gotta go. Smacky, I think you need to get laid. Go do that, chill out, and make sure not to get pregnant, because we all know you'll go after the guy big time for money...

  • ||

    No, Mike, slip her the morning after pill the same time you're slipping her the rufie.

    No harm, no foul!

  • ||

    Smacky, did you get those curses off the Flying Spaghetti Monster website?

  • ||

    Poco:

    You're right, it should be 50% of the cost, but realistically the awards for child support are based on how much the father earns, not how much the child needs. The money is turned over to the custodial parent (the mother) to dispose of as she sees fit; there is no requirement that it be used for the support of the child. It seems that some of the excessive child support orders are really alimony in disguise.

    Hey Ron:

    What happens when she scoops & spreads? Live up to your responsibility you deadbeat!

  • ||

    Feit says the current regime isn't fair to the father; another observer says increasing the costs of single parenthood wouldn't be fair to society;...

    Shouldn't someone, somewhere, speak for the rights of the child? ...regardless of the claims the mother may have foregone, the child may have a claim on his father's earnings, or so it seems to me.

  • ||

    OK, I haven't even taken the time to skim the existing comments, but here's a question that I don't think has been asked:

    If hypothetically, it were possible to terminate a pregnancy with a push of a button anytime during the first month, with absolutely no side-effects beyond the emotional one of knowing that the embryo/fetus won't become a child, would that change things? In other words, if there were no side-effects, wouldn't it be more fair if the guy could have the option of pushing that button or, if the woman didn't want it pushed, waiving all custody and all legal obligations to the future child?

    I'm not saying there is such a button, that there ever will be such a button or even that I want such a button (in my case it certainly doesn't matter). I'm particularly interested in hearing the best argument for why the guy shouldn't be allowed to push the button or remove his future obligation.

  • ||

    Would a male pill really solve all of the man's problem if the woman turned up pregnant? Even if she gets pregnant by another man, the user of the male pill could be named by the woman anyway. A question for you guys. How do you prove you were taking the male pill at the time she got pregnant, (allegedly by you)?

  • ||

    anon 2,

    Fathers, presumably, can choose not to accept responsibility at conception. Once they've voluntarily accepted that responsibility...

    Mothers, presumably, can choose not to accept responsibility at conception. Once they've voluntarily accepted that responsibility...

    Children, unlike their parents, cannot choose and, hence, have no obligations. ...nothing a child does can free parents from the obligations they voluntarily accepted. ...and nothing a mother does can free a father from the obligation to his child that he voluntarily accepted.

  • ||

    Ken,

    The problem with the way you put it is that it leaves no room for sperm and egg donation.

    But lets say that the male DNA contributor can't wiggle out of future responsibility, but that my hypothetical side-effectless abortion button exists. Should the guy be able to push it? That's the crux.

  • ||

    the child may have a claim on his father's earnings, or so it seems to me.

    Legally speaking, the child doesn't even have a claim to continued existence, so how could (s)he have a claim on anyone's earnings?

  • brian423||

    What's the point of writing for a political journal - even a libertarian one - if you're inclined to shrug your shoulders and say, "Life is unfair"? It's a glib, anti-intellectual cop-out. Paternity suits are a mere legal construct, as opposed to an inevitable source of unfairness like the uneven distribution of beauty, brains, and talent. In this instance, therefore, political discourse and political activity could legitimately claim to help make the world a little less unfair.

  • ||

    I wonder how the male brain works. They figure out that if the man is paying child support, then the mother is living high on the hog.

    They seem to think that babies feed themselves, clean themselves, clothe themselves, and do not wake up at 2 am in the mornings.

    Raising a child is hard work. Instead of congratulaing themselves that they will not be ther when there are diapers to be changed, nor when baby wakes up crying, men can only think how unfair it is that they have to pay to some lazy woman who has nothing to do all day except watch the kid raise itself....

  • brian423||

    Adriana,
    You're using cheap stereotypes about men, just as pro-lifers have used cheap stereotypes about women ("Abortion allows women to be promiscuous without consequences").

    This is part of a pattern. Every argument against this case is a perfect mirror image of an argument against the right to an abortion.

  • ||

    Stereotypes?

    I would not be spouting stereotypes if you people had not written them in the first place.

    Read the previous post. Plenty about the poor abused guy. Zero about the baby and what it may need. The mother mentioned only as tricky, dishonest, and what not, with no mention about how much having the baby will change her life.

    Is it my fault that so many guys here said those things, with none to wonder who, if not the guy named in the paternity suit, and the woman who they call every name in the book, will take responsibility for the child?

  • ||

    I would even go so far as to say that the burden of being pregnant for nine months is outweighed (bigtime) by having to pay 6 grand a year for 18 years.

    I'd have to calculate the odds of dying during childbirth before taking that bet.

    There is no such thing as an accidental baby. Babies are born because women want them.

    Am I to assume that tubal ligation is 100% effective? Or that women undergo the procedure purely for sport?

  • ||

    Read the previous post. Plenty about the poor abused guy. Zero about the baby and what it may need. The mother mentioned only as tricky, dishonest, and what not, with no mention about how much having the baby will change her life.

    If true, shouldn't it be part of the story?

    Or does pregnancy sheild dishonest women from criticism?

    And I agree that you were simply using stereotypes.

    Having said that, I disagree that men should be able to opt out of child support, even in a case of fraud (although fraud should certainly be used in custody hearings).

    There should certainly be many more protections for having the money actually spent on the child, and the money reflecting actual costs versus total income, but no matter what the women did, the child still exists and has needs.

    But the idiocy of either parent shouldn't punish the child in the legal system. They're already being punished enough.

    I mean think of meeting the kid 18 years later - "Sorry life didn't work out well. Your mom was wack."

    Wouldn't the addition of the mom being, sly or crazy, be moral justification for trying to get custody and not of trying to run?

  • ||

    The problem with the way you put it is that it leaves no room for sperm and egg donation.

    You seem to say this as if anything that's legal must be just. ...not that sperm and egg donation shouldn't be legal. ...but maybe the donor should still be legally responsible.

    Legally speaking, the child doesn't even have a claim to continued existence, so how could (s)he have a claim on anyone's earnings?

    Weren't we talking about children whose fathers didn't want them but whose mothers had them anyway? ...I thought we were talking about children who have already been born.

    A woman gets pregnant and refuses an abortion. A child is born. At this point, I'm not particularly interested in when the father's obligations to the mother terminated, but at what point did the father's obligations to the child terminate?

  • ||

    Tim:

    I saw one of the links ("Decade of the Penis") flowed through to a side-by-side of a Suck.com piece with Salon. There's linkrot on the Suck side, and I happen to have noted the other day that the Suck archives don't seem to be up anymore, which is too bad because I was looking for the Terry Colon cartoon wherein you complain about khakis looking like you have a football in your pants.

    Is this the end? That sucks. I thought Yahoo! had bought the content and was keeping up the archive.

  • ||

    >Hope that 25% income is post-tax.
    >If not, i'd fake my own death to get out of it!!!

    It isn't. It's after tax, as child support isn't deductible. If you can't afford to live on what's left, too bad. As a bonus, if you move from a high tax, high expense state you can't afford to live in because of your child support payments to a low tax, low expense, lower wage state you'll have to continue paying support as if you were still making your former wage. But don't worry if it kills you, since child support payments have first dibs on your estate.

  • ||

    Zero about the baby and what it may need.

    Well you can count me as one!

    ...I think this may have tapped into some kind of male archetype, something having to do with responsibility free sex. ...They use it to sell everything these days--music and film, beer and cars, martyrdom...

  • ||

    >It seems that some of the excessive child
    >support orders are really alimony in disguise.

    No doubt that's the result women's groups intended. It accomplishes 2 things. First, child support isn't taxable, but alimony is, so high child support payments net mommy more money. Second, it transfers money from men to women without having entered into marriage, the historical basis on which a man's support obligations were compelled.

  • ||

    Sorry, SixSigma if I overgeneralized, but please note that until ken schulz no one took offense to these words:


    "Legally speaking, the child doesn't even have a claim to continued existence, so how could (s)he have a claim on anyone's earnings?"

    A baby doesn't have a claim to continued existence. The author does not even see anything wrong in letting a baby starve to death, because it has no right to go on living?

    I thank ken schulz for speaking out, for I was afraid that I had come upon a hard truth about males, one that one leans in biology class: a good father is one that refrains from eating its own offspring...

  • Wintermute||

    The common law for centuries, until women's suffrage, was that a bastard was the woman's burden. Marriage was the breeding license.

    Now, after Murphy Brown and her progeny, we have a new reproductive strategy followed by women, aptly described by an author quoted by Janice Rogers Brown and covered in my piece The Tragedy of Bastardy. And generally, men like to raise another person's offspring even less than women do.

    Commenter DePere is right: men need the technology to shoot blanks until a woman makes a believer out of us as to her character. And walks us down the aisle.

    At the risk of getting deleted, I have noticed that at least one Reason writer has struck me as severely pussywhipped.

  • ||

    Adriana,

    You're missing crimethink's point. He's calling the fetus a child and pointing out that the woman can choose to abort the fetus. Furthermore, crimethink's post was made well after the end of the post day (i.e. formerly known as the work day), so there are apt to be fewer responses.

  • ||

    Ken,

    When I say "...it leaves no room for sperm and egg donation", I'm saying that you are unduly burdening the donor by not allowing him or her to be free of financial responsibility to the resultant offspring. I doubt that the woman who donated her eggs so we could have our kids would have done so if she thought there was a chance that our kids could come after her for child support.

    So far, means testing hasn't played a big part of this discussion, but in in the case of egg donation for ICSI, there's already a bit of de-facto means testing going on: the price of the treatment. People who are paying $10k to roll the dice probably have the means to support the resultant offspring without need to come looking for the DNA contributor.

    As an atheist, my take on it is "parts are parts". That's what we were getting from the anonymous donor. I can understand how religious people may see it differently, but I simply don't see why the financial burden of rearing our children shouldn't rest 100% with my wife and me.

    Remember, while people are talking about various possibilities of contracts associated with having kids based on sexual intercourse, in the world of in-vitro, there are contracts and paper trails. There's not very much "he-said/she-said" going on.

    Looking into the future, if it becomes possible to have custom eggs built out of complete DNA/RNA/whatever sequences, are you suggesting that there should be a financial obligation if someone uploads his sequences and someone downloads them and has a custom egg built to spec?

    What about cloning? When it's feasible, you have the possibility true single-parent children. If that single parent doesn't have the means to support his child, can the child then latch on to his DNA parents (i.e. the single parent's parents)?

    Leaving in-vitro and cloning, consider a hypothetical case where two trust-fund adults will conceive a kid. Both adults will get $250,000/year forever. Neither adult has any other kids, and since it's a hypothetical situation we can even stipulate that neither ever will. As such, either one can fully support the child without the help of the other. Before conception occurs, is it possible for there to be a set of rules that are more fair to everyone (although the kids is largely out of the picture here, because he's going to be well cared for no matter what) than "she can abort at will and have 0% financial obligation or have the kid and they each have 50% financial obligation"? Remember, the rules are going to be in place and both parties are going to be aware of the rules pre-conception. It appears that some people on this thread think that it's impossible for there to be a set of rules that is more fair. Others think otherwise.

    There are a lot of tricky issues here, but frequently they're improperly conflated. Just because a person concentrates his post on one particular aspect doesn't mean that he's inherently ignorant of, or unconcerned about, the other aspects. In a previous thread I pointed out that although when having sex a man and a woman may be equally responsible for conception, by the time the child is born, the woman is much more responsible for the birth. That didn't mean I wasn't concerned for the rights of the child; only that I thought the huge shift in responsibilities between conception and birth-and the implications of that shift-had been overlooked.

  • ||

    I am missing no point. When someone says that a child has no right to keep on living, I take him seriously. It is the kind of sentiment that no one, "not even drunk or asleep" as an historical figure put it, should be caught saying.

    In any case, it is curious how they keep bringing contracts in a situation in which a party is notoriously incompetente to enter a contract of any kind, mainly the child. You can only discuss contract law in this case by denying the child's humanity, because if you didn't he would have to be a party to it.

    This anomaly was noted already in the eighteenth century by Edmund Burke, who noted who those who held a view of society as a series of contracts (he was speaking of followers of Rousseau mainly), hated the institution of the family, because it held relationships that were not amenable to contracts...

  • ||

    Good points, anon2. ...I suppose there may be some way to limit or eliminate donor responsibility prior to conception.

    I maintain, however, that there is no way to eliminate a father's responsibility after conception, as has been suggested. ...as if a woman who refusing an abortion, in any way, mitigated a father's responsibility to his offspring.

    Adriana,

    crimethink wasn't talking about killing children that have already been born, I'm sure. When someone argues that responsibility for a child is willingly accepted at the moment of conception, as I did, there are obvious implications to the abortion debate.

    I think people talk about contracts because volition is so important to libertarians. ...not all contracts are bilateral, of course. ...and, I suppose, my basic, libertarian argument against abortion (or terminating a father's obligation to his offspring because of a mother's refusal to get an abortion) hinges on the idea that those obligations, freely given, can't be terminated unilaterally.

  • ||

    Well, the oposition to abortion is based, as far as I can gather (and each day I am leaning more towards that position) is based on the rights of the child, not of the father.

    It is not that the father has no rights, but that the rights of the child are preeminent. It is his life, all of him that is being discussed. Other rights are secundary to that.

  • ||

    Adriana,

    I was referring to the period where the child does not have a legal right to continued existence, ie while (s)he resides within the mother's body. I agree that a man who fathers a child should bear the burden of supporting that child, but also find it darkly hilarious to see the same people who would condone a woman killing her offspring in order to avoid a few months of unwanted pregnancy, dismiss the concerns of a man who will spend 18 years supporting an unwanted child.

  • ||

    pro-lifers have used cheap stereotypes about women ("Abortion allows women to be promiscuous without consequences").

    Considering that only a tiny minority of abortions involve tough issues like rape, incest, deformities, or dangers to the health of the mother, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that in most cases abortion is a last-ditch measure for (not necessarily promiscuous) women who want to have sex without consequences. Jennifer and her swashbuckling alter ego confirmed as much in a thread last week, where I was accused of being misogynistic and insane for suggesting that women who want to be 100% certain of not having a baby shouldn't have sex. Which of course is the advice men are given in this thread, but..

  • ||

    In any case, it is curious how they keep bringing contracts in a situation in which a party is notoriously incompetente to enter a contract of any kind, mainly the child. You can only discuss contract law in this case by denying the child's humanity, because if you didn't he would have to be a party to it.

    Gotta love it. Less than a week ago on the abortion threads, every female in here was flipping out over the prospect of losing the right to unilaterally take a mulligan on a whoopsie, but when a guy expects the same right, we get the "But won't somebody think of the children?" routine.

    Interesting that women who don't think "keep your legs crossed" is an acceptable alternative to abortion think "keep your dick in your pants" is a perfectly reasonable alternative to paying child support.

    No wonder abortion rights are back on the front burner. Confronted with that kind of attitude, why should a guy bother to defend women's reproductive freedom? They have no interest whatever in reciprocating.

  • ||

    Didn't I say that I was getting closer and closer to oppose abortion?

    So why do you use my words to beat those women who do not agree with me?

  • ||

    Do you want to know the bitter, ugly, cynical truth as to why society prefers to defend the right to abortion rather than the right to non-support?

    Because abortion is clean. You have a little corpse to bury and you can forget it. Nasty, and depressing... Out of sight, out of mind...

    Non-support leaves you with a crying baby with needs. And if the putative father does not pay the bills, somehow those bills end up in front of you. Somehow you end up paying for children that you not only did not engender but also with whose mother you never had sex with.

    That's what people really object to

    (I remember a few years back when in some state they passed a law that the grandparents were responsible for the baby if their teenage daughter conceived. There was an outcry saying that such a law would lead to abortions as the parents would coerce the daughter to abort to save themselves the expense...)

    The truth is that no one wants to get stuck with the bill...
    That's the whole difference.

  • ||

    Jennifer and her swashbuckling alter ego confirmed as much in a thread last week, where I was accused of being misogynistic and insane for suggesting that women who want to be 100% certain of not having a baby shouldn't have sex.

    The other day, Jennifer seemed to suggest I was on the wrong side of the parental notification/children beaten to death by their parents dichotomy. ...Smacky seemed to think I was living in misogynist Fantasy Land for noticing that women seem enforce unwritten dress codes too.

    ...although Smacky may have been reacting, subconsciously, to previous comments in which I came out in favor of Captain Kirk's mandatory mini-skirt policy. ...but for goodness' sake, that's just a TV show!

    Anyway, if your experience was on the same day, then it must have been---I dunno--somethin' in the water.

  • ||

    Sex is pretty damned important to evolution and/or God. Not too surprising that it's an emotional subject.

  • Jadagul||

    So if the woman doesn't have an abortion but also doesn't want the kid, can the dad take it? If so, what happens finance-wise? Because it seems like those situations should be symmetrical, at the least.

    As for the more general question-I'm rather conflicted here, and always have been. On the one hand, I support abortion rights because I think the mother doesn't have an automatic obligation to the kid (although I think she's pretty much accepted it by month seven or so, which is why I oppose 3rd-trimester abortions except for health reasons). So by parallel, I think the father shouldn't get stuck with an involuntary obligation.

    On the other hand, I don't think the kid should get screwed over just because his father is irresponsible (or even just because his mother is a lying scumbag whore, though it seems like that might be a case for denying mom custody, too). In the 'lying fraud' case, it seems like the dad ought to be responsible for paying for the kid, but then can sue the mother to collect an equal amount in damages. Except the money he's paying for the kid really just goes to the mother, which is the problem; maybe we could deny mom custody and put her on the hook for Mom's and Dad's child support. Although there are tons of logistical and ethical issues there, too. In the simple disagreement case, though, I'm really puzzled. We shouldn't get stuck with the bill, the guy shouldn't get stuck with the bill, and the kid kinda should get the bill paid. So I'm a bit stumped.

    On the other hand, I understand why the pro-abortion people say what they do: if Mom aborts, then there's no kid who's living a deprived life. If Dad 'aborts,' then there's a child who isn't getting enough to eat, etc. because there's not enough money to go around. Maybe one (partial) solution would be to cap payments from Dad to 'enough' money, rather than an unlimited portion of his salary. So the kid has enough to do decently, but it's not a blank check for mom.

  • ||

    Sex is pretty damned important to evolution and/or God.
    You raise an important point anon2.
    Human reproductive choice has been the purview of the female for the past 14 million years. That some males still haven't come to grips with that after all this time is kinda sad.

  • ||

    ...where I was accused of being misogynistic and insane for suggesting that women who want to be 100% certain of not having a baby shouldn't have sex. Which of course is the advice men are given in this thread, but..

    misogynist: someone who's winning an argument with a feminist.

    Anyway, it's good to see that many men still prefer chivalry to equality, and that many women seem to expect this preferential treatment as their due.

  • ||

    I never thought I'd say this, but MetaFilter handled this discussion far better than did HandR.

    An Excerpt:
    Woman wants to keep it, man does not = man screwed for 18 years
    Woman wants to keep it, man also does = both satisfied
    Woman doesn't want to keep it, man does = man loses child
    woman doesn't want to keep it, man doesn't want to keep it = both satisfied

    http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/49883

  • ||

    Adrianna - No problem at all - it's a tough debate.

    the watched -
    Gotta love it. Less than a week ago on the abortion threads, every female in here was flipping out over the prospect of losing the right to unilaterally take a mulligan on a whoopsie, but when a guy expects the same right, we get the "But won't somebody think of the children?" routine.

    A living child (post womb) retaining rights to some base existance by the people that brought him/her into the world is not a case of; "But won't somone think of the childern?" It's a matter of what rights the child has after they are born and what responsibilities the parents have in helping that process along.

    MK -
    Human reproductive choice has been the purview of the female for the past 14 million years. That some males still haven't come to grips with that after all this time is kinda sad.

    The loopsided rights of fathers versus mothers in custody and child support cases should be evident by now. That some people can't come to grips with this is kinda sad.
    /sarcasm

    There are competing rights and anytime there are competing rights there will be debate. For you to skip over it with a flick of the wrist is to simply deny the sky is blue.

  • ||

    "Please put your thinking cap and your cap on down there."

    Isn't this a bit redundant? I've heard many a guy admit that they think with their...you know. So the guy in question wasn't wearing his "thinking cap".

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement