New at Reason

KipEsquire|3.21.06 @ 10:07AM|#

To borrow from tort law, "intentional misrepresentation" (i.e., "fraud") requires not only a lie, and not only that the plaintiff rely on the lie, but also that the reliance be reasonable.

It is per se unreasonable to blindly rely on the other party's unsubstantiated representation that they cannot get pregnant, just as it is per se unreasonable to rely on their mere assertion that they are HIV-. Did he ask to see a doctor's report noting her infertility?

As for the equal protection argument: speaking in positive rather than normative terms, the differential legal options during pregnancy (which of course is a biological inequality itself), surely satisfies the intermediate-level scrutiny required for gender-based legal inequalities. No foul.

|3.21.06 @ 10:22AM|#

I'm firmly in the camp of "Be a man and take responsibility" but I have no illusions that I'll win that fight on this forum. Everybody seems to be pretty entrenched.

I have to say, I was waiting for Cathy Young to weigh in on this. It seems right up her alley.

Timothy|3.21.06 @ 10:30AM|#

I'm with you, thoreau. People lie, trust but verify. I also would note that given the 99% efficacy of hormonal birth control (not applicable here, I know) and the 98% efficacy of condoms the probability of both failing during the same year is something like 2/10,000. Granted that they both have to fail at the same time for somebody to end up pregnant, well...if you're actually being careful you're not going to get pregnant.

|3.21.06 @ 10:33AM|#

It is physically impossible for a man to inseminate against his will.

It's also a fact that most women are nuts. I knew a chick who used a pin on condoms before the fact.

Not a lot of math here, guys..

Mike|3.21.06 @ 10:35AM|#

You can always use a fake name...

But seriously, unless a man can force a woman to NOT have an abortion (thereby requiring her to bear his child), the woman shouldn't be able to force a man to finance the child (thereby forcing him to financially bear her child).

|3.21.06 @ 10:36AM|#

Those claiming that they are "firmly" one way or another shouldn't be casting statements about being entrenched at others.

Timothy,

And what happens if your parnter stops taking birth control without telling you?

|3.21.06 @ 10:42AM|#

Timothy,

In other words, how diligent do you have to be in monitoring the birth control activities of your partner, especially when such activities largely occur outside the bedroom? If she gets a quarterly shot are you supposed to go with her to the hospital to make sure that she's actually getting her shot?

|3.21.06 @ 10:42AM|#

I knew Le Mur would be in here quickly to tell us all how horrible it is that people should actually be expected to support their children.

And what happens if your parnter stops taking birth control without telling you?

You keep using your own method anyway until you're certain you want to have children. Or you don't fuck people who you aren't 100% certain you can trust. Why is this so hard to figure out?

Timothy|3.21.06 @ 10:43AM|#

Hak: Well, mine is on the patch, so I feel for it every time. Another friend of mine watches his girlfriend take her pill every day.

There is room for fraud, true, but certain actions have certain consequences and my advice would be selectivity about partners and perhaps a vasectomy. I'm planning to have one if my girlfriend and I get married, so she could go off the hormonal birth control and reduce her cardiac risk. I also think this will all become a moot point once they get that damn male pill on the market.

Mike|3.21.06 @ 10:44AM|#

Also, a lot of people say that because women are biologically different (no argument about that), they should have more choice in the situation. That may be true, but since they are the ones who have this condition (2 X chomosomes) that allows them to get pregnant, shouldn't they be legally held to be the more responsible party? I mean, there are about a dozen ways a woman can prevent pregnancy, a man has one choice and it doesn't always work.

Dan T.|3.21.06 @ 10:47AM|#

An additional aspect to this question is that if we allow a father to say �I don�t want to have anything to do with this child� then out of fairness, we�d have to allow the mother to do the same. In other words, if both parents agree they don�t want the kid, they should be allowed to just take it out into the woods to die, like the Romans did.

Cathy Young totally ignores the rather important fact that a child is indeed a person who cannot earn a living himself and thus will require support from somebody � parents, the state, or somebody else. And of course if men had no incentive to not fertilize as many eggs as possible, we�d see even more unwanted children.

|3.21.06 @ 10:48AM|#

Phil,

Only in the area of screwing are people apparently supposed to exercise such all-consuming diligence. IMHO, that seems more a reflection of certain Victorian, religious, etc. moral codes than it does the reality of the situation.

|3.21.06 @ 10:51AM|#

Dan T.,

I'd expect the market to find a solution to that issue.

|3.21.06 @ 10:51AM|#

...a man has one choice and it doesn't always work.

Keeping your prick in your pants always works. I'm withholding my services until we get justice. Who's with me?

|3.21.06 @ 10:52AM|#

I knew Le Mur would be in here quickly to tell us all how horrible it is that people should actually be expected to support their children.

I never said any such thing, you silly liar.

Gimme Back My Dog|3.21.06 @ 10:54AM|#

Dr. T,

In a previous post on a similar topic, you said that you do not think that anonymous sperm donors should be held liable for child support. Shouldn't those guys "be a man" as well?

Dan T.|3.21.06 @ 10:55AM|#

��it still violates equal protection in that neither married people nor the single-parent recipients of the largess are required to spend *any* amount of money on their kids.�

Yes, your Honor, it is true that I did not provide food, clothing, or shelter for my children. While I�m sorry they starved to death, I resent the fact that I�m being charged with neglect here. It�s a gross violation of my rights!

|3.21.06 @ 10:56AM|#

Phil, thoreau, etc.,

This appears to be more of a moral issue to you, and one deeply imbedded in your notions of what it means to be a "man," than anything else. Why should your moral vision trump that of others?

|3.21.06 @ 10:56AM|#

Only in the area of screwing are people apparently supposed to exercise such all-consuming diligence.

Nice passive voice. Who's doing this supposing, and what other areas do you think they're ignoring?

In any case, I mean, well, what outcomes do you want in your life? If you absolutely know you absolutely don't want kids, do what it takes to prevent it happening.

The same goes for any area of your life over which you can reasonably assert control and for which there are outcomes you clearly don't want. Don't want to be in major consumer debt? Don't use credit cards. Don't want to risk your kids seeing boobies on FX? Don't get cable.

Jesus Christ. These things are not difficult.

|3.21.06 @ 10:58AM|#

"An additional aspect to this question is that if we allow a father to say �I don�t want to have anything to do with this child� then out of fairness, we�d have to allow the mother to do the same. In other words, if both parents agree they don�t want the kid, they should be allowed to just take it out into the woods to die, like the Romans did"

Well, currently a woman can choose to abort or put the child up for adoption. In many states she can also abandon a child at a hospital or police station with no legal ramifications.

On the other hand, my options are pay up or go to jail.

|3.21.06 @ 10:58AM|#

This appears to be more of a moral issue to you, and one deeply imbedded in your notions of what it means to be a "man," than anything else. Why should your moral vision trump that of others?

Who should be required to pay for children created by F. Le Mur's sperm?

1) F. Le Mur
2) Me
3) "The State"
4) Other

Timothy|3.21.06 @ 10:59AM|#

Hak: In other words I think a reasonable level of dilligence is warranted, because not getting the baby disease is half the responsibility of each person involved, but I think the best solution is a vasectomy and being selective about your partners.

I know this will get Mr. Le Mur calling me brainwashed, but I think it's a very particular kind of psycho who'll trick a man into impregnating her and it's not all that hard not to date them.

|3.21.06 @ 10:59AM|#

Dude sans dog-

Good point. I guess I would say that a man should either take responsibility, or reach some other agreement with the woman before any sperm passes from one body to the other. The sperm bank is basically acting as an intermediary with the understanding that the sperm will only be given to women who agree to accept full responsibility for the child.

Responsibility should either be accepted or delegated to a party who freely accepts it. A man bears 50% of the responsibility for his offspring (barring the rare case of rape, etc.) unless he finds somebody else who will voluntarily shoulder that 50%. In the case of sperm donation, the woman is freely agreeing to take on the man's responsibilities in addition to their own.

So no contradiction.

|3.21.06 @ 11:01AM|#

As far as I've seen, the fact remains that there is no principled way to support abortion choice but not support choice. In other words, any argument you make favoring forced child support is an argument that supports the pro-life position on abortion.

Either both man and woman are responsible for their act in engaging in sexual intercourse, and their bodies are forced into slavery for the result, or neither are and the kid pays the consequences for their indiscretion.

To me, those who are "firmly entrenched" on either side are a little too dogmatic (besides often being hypocritical) - this is a tough issue. I personally lean toward the somewhat compromise position of allowing both parents to was their hands of the responsibility within 3 months of conception. And if the mother fails to notify the putative father in that time frame, that's her problem, unless dad is willing to take on the responsibility anyway. I don't claim that it is the perfect solution, but it seems the fairest and most philosophically consistent position to me.

Mike|3.21.06 @ 11:01AM|#

As long as the woman has the right (over my objections) to abort my child, I should have the right (over her objections) to cut off support.

|3.21.06 @ 11:01AM|#

Phil,

Consumer debt is typically taken by a party with their consent. The issue is whether there is consent involved in merely screwing someone. You seem to claim that the mere act of screwing someone involves such consent, and I do not. Don't try to high-jack the conversation by begging the question in other words.

|3.21.06 @ 11:04AM|#

I thought I hated kids, but some of you people really, really hate kids. Really. You would punish a child that's 50% your genetic material because you're pissed at its mother? That is true hatred of the kind to which I can only aspire.

|3.21.06 @ 11:04AM|#

quasibill,

What is also bizarre is that so-called libertarians think that the only solution to this issue is government coercion.

|3.21.06 @ 11:06AM|#

Phil,

I don't hate children. And again, you make the false assumption that such choice means that the child is abandoned to the howling wilderness when in fact there are perfectly reasonable market solutions to these issues (if the market were allowed to run its course that is).

Dan T.|3.21.06 @ 11:06AM|#

Well, currently a woman can choose to abort or put the child up for adoption. In many states she can also abandon a child at a hospital or police station with no legal ramifications.
On the other hand, my options are pay up or go to jail.
From a free market perspective, you could say that the child support payments are a fee paid to the mother for the service of carrying and giving birth to the child that you obviously wanted by having sex with her. Sexual intercourse is kind of an implied contractual agreement, anyway. So look at child support as payment for a service.

|3.21.06 @ 11:07AM|#

Consumer debt is typically taken by a party with their consent.

So is sex.

The issue is whether there is consent involved in merely screwing someone. You seem to claim that the mere act of screwing someone involves such consent, and I do not.

If it's a reasonably foreseeable outcome, well, then, yes. This is not rocket science, folks.

|3.21.06 @ 11:09AM|#

"SFrom a free market perspective, you could say that the child support payments are a fee paid to the mother for the service of carrying and giving birth to the child that you obviously wanted by having sex with her. Sexual intercourse is kind of an implied contractual agreement, anyway. So look at child support as payment for a service."

If sexual intercourse is an implied agreement to raise a child, then women should not be allowed to abort. She had sex, so she obviously wanted a child. Right?

|3.21.06 @ 11:11AM|#

I am against the right of a financial abortion for a man, because I know that after a man walks away, there is still a child that needs its bills paid.

And I know that by some roundabout way, I am the one that will end up paying them... even though I do not know the mother, much less enjoyed sex with her.

If it is unfair for him to support it, why should it be fair for a bunch of strangers?

|3.21.06 @ 11:11AM|#

And fuck you talking about hijacking. You're the EMPEROR of hijacking.

And again, you make the false assumption that such choice means that the child is abandoned to the howling wilderness

I made no such assumption. Read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.

|3.21.06 @ 11:12AM|#

From what I can tell, opponents to this notion largely base their objections on they consider to be the proper attributes of "manhood." It seems to me though that this is a rather dangerous perch upon which to place your thoughts regarding these matters. Indeed, its not the proper attributes of manhood that should be the issue here, its issues like utility that should be at issue. From my perspective as a libertarian and rule utilitarian there is no particular reason to object to the excercise of such rights in a market based society because foundlings, orphans, etc. should be well cared for such a society by the many people who wish to adopt children, etc.

|3.21.06 @ 11:15AM|#

Libertarians are usually big on assumption of risk. Don't want to risk consequences? Then don't do the deed.

But when it comes to an activity that has a very common outcome (children) and very straightforward ways to reduce the odds of that outcome (condoms), suddenly libertarians are all "Oh, don't make the man take responsibility for the consequences of his actions! That's unfair!"

For the record, I'd be fine with absolving men of responsibility if it was agreed to by both (or more, if you're lucky :) parties to the sex act. Get the woman to sign a contract, and I'll argue in favor of your right to have that contract upheld.

Good luck finding a woman who wants to sign it.

|3.21.06 @ 11:16AM|#

Phil,

If it's a reasonably foreseeable outcome, well, then, yes. This is not rocket science, folks.

Again, you merely beg the question.

And fuck you talking about hijacking. You're the EMPEROR of hijacking.

Do calm down.

I made no such assumption. Read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.

Then pray reveal what this means:

You would punish a child that's 50% your genetic material because you're pissed at its mother?

Quite clearly you are arguing that some drastic harm will come to the child in such a circumstance.

|3.21.06 @ 11:17AM|#

"I am against the right of a financial abortion for a man, because I know that after a man walks away, there is still a child that needs its bills paid.

And I know that by some roundabout way, I am the one that will end up paying them... even though I do not know the mother, much less enjoyed sex with her.

If it is unfair for him to support it, why should it be fair for a bunch of strangers?"

If a woman cannot afford to have a child, she should not have a child. She should not force a man to pay for a child that he does not want, just because she she wants something she cannot afford.

|3.21.06 @ 11:17AM|#

I don't think there's any real argument about shared responsibility in the absence of a pretty explicit understanding between the partners. But while I'm not sure what I think about this yet, it's a little strange to see regulars here arguing that even in the presence of an explicit agreement, if one party changes her mind, it's tough luck for the other party who should have known better. That's not the way we react in the case of most other contracts, and it's not the way we react in the specific case of the contract between sperm donors and recipients. Is that just because nobody would ever donate sperm if they might be on the hook for child support, whereas people would still have sex?

Dan T.|3.21.06 @ 11:20AM|#

The true libertarian position is that neither Mom nor Dad nor the State is responsible for supporting children � the state exists only to prevent poor people from taking rich people�s stuff.

Tell Junior to get out there and earn his own living. I don�t care if he�s six months old, that�s a good time to learn some Personal Responsibility!

|3.21.06 @ 11:23AM|#

I don't think there's any real argument about shared responsibility in the absence of a pretty explicit understanding between the partners.

Oh, there's plenty of argument there. Go back and read some other threads on this topic; more than one man has suggested that unless the guy specifically signs a pre-sex contract agreeing to child support, the responsibility is entirely that of the woman.

|3.21.06 @ 11:24AM|#

Julian Sanchez,

I don't think there's any real argument about shared responsibility in the absence of a pretty explicit understanding between the partners.

In the case of casual sex there appears to be no such agreement; indeed, in many cases may simply be that the woman assumes all the risk associated with the behavior. Why people think that the risk is assumed by each party equally is beyond me.

thoreau,

Why is the assumption of risk 50/50? It might very well be, based on social norms, etc. of the specific situation that the assumption of risk is 100/0? Indeed, if you had any legal training at all you'd realize that the assumption of risk standard allows for just this sort of shifting burden between parties based on the specific facts of the case.

Timothy|3.21.06 @ 11:27AM|#

Hak:

I'll grant that adoption does get overlooked in these discussions a fair bit, but I'm not really basing my position on what I think "manhood" means so much as what I think are the most feasible solutions to a few very real problems.

Presuming the sex-act in question was consentual:

1) Both parties willingly engaged in the act
2) Both parties knew the potential hazards
3) One or more parties failed to take proper precaution with regard to the baby disease or they were the unfortunate receivers of a statistical anomaly.
4) At which point the impregnated party faces a few substantial difficulties and choices.
5) The impregnating party is, roughly, 50% responsible for the pregnancy.
6) There may or may not be another individual as a result.
7) Somebody has to pay for the hypothetical individual in question.

I'm of the "the thing is a parasite until it's capable of breathing on its own" school of thought RE fetuses, I therefore am pretty okay with abortion: If a woman wants to allow some parasite to grow inside of her, that's her business. Same if not.

This does put the impregnating party in a bit of a pinch, but there's nothing stopping him from attempting to persuade the woman to remove the parasite. He could even offer to pay her, nobody's stopping him and that's not even illegal.

Now, given the woman chooses to bring the child to term...he pretty much knew that was a possiblity going in. And, to my mind, it makes more sense to compell both responsible parties to pay than it does to further burden the rest of the citizenry, unless my suspicion that most adoptions are done through social services is incorrect.

All of THAT said, I do think there's a case to be made that a man should have an out through a provable fraud claim. Not that he can disavow the pregnancy before the little genespawn is born, but that IF he can persuade a judge or jury in a civil action that he was defrauded into causing the pregnancy, then he could be free of obligation. Does that seem reasonable, or is it too squisy and in the middle?

|3.21.06 @ 11:32AM|#

BTW, before anyone tries to slam me for being a potential "deadbeat dad," as a person (not as a "man") I would in general be against giving up a child. But I myself do not see where I get the right to force others in varying factual situations to make the same decision.

Dan T.|3.21.06 @ 11:40AM|#

As a libertarian, I also think I should be allowed to point a loaded gun at someone and pull the trigger without being held responsible for any deaths or injuries that the projectile from the gun may cause. After all, perhaps my intention was not to actually hurt anybody, and by being alive people have to assume the risk that they may find themselves in the path of a bullet.

In fact, it�s a violation of my rights that the other person can choose whether or not to have the bullet removed from their body, but either way I can be forced to pay them money.

|3.21.06 @ 11:41AM|#

Does that seem reasonable, or is it too squisy and in the middle?

It seems reasonable to me, but as Smacky pointed out in another of the many threads on this topic, you end up in a "he said/she said" situation which is impossible to decide conclusively.

Oddly enough, I had a series of radiation treatments when I was in my early twenties and was warned that I may end up not being able to have children. Of course, it only takes one sperm and one ova and I am now a father. I would advise anyone to take the whole "I can't get pregnant" thing with only a few grains of salt unless there they are post menopausal or something.

|3.21.06 @ 11:42AM|#

Timothy,

Why is the impregnating party roughly 50% responsible? I think you (and others) are confusing the issue of genetic material with the practical circumstances, social norms, etc. associated with sex. IMHO, I am far more confident that the issue of responsibility is attached more to a shifting scale than it is to some pre-determined, fixed amount.

|3.21.06 @ 11:42AM|#

I also think I should be allowed to point a loaded gun at someone and pull the trigger without being held responsible for any deaths or injuries that the projectile from the gun may cause. After all, perhaps my intention was not to actually hurt anybody, and by being alive people have to assume the risk that they may find themselves in the path of a bullet.

Dan, I strongly disagree with the majority "I shouldn't be responsible for the kid I spawned" attitude here, but this analogy does not hold up.

Dan T.|3.21.06 @ 11:45AM|#

How about this: since no child consents to being conceived and born, perhaps children should be allowed to sue both parents for conspiring to bring them into the world?

|3.21.06 @ 11:45AM|#

Dan T.,

Actually, we make distinctions based on intent, the facts on the ground, etc. all the time in our courts and that seems to be a perfectly reasonable libertarian position to take. Indeed, I am not a big fan of the sorts of things associated with your line of reasoning - mandatory minimums, three strikes laws, etc. Indeed, they lead to the sort of corruption we see in the rampant fact bargaining in our courts.

|3.21.06 @ 11:46AM|#

An additional aspect to this question is that if we allow a father to say �I don�t want to have anything to do with this child� then out of fairness, we�d have to allow the mother to do the same. In other words, if both parents agree they don�t want the kid, they should be allowed to just take it out into the woods to die, like the Romans did.

Or we could invent someplce to bring these children, and come up with creative names for them, like "foster homes" or "adoption agencies".

Dan T.|3.21.06 @ 11:47AM|#

Dan, I strongly disagree with the majority "I shouldn't be responsible for the kid I spawned" attitude here, but this analogy does not hold up.

Like all analogies, it holds up to some extent and then breaks down when the details between the two situations are explored.

Eiter way, I'm just illustrating how silly it is to apply libertarian principles that might work okay in economics to a situation where they really have no bearing.

|3.21.06 @ 11:48AM|#

Thoreau:

But when it comes to an activity that has a very common outcome (children) and very straightforward ways to reduce the odds of that outcome (condoms), suddenly libertarians are all "Oh, don't make the man take responsibility for the consequences of his actions! That's unfair!"

No, no, no, no.

No.

Nobody is saying that. You're taking a very nuanced and complex issue, and boiling it down to a very simple conclusion---which is uncharacteristically irresponsible of you...

Instead, what we're saying is that, as long as abortion remains legal and available, this creates a window in which the choice to have a child must be made. So, during that window, if a woman wants to terminate the pregnancy and the man agrees, she should be able to do so. If a man wants to terminate the pregnancy and the woman agrees, he should be able to do so. However, if the woman wants to keep it and the man does not, she makes that choice on her own, and accepts responsibility for it on her own----because, yes, it is HER choice. At the same time, I think the man should be able to stop the woman from having an abortion if she wants one. Then, the opposite applies. The woman must carry to term, but she is not required to take any financial responsibility after that. Additionally, (and this is where the biological difference thing comes in) the man should be forced to compensate the woman for the pregnancy and birthing.

Nobody is shirking responsibility here. You're oversimplifying it. Yes, you'd be correct if abortion wasn't legal and available. But, alas, it is. So as long as that window of choice exists in reality, it is a choice that has to be made. And as long as it is a conscious choice, then the responsibility can and should be applied depending on the choices that are made.

|3.21.06 @ 11:48AM|#

Timothy,

Anyway, its an engaging issue, and its far more complex and nuanced than either of these polarized positions will allow.

Dan T.|3.21.06 @ 11:49AM|#

Or we could invent someplce to bring these children, and come up with creative names for them, like "foster homes" or "adoption agencies".

No way, those are often run by the state, and the state's only job is to protect property.

|3.21.06 @ 11:51AM|#

"Dan, I strongly disagree with the majority "I shouldn't be responsible for the kid I spawned"

Jennifer:

Why is this so freakin' difficult to understand? If it's a "kid", then yes, it's your responsibility. But if it's just a fertilized egg that can still be terminated, and not yet a kid, then a choice can still be made by the parties involved. If you've already spawned the kid, then, yes, it's your responsibility. But if the kid is not yet spawned, and the option to abort still exists, then how can you ignore that fact?

|3.21.06 @ 11:52AM|#

Evan,

There is also the issue that if a man doesn't claim an overseas born child by the age of I believe 21 he has foresworn any claim to paternity for the issue of citizenship. I agree that this issue is far more nuanced than many would allow, and that is reflected in many analagous areas of our law as well as in practice (as Cathy Young points out).

|3.21.06 @ 11:54AM|#

Why is this so freakin' difficult to understand? If it's a "kid", then yes, it's your responsibility.

Exactly--if it exists long enough to morph from fetus to kid, it becomes a responsibility.

The problem is that kids don't fit well into libertarian philosophy. The idea that "I cannot be forced to support someone else, but at the same time I cannot force someone else to support me" only works for adults. Kids, by contrast, have to be able to demand that someone else spend time and money supporting them.

|3.21.06 @ 11:54AM|#

Or we could invent someplce to bring these children, and come up with creative names for them, like "foster homes" or "adoption agencies".

No way, those are often run by the state, and the state's only job is to protect property.

I know, I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the magical fairyland concept of private adoption agencies too. I also fervently believe that anything the government "often" does, the private sector should be barred from doing.

|3.21.06 @ 11:59AM|#

Why is the assumption of risk 50/50?

Why is the impregnating party roughly 50% responsible

What an stupid belief / position. Let's see. It takes two people to make a baby. Both have decided to have sex. As everyone knows the only "100% guaranteed" way of not having a baby is to abstain. You both know this going into it. Both people know what the potential consequences are and they both assumed that risk equally. How is it NOT a 50/50 split on "the assumption of risk" and responsibnility.

The person who decided to put their fallus into the vagina bears the exact same amount of responibility as the person who decided to wrap their vagina around said fallus. It takes 2 to tango.

In your warped world Hak, what is the breakdown of responsibility here?

The risk is creating another life, not merely someone becoming pregnant. Just because the man doesnt carry the child doesn't mean he gets to assume less risk or responsibility

|3.21.06 @ 12:00PM|#

"The problem is that kids don't fit well into libertarian philosophy. The idea that "I cannot be forced to support someone else, but at the same time I cannot force someone else to support me" only works for adults. Kids, by contrast, have to be able to demand that someone else spend time and money supporting them."

Jennifer:

I agree 100%. But this is a sidebar to the main crux of the issue that Cathy Young wrote about, and that the case she talked about is about: that a fertilized egg which can still be legally terminated represents a juncture at which both parties involved can and must declare a choice. And as long as this choice exists, nobody is shirkijg responsibility any more than a girlfriend who decides not to help her boyfriend pay for his new car is responsible for helping him pay for it.

Yet, you ignore this portion of the issue (which, in reality, is the entire issue itself), and move to the next step: post-abortion-window. Your arguments are valid, but they have no bearing on the issue that is raised above. So when you assert that the majority view here is that "I shouldn't be responsible for the kid I spawned", you're very mistaken. That's all I'm saying.

|3.21.06 @ 12:04PM|#

this is a sidebar to the main crux of the issue

Evan, it sounds to me like you're mixing two different issues: the first issue is what say, if any, a man should have over a woman who happens to be pregnant with his child, which is a different issue from who has to support said child if/when he comes to term.

And of course, this is another matter where libertarian philosophy breaks down: the idea that all people must be one-hundred-percent equal before the law doesn't work in reproductive matters, where biology has decreed that the two genders are NOT one-hundred-percent equal.

Timothy|3.21.06 @ 12:06PM|#

MK: Yes, there is that little wrinkle. Same as many civil torts, and even criminal rape cases. I still think, even given practical constraints and the limitations of juries, that it might at least be an improvement.

Hak: Yes, complex and engaging. I assign 50% responsibility because the impregnating act required consent of both parties, and both parties have, to my mind at least, a moral duty to attempt pregnancy prevention if they do not desire children as the possible consequences of such acts are well known. And, in the case of random encounters condoms are a just plain good idea.

There's an added wrinkle in longer term relationships where one party is bearing the responsibility of pregnancy prevention through an either explicit or implied agreement because that does create the potential for fraud. In the case of statistical anomaly, well, I think both parties (by engaging in the act and by relying on a single method of control) implied agreement to jointly deal with the consequences. Or maybe 50% each is a good starting point and it can be determined from there depending on circumstances.

In the case of fraud, like I said, I think there's a case to be made...but I also think one should exercise a little bit of due dilligence: checking the for the patch, observing the pill, quarterly trips to the doctor, etc. Maybe that's paranoid, I'm not sure. In any case, perhaps equal responsiblity is always a good place to start adjustable by circumstances, the most extreme being 100% on the mother in the case of fraud.

|3.21.06 @ 12:07PM|#

ChicagoTom:

How is it NOT a 50/50 split on "the assumption of risk" and responsibnility.

Let's see...

a) currently by law, the woman can choose to abort, even if the man disagrees.

b) currently by law, the woman can choose to abandon her child (and the responsibility that goes along with it) at the emergency room.

c) currently by law, the woman can choose to put the child up for adoption, thereby avoiding the 18 years of responsibility.

On the other hand, currently by law, the man has two choices: pay 18 years of child support, or go to prison. The man cannot force an abortion, he cannot force

Now, it seems to me that the assumption of risk and responsibility is NOT 50/50, given that the woman has many options open to her, while the man has none (unless you count prison as an "option").

Dan T.|3.21.06 @ 12:10PM|#

Jennifer is basically correct here � the reason a woman can abort the pregnancy is because her body is the one that is doing the work (so to speak) of growing the baby and therefore suffering the possible negative effects of this process.

This is not the case with the father, and it makes little sense to complain that the father is being treated unfairly because he does not have a choice in something that is not his problem anyway.

|3.21.06 @ 12:10PM|#

ChicagoTom,

You are confusing the genetic material involved here with the specific facts on the ground. To be blunt, we make similar differentiations in all areas of life outside of sex, so I'm curious why we make it in the sexual realm? You are also unneccessarily assuming that the sliding scale always works in favor of the man, which clearly isn't the case.

Imagine if a sophisticated, older man were to have sex with an eighteen year old woman from the boondocks (I know I'm playing stereotypes here, but bare with me). Who would be more responsible for the pregnancy? All things being equal, the man would be. Too assume that the issue is always 50/50 simply ignores reality and the specific nature of specific human relationships. You may think that the 50/50 notion is a good proxy for human relationships, but it really isn't.

|3.21.06 @ 12:11PM|#

"the first issue is what say, if any, a man should have over a woman who happens to be pregnant with his child, which is a different issue from who has to support said child if/when he comes to term."

They are not separate issues; as long as a choice exists during the termination window, then both parties have a juncture at which they can accept or deny responsibility...if/when said child comes to term. The issues are intertwined.

|3.21.06 @ 12:12PM|#

"And of course, this is another matter where libertarian philosophy breaks down: the idea that all people must be one-hundred-percent equal before the law doesn't work in reproductive matters, where biology has decreed that the two genders are NOT one-hundred-percent equal."

No, but having the option to abort does help to equalize the situation.

|3.21.06 @ 12:13PM|#

but I also think one should exercise a little bit of due dilligence: checking the for the patch, observing the pill, quarterly trips to the doctor, etc. Maybe that's paranoid

This is not a criticism, but an observation: wow, that seriously creeps me out. I have on occasion run small errands for my boyfriend (mailing bills, for example) wherein if I'd broken my word and not done it, it would have caused him serious financial hardship. And yet if he'd demanded some sort of proof that I mailed the bills as I said I did, that alone would be enough to make me wonder if I really want to spend time with someone who has so little trust in me.

What the hell kind of women are you guys dating, anyway? Jesus, for your own sakes, break up with them and date someone trustworthy before you become as embittered as Mr. F. "feminists are destroying the republic" LeMur.

|3.21.06 @ 12:14PM|#

having the option to abort does help to equalize the situation.

Unless you're talking about a situation where the man is able to override the woman's desires and force her to do things to her body which she does not want to do.

|3.21.06 @ 12:14PM|#

"Jennifer is basically correct here � the reason a woman can abort the pregnancy is because her body is the one that is doing the work (so to speak) of growing the baby and therefore suffering the possible negative effects of this process."

She can also abort to avoid the 18 years of financial responsibility. The man doesn't have this option under current law, even though the option exists. And this is fair?

|3.21.06 @ 12:16PM|#

Dan T.,

Jennifer's point merely begs the question - why favor one kind of freedom over another? Indeed, why favor one period of development over another? Its not as clear cut an issue as Jennifer pretends that it is.

Evan and Timothy,

Have fun hashing this out. I have work. :)

|3.21.06 @ 12:18PM|#

Timothy,

BTW, that sort of "due diligence" seems rather extreme, intrusive, and unrealistic.

Dan T.|3.21.06 @ 12:20PM|#

She can also abort to avoid the 18 years of financial responsibility. The man doesn't have this option under current law, even though the option exists. And this is fair?

Sure � the woman has additional burdens in the baby-making process, so it�s only fair that she has additional choices.

|3.21.06 @ 12:20PM|#

She can also abort to avoid the 18 years of financial responsibility. The man doesn't have this option under current law, even though the option exists. And this is fair?

What laws would you suggest that would bring equality into a situation where biology has decreed equality doe not exist? The only ones I can think of have a distinctly creepy "Harrison Bergeron" feel to them.

|3.21.06 @ 12:21PM|#

"Unless you're talking about a situation where the man is able to override the woman's desires and force her to do things to her body which she does not want to do."

So, it's not ok that a woman has to accept responsibility for 9 months and bear a child...but it IS ok that a woman gets to force a man to accept responsibility and drastically alter his life for 18 years?

Biological differences are important, but how can you say "if the man didn't want to pay for 18 years of child support, he shouldn't have had sex", but not also say "if the woman didn't want to go through 9 months of pregnancy, she shouldn't have had sex"?

|3.21.06 @ 12:22PM|#

Here's a thought experiment: how can men hedge their risk? Insurance is one private-market solution to hedging risk. What would the insurance premium cost for a liability insurance policy that pays some estimated monthly payment to an unplanned child? Whatever that amount works out to would be a market-determined value of the risk of sex.

As an aside, what behaviors would the man have to demonstrate to the insurance company to prevent the pretty obvious moral hazards in this situation?

Alternately, is there a net-present-value lump sum settlement for support that can be established at the first trimester window?

Timothy|3.21.06 @ 12:23PM|#

What the hell kind of women are you guys dating, anyway? Jesus, for your own sakes, break up with them and date someone trustworthy before you become as embittered as Mr. F. "feminists are destroying the republic" LeMur.

Well, like I said, I feel for the patch honestly more out of paranoia than anything else, really a case of the OCD acting up. My girlfriend hates and fears children more than I do, so if she switched to the pill or something and told me as much I'd trust her. And like I said WAY upthread, the best precaution is careful selection of partners.

Dan T.|3.21.06 @ 12:24PM|#

Come to think of it, if it�s only fair that men be allowed to have a �financial abortion�, then would it not be equally fair in the case where the man and woman both agree to have the baby that the man be injected with a parasite that causes him mild-to-severe discomfort for nine months?

|3.21.06 @ 12:24PM|#

So, it's not ok that a woman has to accept responsibility for 9 months and bear a child...but it IS ok that a woman gets to force a man to accept responsibility and drastically alter his life for 18 years?

Bodily integrity vs. financial obligations are not exactly the same thing. But in the second scenario, the problem is that there's this kid who can't support himself but instead has to be supported by someone else. Which again brings us to the whole "libertarian philosophy falls apart in front of kids" moment.

|3.21.06 @ 12:25PM|#

"What laws would you suggest that would bring equality into a situation where biology has decreed equality doe not exist?"

Pretty simple, Jennifer: when pregnancy is discovered, the woman and the man both make a choice as to whether they want to abort, or whether they want to carry to term. If they both agree to abort, then, it's done. If they both agree to keep, then, they both take responsibility after birth. If they disagree, then, the one who voted to carry to term gets the responsibility for 18 years. In addition, because of biological inequality, if the man makes the choice to keep the child, he must compensate the woman for the pregnancy and birthing process.

It's not perfect, but it's preferable to giving women all the choices and men none except to abstain.

Timothy|3.21.06 @ 12:25PM|#

It's honestly more like a nervous tick with me, I was perhaps being a bit hyperbolic, it's true. And, yes, Hak's right that it's likely unrealistic and intrusive.

Jennifer is also right, that if it ever got serious it'd be time to find a new partner...odd how things don't seem weird until you type them and a bunch of strangers read them out of context.

|3.21.06 @ 12:28PM|#

"Come to think of it, if it�s only fair that men be allowed to have a �financial abortion�, then would it not be equally fair in the case where the man and woman both agree to have the baby that the man be injected with a parasite that causes him mild-to-severe discomfort for nine months?"

Wait, I'm confused, are you now arguing that it is an unforseen consequence for women that they might get pregnant if they have sex?

Heck, I hope all you people who are saying that it is forseeable for men hold women to the same standard - since complications are a known risk of pregnancy, and pregnancies are a known risk of sex, women shouldn't be able to abort just because the risk played out and they are now going to lose a kidney...

|3.21.06 @ 12:28PM|#

|3.21.06 @ 12:29PM|#

when pregnancy is discovered, the woman and the man both make a choice as to whether they want to abort, or whether they want to carry to term. If they both agree to abort, then, it's done. If they both agree to keep, then, they both take responsibility after birth. If they disagree, then, the one who voted to carry to term gets the responsibility for 18 years

But now you have a situation wherein if a man is willing and able to spend a certain amount of money, he can force a woman to remain pregnant even over her own wishes. You're simply replacing one kind of inequality for another.

Timothy|3.21.06 @ 12:32PM|#

But now you have a situation wherein if a man is willing and able to spend a certain amount of money, he can force a woman to remain pregnant even over her own wishes. You're simply replacing one kind of inequality for another.

What if they had to negotiate a price? Perhaps using binding arbitration? Or maybe I just love Coase too much...

Dan T.|3.21.06 @ 12:32PM|#

It's not perfect, but it's preferable to giving women all the choices and men none except to abstain.

Just don�t complain when your property taxes triple in order to support all the children who are born to women who cannot afford them, especially since we would actually be encouraging men to have more irresponsible sex.

|3.21.06 @ 12:35PM|#

"But now you have a situation wherein if a man is willing and able to spend a certain amount of money, he can force a woman to remain pregnant even over her own wishes. You're simply replacing one kind of inequality for another."

Look, I said it wasn't perfect---but as others have noted, it's not like the risk of getting pregnant and having to carry a child to term aren't obvious to a woman when she decides to have sex. Just like the risk of 18 years of financial obligations are obvious to a man when he has sex.

That the female anatomy happens to be the place where the kid is made should not mean that the man has no say in whether his child is born.

|3.21.06 @ 12:36PM|#

"What laws would you suggest that would bring equality into a situation where biology has decreed equality doe not exist?"

Well, I did lay out one scenario above. It's slightly different from Evan's, in that I don't give dad the right to force mom to carry the child. But this is the sort of quibble that I think is entirely reasonable on this sort of tough issue.

And for those of you who don't think having to pay child support is like having a parasite on your body - you broadcast your ignorance at top decibel. The money you are forced to pay to someone else results in many lost opportunities, from eating healthier to engaging in recreational activities, to using better doctors. Further, you can get "locked in" to really bad situations, such as where your boss is abusive, but you can't quit because any other job you take will pay less but the courts will "impute" your higher salary because you "voluntarily" left the higher paying job. This is true even if you develop health issues in many instances.

So the "parasite" distinction holds exactly 0 water.

Dan T.|3.21.06 @ 12:37PM|#

Yet another possible direction: if a woman has sex without intending to get pregnant, hasn�t the man violated her rights if his sperm inseminates her anyway? He should have only ejaculated non-inseminating sperm cells.

|3.21.06 @ 12:39PM|#

"Just don�t complain when your property taxes triple in order to support all the children who are born to women who cannot afford them, especially since we would actually be encouraging men to have more irresponsible sex."

A) That's an point against the welfare state, not my argument.

B) Women still have the option to terminate pregnancy. If a woman chooses to carry to term even though she knows that she cannot support the child alone, then that is a bed that she has made, and she must lie in.

C) Since it would be disclosed that the man has made the choice to abort, then this would result naturally in more terminated pregnancies, which, hypothetically, would balance out this increase.

|3.21.06 @ 12:40PM|#

And once again we see why libertarians are marginalized in most debates about social policy. I'm with Thoreau... all true libertarians should go forth and before multiplying, resolve these issues beforehand by written contract. On the bright side, I'm guessing it will make for an innovative pick up line... "Would you like to come to my flat and take a look at my pre-sexual intercourse contract?"

|3.21.06 @ 12:43PM|#

yes, Jose, we should just cave in on issues where we feel strongly, simply to be more socially mainstream.

Funny, I don't typically formulate my political positions based on how well it would play out at the local dance club.

|3.21.06 @ 12:44PM|#

"if a woman has sex without intending to get pregnant, hasn�t the man violated her rights if his sperm inseminates her anyway? He should have only ejaculated non-inseminating sperm cells."

And now we see where this debate has taken us. *sigh*

|3.21.06 @ 12:44PM|#

Here's an old Salon.com article which suggests conception by deception isn't as rare as one might think.

|3.21.06 @ 12:45PM|#

Just don�t complain when your property taxes triple in order to support all the children who are born to women who cannot afford them, especially since we would actually be encouraging men to have more irresponsible sex.

Would we also be discouraging women from having more irresponsible sex? And if so, what would be the overall net effect on irresponsible sex?

|3.21.06 @ 12:47PM|#

That the female anatomy happens to be the place where the kid is made should not mean that the man has no say in whether his child is born.

Or switch it around and say: that the male anatomy is not the place where the kid is made should not mean that the man can refuse to support a child who is born.

You can switch any such sex-based argument around: "The woman is responsible because it's her body that creates the baby." "No, the man is responsible because it's his sperm that causes the pregnancy."

Gimme Back My Dog|3.21.06 @ 12:50PM|#

brian423,

I think it is that there is still this feeling that there should be some punishment for those having casual sex. For years, the punishment was mainly the woman's to bear and then the feminist movement came along and convinced (almost) everyone that women are sexual creatures and should not be punished for it.

But there has never been the same movement with respect to men. That is why, as Cathy points out, the arguments among the child support crowd are eerily similar to the arguments the anti-abortion crowd once used on women.

|3.21.06 @ 12:51PM|#

All of these posts (unless I missed one) overlook the fact that a woman can go to a sperm bank. The resulting pregnancy has no legally responsible father.

The legal connection between sperm and fatherhood is therefor undeniably not absolute. Personally, I question whether or not the definition of "father" even includes sperm. And if it doesn't then the current legal standards are a travesty of justice.

(full disclosure: I'm 54 and had a vasectomy. No way do I have any self-interest in this. Oh, and those are only back-ups, my social skills are quite sufficient protection.)

Dan T.|3.21.06 @ 12:51PM|#

A) That's an point against the welfare state, not my argument.

But since we live in a welfare state, it becomes a point against your argument unless you are talking about applying it in some other alternate universe.

B) Women still have the option to terminate pregnancy. If a woman chooses to carry to term even though she knows that she cannot support the child alone, then that is a bed that she has made, and she must lie in.

The problem is, the resulting child is not a piece of property but a person who needs financial support. If the woman cannot provide it, it either has to come from elsewhere or the child suffers. And if you think the rights of a irresponsible man trump those of a child, let�s just say I�m glad you�re not calling the shots.

C) Since it would be disclosed that the man has made the choice to abort, then this would result naturally in more terminated pregnancies, which, hypothetically, would balance out this increase.

Perhaps, but it�s odd to think that putting more women in the situation of having to choose between aborting their child and raising it in poverty is a positive situation.

Gimme Back My Dog|3.21.06 @ 1:00PM|#

Dan T,

Presumably, willing financial support would come with emotional support. And encouraging women to have children with men who will be present in their child's life beyond a monthly check is a positive thing.

Dan T.|3.21.06 @ 1:01PM|#

Would we also be discouraging women from having more irresponsible sex? And if so, what would be the overall net effect on irresponsible sex?

Maybe, maybe not. Our sex drives tend to override the rational parts of our brain so it�s probably difficult to predict this sort of thing.

But one thing I am pretty confident in predicting is that even if �male abortion� is made the law of the land, their will still be children born to single mothers who cannot afford to support them. I think if you�re in favor of such a law you need to address what we should do about the children who are ultimately getting the shaft by the father bailing on them.

|3.21.06 @ 1:01PM|#

What I think some people are missing is that whether or not a woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy or not, there is NOTHING that a woman can choose that will allow her to absolve herself of all responsibility without also absolving the man. No matter what a woman chooses, the outcomes will be either a 50-50 split or 0 responsibility for anyone.

What the "financial abortion" people are arguing for is a way to stick the woman with 100% of the responsibility and the ability to walk away from something you helped create.

You may think that it isn't fair that the woman gets to decide wheter you both take on the burden or you both are absolved of it, but nature made it unfair when it was decided that only the woman get carry and deliver the baby.

Dan T.|3.21.06 @ 1:06PM|#

Dan T,
Presumably, willing financial support would come with emotional support. And encouraging women to have children with men who will be present in their child's life beyond a monthly check is a positive thing.

I agree, but I think women already attempt to do this for the most part. Unfortunately, there are only so many of those men to go around, and people are not perfectly able to predict what other people might do.

After all, in the �male abortion� situation the man will have pretty much free reign to convince a woman that he�ll be there for her and the child if she gets pregnant and then can bolt afterwards with no liability when it happens.

|3.21.06 @ 1:07PM|#

Reformed Republican: You have not read what I wrote. My position has nothing to do with what the mother did or did not. I am merely an innocent bystander who will somehow end up with the bills. I have no patience with those who want to have their fun and then walk away, letting complete strangers deal with the consequences.

(I take that the woman in question will be providing custodial care for the child - which should cut on the expenses, so she is not eluding them)

I strongly object to people dumping their problems on others and claiming to be striking a blow for freedom.

(Which reminds me of something who happened here not long ago. We had a motel company who was fighting the "onerous regulation" that the municipal governemtn was putting on it. They had quite a bit of support about fighting government interference, until some of them woke up to find raw sewage on their lawns. Seems that the "onerous regulation" the motel was fighitng had to do with the proper disposal of sewage - Moral, when someone talks about "striking a blow for freedom" count your fingers, and then your limbs, and then your relatives)

|3.21.06 @ 1:09PM|#

Would we also be discouraging women from having more irresponsible sex? And if so, what would be the overall net effect on irresponsible sex?

Maybe, maybe not. Our sex drives tend to override the rational parts of our brain so it�s probably difficult to predict this sort of thing.

You didn't seem to have quite this uncertainty when contemplating whether the *man* would be ecouraged to have more irresponsible sex.

Dan T.|3.21.06 @ 1:10PM|#

What I think some people are missing is that whether or not a woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy or not, there is NOTHING that a woman can choose that will allow her to absolve herself of all responsibility without also absolving the man. No matter what a woman chooses, the outcomes will be either a 50-50 split or 0 responsibility for anyone.
What the "financial abortion" people are arguing for is a way to stick the woman with 100% of the responsibility and the ability to walk away from something you helped create.
You may think that it isn't fair that the woman gets to decide wheter you both take on the burden or you both are absolved of it, but nature made it unfair when it was decided that only the woman get carry and deliver the baby.

Excellent - I think you hit the nail on the head.

Basically, some men here are complaining that they don�t have the choice to end a pregnancy that isn�t going to happen to them in the first place!

|3.21.06 @ 1:13PM|#

Imagine if a sophisticated, older man were to have sex with an eighteen year old woman from the boondocks (I know I'm playing stereotypes here, but bare with me). Who would be more responsible for the pregnancy? All things being equal, the man would be. Too assume that the issue is always 50/50 simply ignores reality and the specific nature of specific human relationships. You may think that the 50/50 notion is a good proxy for human relationships, but it really isn't

I think a clarification is in order here. When you say "Who would be more responsible for the pregnancy" do you mean "Who is responsible for the occurance of the pregnancy?", or "Who will be held financially responsible once the child is born".

If you meant the former, then you example is horse-shit. None of the details have any bearing on the amount responsibility. Both parties are equally responsible for the occurance of a pregnancy. The man, being distinguished or older doesn't get more responsibility, nor does the girl get a pass because she is a naive 18 year old. They are both 50-50 responsible for the pregnancy to have occured. If you disagree, then I would like to see you justify how the responsibility for pregnancy is not 50-50 since they both knew that nothing is 100% and they both decided to do it anyway.

Don't make assertions without justifying them. What makes the man more responsible in your example, other than the fact that you would rather have it be that way.

If you meant the latter, then obvisouly the burden won't be 50-50. Most likely, the one who has the better means, regardless of sex, will most likely bear a higher burden. You can argue whether thats fair or not, but how much to pay is a seperate discussion than if you should have to pay at all.

|3.21.06 @ 1:16PM|#

Phil in http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2005/11/new_at_reason_852.shtml:
Even being pro-choice, I have to say that if this is the argument that NARAL, et al. are going to hang their hats on, they're going to lose.
Phil here:
I knew Le Mur would be in here quickly to tell us all how horrible it is that people should actually be expected to support their children.

Choice for women, responsibility for men.
Who can spell "sexist hypocrite" for me?

Who should be required to pay for children created by F. Le Mur's sperm?

Since Phil's so eager to immediately degenerate into personal insults and other mindless drivel based solely on his own imagination, I'm sorely tempted to further lower myself to his base level by responding with my own personal circumstances, but I won't, only because they're irrelevant to the issues.

|3.21.06 @ 1:17PM|#

Wow - being straight must suck.

|3.21.06 @ 1:26PM|#

Wow - being straight must suck.

Not really. It sucks for people looking to duck their responsibilities and trying to stick others with the burden of their actions -- but for the people that accept that if pregnancy occurs its BOTH partners' problem and responsibility, life is just fine.

Gimme Back My Dog|3.21.06 @ 1:28PM|#

Dan T,

But men can do the same thing now. At least with the "financial abortion" scheme, women would see the true colors of the father while they could still terminate the pregnancy.

Adriana,

"have their fun and then walk away"

This says it all. You feel that men should be punished for having sex.

Rhywun,

This is just the tip of the fucking iceberg.

|3.21.06 @ 1:28PM|#

"Who should be required to pay for children created by F. Le Mur's sperm?"

Who should be required to pay for children created by Phil's eggs?

Wait. That didn't come out right. Oh well, I hope you get the idea.

|3.21.06 @ 1:33PM|#

"You have not read what I wrote. My position has nothing to do with what the mother did or did not. I am merely an innocent bystander who will somehow end up with the bills. I have no patience with those who want to have their fun and then walk away, letting complete strangers deal with the consequences."

Then force the woman, who chooses to have the child instead of aborting it, to work and pay for the child that she wants. Do not make the man, who does not want a child, work to support it.

I have no patience for those who want to have something they cannot afford, and expect others to pay for it.

|3.21.06 @ 1:34PM|#

I have no patience for those who want to have something they cannot afford, and expect others to pay for it.

You mean like guys who get a woman pregnant and expect her to pay all the expenses of raising the kid?

brian423|3.21.06 @ 1:35PM|#

ChicagoTom:
You may think that it isn't fair that the woman gets to decide wheter you both take on the burden or you both are absolved of it, but nature made it unfair when it was decided that only the woman get carry and deliver the baby.

Nature didn't create paternity suits or child support payments; the law did. You're confusing the unfairnesses that can't be legislated out of existence with the ones that can. We have to resign ourselves to the former, but there's no reason not to eliminate the latter.

|3.21.06 @ 1:36PM|#

Thank you, contentious ones, for giving me more reason to congratulate myself for just keeping it in my pants and sidestepping the whole issue.

|3.21.06 @ 1:36PM|#

I'm sorely tempted to further lower myself to his base level by responding with my own personal circumstances,

Are you saying that your personal circumstances are base?

|3.21.06 @ 1:39PM|#

"You mean like guys who get a woman pregnant and expect her to pay all the expenses of raising the kid?"

If the man does not want the child, and the woman does, then he is not expecting her to pay for something HE wants. He is expecting her to pay for what SHE wants.

|3.21.06 @ 1:39PM|#

"You mean like guys who get a woman pregnant and expect her to pay all the expenses of raising the kid?"

If the man does not want the child, and the woman does, then he is not expecting her to pay for something HE wants. He is expecting her to pay for what SHE wants.

|3.21.06 @ 1:40PM|#

Thoreau:
Libertarians are usually big on assumption of risk. Don't want to risk consequences? Then don't do the deed.

Well, let's get down to basics - If I have sex, pregnancy is not a possible consequence for me (or any other man, fertile or not). If a fertile woman has sex, pregnancy is very much a possible consequence for her.

This argument would involve less posturing and be far less of a waste of time if we all at least agreed to acknowledge that it's about one person being required to mitigate the consequences of someone else's freely-taken risk (in the case of the conception) and independent choice (in the matter of opting to give birth).

As it is, roughly have the posts here seem to revolve around the pretense men are running around spawning like salmon and female passers-by are getting stuck with babies they don't want.

|3.21.06 @ 1:42PM|#

but for the people that accept that if pregnancy occurs its BOTH partners' problem and responsibility

Obviously, there's a lot of disagreement on that.

|3.21.06 @ 1:43PM|#

"That the female anatomy happens to be the place where the kid is made should not mean that the man has no say in whether his child is born."

That actually sounds like an excellent reason why he should have no say in whether "his child" is born.

Gimme Back My Dog|3.21.06 @ 1:44PM|#

Dr. T,

This comment only makes sense if the man somehow prevents the woman from using birth control, forces her to carry the baby to term and then blocks her from adopting it out.

With all of these options, any woman who is raising a child has voluntarily decided to take on that responsibility.

|3.21.06 @ 1:46PM|#

"As it is, roughly have the posts"

roughly half the posts...

|3.21.06 @ 1:47PM|#

If the man does not want the child, and the woman does, then he is not expecting her to pay for something HE wants.

If the man does not want a child, what's he doing fucking that woman? Can't he keep in his pants long enough to find a woman who DOESN'T want a kid?

|3.21.06 @ 1:49PM|#

This argument would involve less posturing and be far less of a waste of time if we all at least agreed to acknowledge that it's about one person being required to mitigate the consequences of someone else's freely-taken risk (in the case of the conception) and independent choice (in the matter of opting to give birth).

You could just as easily turn it around and say the man is the one taking a risk, by dumping his sperm someplace where they might develop into a responsibility.

Gimme Back My Dog|3.21.06 @ 1:51PM|#

Rhywun,

The current system encourages women who want a kid to be less than forthcoming about their intentions.

|3.21.06 @ 1:52PM|#

You could just as easily turn it around and say the man is the one taking a risk, by dumping his sperm someplace where they might develop into a responsibility.

Or, hypothetically, if you and I were friends, you were single, and I introduced you to a coworker of mine I thought would be your type...dang, I'm taking a risk that you could get pregnant, to.

|3.21.06 @ 2:02PM|#

"If the man does not want a child, what's he doing fucking that woman? Can't he keep in his pants long enough to find a woman who DOESN'T want a kid?"

Same goes for a woman. What's she doing getting laid if she doesn't want a child? Can't she keep her pants on long enough to find a man who DOESN'T want a kid?

Except that, when a woman fucks up and unintentionally gets pregnant, she has the option to terminate.

|3.21.06 @ 2:02PM|#

Or, hypothetically, if you and I were friends, you were single, and I introduced you to a coworker of mine I thought would be your type...dang, I'm taking a risk that you could get pregnant, to.

Exactly what point are you trying to make by pretending that a matchmaker has the same status as a man who impregnates a woman?

|3.21.06 @ 2:03PM|#

I'm with Jose Ortega y Gasset. Good luck to all those guys with the pickup line "Hey, baby, wanna see my contract?"

|3.21.06 @ 2:05PM|#

"Well, let's get down to basics - If I have sex, pregnancy is not a possible consequence for me (or any other man, fertile or not). If a fertile woman has sex, pregnancy is very much a possible consequence for her."

Cripees - it took over a hundred posts to get that basic point out there. Eric gets the highly sought after "most incisive post" award. That is the starting point, after all, if you're talking about risks and voluntary decisions. Now you can certainly make an argument that the man assumed certain legal risks, but then that's begging the question, which is what legal consequences should there be?

|3.21.06 @ 2:08PM|#

Julian:

"That the female anatomy happens to be the place where the kid is made should not mean that the man has no say in whether his child is born."

That actually sounds like an excellent reason why he should have no say in whether "his child" is born.

Well, if he's stripped of all choice, then he should not be forced to bear the all the responsibility. It's either one way or the other. It's simply unjust to say "it's the woman's body, so she has all the say in the pregnancy" and then turn around and say "it's YOUR sperm, so YOU gotta fork over 1/3 of your income for 18 years!"

|3.21.06 @ 2:10PM|#

Same goes for a woman. What's she doing getting laid if she doesn't want a child?

True enough. If I was into chicks, I would seriously consider not fucking around without both parties signing a contract first.

|3.21.06 @ 2:12PM|#

"Or, hypothetically, if you and I were friends, you were single, and I introduced you to a coworker of mine I thought would be your type...dang, I'm taking a risk that you could get pregnant, to."

Exactly what point are you trying to make by pretending that a matchmaker has the same status as a man who impregnates a woman?

I wasn't talking about status, I was talking about taking a risk. If a man is taking a risk by having sex with a woman because she can get pregnant and choose to have a child, then someone who puts a man and a women into a situation where they could choose to have sex is also taking a risk. (Say - very hypothetically - you hit the guy up for child support, and he turns around and sues me for introducing him to someone who wanted to take him to the cleaners.)

The only pretense is the idea that someone's choosing to take a risk and agreeing to consequences, when it's in fact a matter of someone else getting another person's consequences imposed upon him.

|3.21.06 @ 2:12PM|#

"Good luck to all those guys with the pickup line "Hey, baby, wanna see my contract?"

There are quite a few political principles that would fail if put into practice within a casual social context---however, that speaks nothing, absolutely nothing, to the validity of said principle.

|3.21.06 @ 2:16PM|#

There are quite a few political principles that would fail if put into practice within a casual social context---however, that speaks nothing, absolutely nothing, to the validity of said principle.

This sounds suspiciously like "The Life of Brian": "Even though men can't actually have babies, we still support their right to have babies."

Follow the gourd!

|3.21.06 @ 2:18PM|#

If a man is taking a risk by having sex with a woman because she can get pregnant and choose to have a child, then someone who puts a man and a women into a situation where they could choose to have sex is also taking a risk. (Say - very hypothetically - you hit the guy up for child support, and he turns around and sues me for introducing him to someone who wanted to take him to the cleaners.)

Only if you also agree that fast-food companies should be held financially responsible for fat customers, since they're taking a "risk" by selling unhealthy deep-fried food. Me, I think the responsibility lies with the one who actually chews and swallows the food, just as in sexual matters the responsibility lies with the ones who actually had sex, not the friend, nightclub of Bible-study group who caused them to meet in the first place.

|3.21.06 @ 2:18PM|#

Nature didn't create paternity suits or child support payments; the law did. You're confusing the unfairnesses that can't be legislated out of existence with the ones that can. We have to resign ourselves to the former, but there's no reason not to eliminate the latter.

brian423,

I am doing no such thing. The laws and suits reflect the reality of life. The reality of life is that when you choose to have sex, there is a possibility that a pregnancy will occur. Once that child is born, BOTH PARENTS must be responsible for it. The purpose of these laws isn't to right the unfairness of nature. It is to compel those who don't want to take responsibility for their actions, to do so.

A lot of people seem to think that because a woman currently has the right to terminate a pregnancy that only she has to go through, that the men should be entitled to some kind of opt-out as well. And as soon as a man can have a child, then he should be able to opt out of pregnancy. But to equate opting out of a pregnancy with the opting out of the financial burden post-birth is dishonest.

What happens tomorrow if abortion is banned in the US ? This whole discussion is moot is it not? If there are no abortions any more, then what would be the argument for the father to "abort financial responsibility" ? To me this is where the dishonesty of the financial abortion position becomes quite obvious. What the "financial abortion" people really want is a get out of responsibility card. Sorry -- no such thing.

You have two choices and you know them going into it. Abstain from having sex, or be prepared to support a child. If you don't like the rules don't play the game. (OR play the game alone :))

|3.21.06 @ 2:19PM|#

Even though men can't actually have babies, we still support their right to have babies

I can't get a woman pregnant, but I should still have the right to get a woman pregnant.

|3.21.06 @ 2:20PM|#

Women should be 50% financially responsible for babies put up for adoption.

|3.21.06 @ 2:21PM|#

Thoreau: Monty Python sucks; I refuse to expose myself to it. So, that reference went soaring over my head. Either way, I'm quite serious. I wonder how many of your deeply held libertarian ideals would get your ass laughed out of many a social situation (and I'm not talking about H&R bar meetings). Does knowing that fact have any effect of whether you still support these ideals?

|3.21.06 @ 2:22PM|#

It's simply unjust to say "it's the woman's body, so she has all the say in the pregnancy" and then turn around and say "it's YOUR sperm, so YOU gotta fork over 1/3 of your income for 18 years!"

Perhaps. But if you knew you didn't want a kid, you shouldn't have been fucking her in the first place. If you can't restrain yourself or if she's tricking you into giving her a kid, you should be ensuring that both of you are using untampered-wth birth control. Failing all that, well... I don't have the answer.

|3.21.06 @ 2:23PM|#

Or, hey, let's de-sex this issue.

Jennifer, hypothetically, we run into each other at the park. For some reason, I challenge you to a 100-yard spring. Unlike me, you have a knee injury you know about that could possibly be badly aggravated by this run. I'm in no such danger. Let's say we both know about it, but we're very competitive and you want to try to beat me, so you say, "Screw that, I'm leaving you in the dust."

We race, and halfway across, you fall over - the knee injury badly aggravated. Really badly - you won't be able to so much as hobble without months of physical therapy.

Who's taking risk, here?

|3.21.06 @ 2:26PM|#

Evan, I have plenty of ideas that people find absurd. What does that have to do with anything?

|3.21.06 @ 2:27PM|#

Eric,

You are.

You're taking the risk of being identified as a misogynist.

|3.21.06 @ 2:28PM|#

Only if you also agree that fast-food companies should be held financially responsible for fat customers, since they're taking a "risk" by selling unhealthy deep-fried food. Me, I think the responsibility lies with the one who actually chews and swallows the food

So, it's not the free choice to offer something that could complicate someone's life that creates the risk, it's the accepting the thing that could complicate your own life.

Put one way, men are offering something that has a risk of a downside if women take it. Selling burgers has no chance of making a man fat, and having sex has no chance of making him pregnant.

|3.21.06 @ 2:29PM|#

You're taking the risk of being identified as a misogynist.

I'm identifiably libertarian, that's far worse in society.

|3.21.06 @ 2:30PM|#

Jennifer, hypothetically, we run into each other at the park. For some reason, I challenge you to a 100-yard spring. Unlike me, you have a knee injury you know about that could possibly be badly aggravated by this run. I'm in no such danger. Let's say we both know about it, but we're very competitive and you want to try to beat me, so you say, "Screw that, I'm leaving you in the dust."

I have no idea how my hypothetical knee injury relates to the topic at hand, which is who should be responsible when two people create a third human being that can't take care of itself and needs someone to care for him instead.

|3.21.06 @ 2:31PM|#

Put one way, men are offering something that has a risk of a downside if women take it

Put another way, women are offering something that has a risk of a downside if men take it.

|3.21.06 @ 2:32PM|#

"What happens tomorrow if abortion is banned in the US ? This whole discussion is moot is it not? If there are no abortions any more, then what would be the argument for the father to "abort financial responsibility" ? To me this is where the dishonesty of the financial abortion position becomes quite obvious. What the "financial abortion" people really want is a get out of responsibility card. Sorry -- no such thing."

What dishonesty? I am not arguing for a situation where abortions are illegal but men can opt out. I am arguing against the current situation where men have no choice after conception but are stuck with the financial responsibility. If neither party has a choice, the situation is different.

"You have two choices and you know them going into it. Abstain from having sex, or be prepared to support a child. If you don't like the rules don't play the game. (OR play the game alone :))"

The same argument could be made against abortion. Are you arguing against abortion, or does this only apply to men?

|3.21.06 @ 2:34PM|#

Thoreau:
Evan, I have plenty of ideas that people find absurd. What does that have to do with anything?

Because the "yeah, whatever, good luck getting society to agree with you" bit is a startlingly lame comeback argument for you. Or, well, anyone posting on Hit and Run.

|3.21.06 @ 2:34PM|#

Perhaps. But if you knew you didn't want a kid, you shouldn't have been fucking her in the first place.

That's what all the financial abortion people don't want to accept. They act like they have no choices. But they only consider the choices that start after the pregnancy occurs. You have a choice. If you don't want to be a father or don't want to support offspring, then you can abstain or get yourself fixed. But to these people "don't have sex" isn't an option.

Once they choose to have sex despite knowing that they are fertile, any pregnancy that happens is BOTH OF THEIR PROBLEMS

Its a twisted world view that a man should be able to have all the sex they want since he can't get pregnant. There have been a number of sickening comments that imply "well since the woman is the one who gets pregnant, it should be her responsibility to prevent/support/whatever" It's the worst kind of cop-out. Who gets pregnant isn't the issue, the child is. Both had a hand in creating the child -- in fact they were both half responsible. Therefore they should both bear the burden.

|3.21.06 @ 2:35PM|#

I have no idea how my hypothetical knee injury relates to the topic at hand

You took a risk in doing something with me. I was, however, in no risk of the same thing happening to me.

|3.21.06 @ 2:38PM|#

Put another way, women are offering something that has a risk of a downside if men take it.

Only if someone else forces them to suffer a downside, much like the "women who get pregnant from consensual sex knew the risks they were taking, so we should ban them from having abortions," tack some Republicans favor.

|3.21.06 @ 2:39PM|#

ChicagoTom:

"The laws and suits reflect the reality of life."

No, they reflect the reality of life before abortion was legal, readily available and for the most part socially acceptable. Now that pregnancy can be determined with a $10 kit from CVS, and an abortion is legal and available, this brings to the table another option: terminating the pregnancy after the intercourse has taken place, but before the fertilized egg becomes a "child". This changes the entire dynamic of the situation for all involved---and the question is, should the law reflect this? I argue it should.

"The purpose of these laws isn't to right the unfairness of nature. It is to compel those who don't want to take responsibility for their actions, to do so."

But when you live in a society of laws that is built upon the assumption that we are all created equal, then the overriding meme of that society is to equalize all under the law. Not to "right the unfairness of nature", but to make an attempt at fairness under the previous assumption of equality.

You are correct that the law should be used to compel those who don't want to take responsibility for their actions, to do so. However, the question here is whether the application of responsibility under the law changes when the couple actually has a real choice, post-intercourse, over whether to have the child.

"But to equate opting out of a pregnancy with the opting out of the financial burden post-birth is dishonest."

While they may not be 50/50 equal, it is still patently unjust to say that one carries 100% of the weight in a situation, while the other on carries 0%. Which is precisely what the law sayeth.

"What happens tomorrow if abortion is banned in the US ? This whole discussion is moot is it not?"

Yes, Tom, it is moot. WTF is your point? It would also be moot if all the men in the world died tonight---but what exactly is the point of raising this hypothetical?

"If there are no abortions any more, then what would be the argument for the father to "abort financial responsibility" ?"

There would be no argument, because there would be no post-intercourse choice that could be made by either party.

"To me this is where the dishonesty of the financial abortion position becomes quite obvious. What the "financial abortion" people really want is a get out of responsibility card. Sorry -- no such thing."

Hogwash. There IS such a thing, and it currently exists for women. It's called an abortion.

"ou have two choices and you know them going into it. Abstain from having sex, or be prepared to support a child. If you don't like the rules don't play the game. (OR play the game alone :))"

Again, this argument could be used to outlaw abortion, Tom. A woman knew she could get pregnant going into it---so abstain from having sex, or be prepared to birth and support a child. And if that's the way you want it, fine----at least your position would be consistent. But it's intellectually inconsistent for people who support a women's right to abort (for anything other than medical safety reasons) to not support a man's right to financially abort. Consistency is all I am after. Nor should women be allowed to shirk the responsibility of her child by putting it up for adoption. She should, as someone just said, have to pay 50% of its support payments for 18 years.

|3.21.06 @ 2:39PM|#

Redormed Republican,

I am arguing that whether the option of abortion is on the table has absolutely no bearing on the fact that a man should not have the ability/right to walk away from the financial responsibility of the offspring he helped create.

Abortion is merely the right to terminate a pregnancy. If the right to abortion exists, then anyone who can get pregnant should have the right to an abortion. It has and should have no bearing on what should happen once a child is born. Once that child is born, whether you were "tricked" or you thought you were sterile or whatever, you are and should be on the hook, no matter how you got there. (Assuming of course that it is your offspring)

|3.21.06 @ 2:41PM|#

Its a twisted world view that a man should be able to have all the sex they want since he can't get pregnant.

I missed anyone saying anything like that, but that's not unusual for this heated an argument.

|3.21.06 @ 2:42PM|#

Dr. t:

I think you're opening up a whole new industry in pre-coital contracts (PCC). I think a lot of lawyers would be willing to work on them pro-boner.

"Hey, baby, you wanna see my PCC? I think you will really dig my extended warranty!"

|3.21.06 @ 2:44PM|#

Eric-

OK, fair point. I was trying to say that if we were in Libertopia, and all of these things were handled by contract, most men would probably find themselves 50% responsible anyway because women will insist on it.

And, for the record, I fully support the right of any two consenting sexual partners (or more, if you're into that sort of thing...) to sign whatever contracts they want. But if you can't get her to sign a contract that divides the responsibility in some manner other than 50-50, your choices are to either accept the risk (if she's still willing to sleep with you after you made that request) or not have sex.

|3.21.06 @ 2:47PM|#

ChicagoTom:

"That's what all the financial abortion people don't want to accept. They act like they have no choices. But they only consider the choices that start after the pregnancy occurs. You have a choice. If you don't want to be a father or don't want to support offspring, then you can abstain or get yourself fixed. But to these people "don't have sex" isn't an option."

That's horseshit. Nobody is saying that people shouldn't be responsible and exercise whatever level of abstainence they feel is safe. But when a choice DOES exist post-intercourse (and it certainly does), that changes the dynamic of the application of responsibility. But that's something all you anti-financial-abortion people don't want to accept.

"Once they choose to have sex despite knowing that they are fertile, any pregnancy that happens is BOTH OF THEIR PROBLEMS"

Yes---and the women has many, many options to extricate herself from the responsibility of having this child. Abortion. Adoption. Abandon it at the ER. Men have none of these options. Yes, it's BOTH OF THEIR PROBLEMS! And BOTH OF THEM should be able to have a say in the choice that is presented to them by modern medical technology.

"Its a twisted world view that a man should be able to have all the sex they want since he can't get pregnant. There have been a number of sickening comments that imply "well since the woman is the one who gets pregnant, it should be her responsibility to prevent/support/whatever" It's the worst kind of cop-out. Who gets pregnant isn't the issue, the child is. Both had a hand in creating the child -- in fact they were both half responsible. Therefore they should both bear the burden."

If we're talking about AFTER the termination window, then, this statement is 100% valid. But as long as a choice exists, the responsibility dynamic is different. What part of this do you not understand?

Timothy|3.21.06 @ 2:47PM|#

Thoreau: Now THERE'S an interesting Ph.D. thesis, determine the equilibrium outcome of pre-coital contracts. I'm guessing that you're right and it's 50/50, but I still think there's enough there to write a paper on.

|3.21.06 @ 2:48PM|#

Only if someone else forces them to suffer a downside

The downside here is "help support a child you helped to create." Responsibility can be such a bummer.

|3.21.06 @ 2:50PM|#

OK, fair point. I was trying to say that if we were in Libertopia, and all of these things were handled by contract, most men would probably find themselves 50% responsible anyway because women will insist on it.

I could buy a commonly-accepted equal division for contraception and even abortion, but I'm dubious that on a purely consensual basis, all that many men will opt for the "We're just on a date, but if you get pregnant and decide you really do want a kid, you get a percentage of my take-home for 18 years" agreement.

|3.21.06 @ 2:50PM|#

So, to recap, my stance is actually not so far from that of the other posters, even if my attitude is very different: Divide responsibility however the hell you want. But if there is no contract, we need some sort of default assumption. And 50-50 has the support of tradition as well as the intuitive appeal of the fact that it takes two to procreate.

|3.21.06 @ 2:52PM|#

The downside here is "help support a child you helped to create." Responsibility can be such a bummer.

Fine, fine. Do I write the check to the guy I introduced you to or directly to you? I lost track.

|3.21.06 @ 2:54PM|#

Tom:

"I am arguing that whether the option of abortion is on the table has absolutely no bearing on the fact that a man should not have the ability/right to walk away from the financial responsibility of the offspring he helped create."

But your argument is twisted in a thousand ways, man! Why? Because the entire question here is whether the offspring will actually be created or not. When there is a CHOICE (abortion), then a child has not been created yet.

Tom, your entire argument assumes that once an egg is fertilized, it is an "offspring". That is why abortion has a HUGE bearing on this issue.

|3.21.06 @ 2:54PM|#

And 50-50 has the support of tradition as well as the intuitive appeal of the fact that it takes two to procreate.

Tradition and intuitive appeal as the justification? Shades of Kass.

|3.21.06 @ 2:55PM|#

"I have no idea how my hypothetical knee injury relates to the topic at hand"

It's an attempt to disengage the emotional side of the issue by rephrasing the "risk" elements in gender neutral terms.

What I find amazing is that no one has responded to my point that sperm is not the definition of fatherhood. Nor are eggs the definition of motherhood.

Women can go to sperm banks. Women can get their eggs sterilized and carried to term in another woman's body, or get eggs from another woman. Even if we eliminate technology, there's still the problem of menage-a-troi. I bring that up for the sole purpose of pointing out that two men's sperm can enter a woman in a matter of minutes, which one fertilizes the egg is then a matter of pure chance.

Since when is pure chance a determinant in court?

Why is it that everyone's hung up on one and only one method of impregnation? There will be no progress until we get past that.

|3.21.06 @ 2:56PM|#

"So, to recap, my stance is actually not so far from that of the other posters, even if my attitude is very different: Divide responsibility however the hell you want. But if there is no contract, we need some sort of default assumption. And 50-50 has the support of tradition as well as the intuitive appeal of the fact that it takes two to procreate."

If there was a pre-coital contract option, I could accept that. Unfortunately, under current law, any such contract would be meaningless. Either way, I think the situation should change from the current form.

|3.21.06 @ 2:57PM|#

But when a choice DOES exist post-intercourse (and it certainly does), that changes the dynamic of the application of responsibility.

I have little sympathy for men OR women who have no self-control and choose to ignore all the warnings before having sex. All of you who are arguing for "male abortion" are basically admitting that you can't control yourselves.

|3.21.06 @ 2:58PM|#

Fine, fine. Do I write the check to the guy I introduced you to or directly to you? I lost track.

You really believe that your "the matchmaker is equivalent to the guy who actually has sex" analogy makes some sort of brilliant point, don't you?

|3.21.06 @ 2:59PM|#

No, they reflect the reality of life before abortion was legal, readily available and for the most part socially acceptable. Now that pregnancy can be determined with a $10 kit from CVS, and an abortion is legal and available, this brings to the table another option: terminating the pregnancy after the intercourse has taken place, but before the fertilized egg becomes a "child". This changes the entire dynamic of the situation for all involved---and the question is, should the law reflect this? I argue it should.

First, let's not pretend that abortion is some kind of absolute right. It is very possible that in the coming years, abortions will not be legal and available. Look at South Dakota and a lot of other states that have trigger laws if Roe is overturned. But barring that, the "dynamic" is not changed at all. You are the father of a child that is born. You are responsible. NO matter how badly you want to change that dynamic it will not. That is your child -- you are responsible.

So to answer your question...
Since the laws governing abortion and the ability to terminate pregnancy may change, the laws concerning responsibility once the child is born should be independant of whether or not abortion is available. You will always be the father of that child once it is born. That child will always be your responsibility until 18 years of age.

And the laws should be and are written in a way to reflect that.

Evan, you are the one being inconsistant. The right to abort belongs to those who can get pregnant. The "burden" of supporting the child that you created falls on those who are fertile and can produce offspring.

Those two things are not dependant on one another -- no matter how much you want it to be.

Why is it so hard to accept that since you can't get pregnant you can't have an abortion, but since you can impregnate someone and that someone might not want/or be able to have an abortion that you are on the hook once your child is born? It may seem unfair (and its only "unfair" if you feel you should have the right to consequence free sex) but its just as unfair that the woman is the only one who can get pregnant.

|3.21.06 @ 2:59PM|#

Thoreau:

"Divide responsibility however the hell you want. But if there is no contract, we need some sort of default assumption. And 50-50 has the support of tradition as well as the intuitive appeal of the fact that it takes two to procreate."

Yet, tradition and the intuitive appeal both ignore the fact that modern medical technology has presented the parents with a post-intercourse choice of whether to proceed or not. You think that this should just be ignored?

|3.21.06 @ 2:59PM|#

Wow, this is some topic.

One thing I'd like to add: children are not all burdensome and evil to have around (disclaimer: this is my opinion, my partner and I agreed to children before we had them). They're actually a lot of fun after they stop being babies and they can play monopoly or baseball or simply yell at the nanny staters on TV with you.

Am I the only parent who posts here?

|3.21.06 @ 3:00PM|#

You really believe that your "the matchmaker is equivalent to the guy who actually has sex" analogy makes some sort of brilliant point, don't you?

You really think disdain is an argument, don't you?

|3.21.06 @ 3:01PM|#

Timothy-

My guess is that the more desirable women could persuade men to sign contracts where the man accepts more than 50% of the responsibility. And women who encounter obstacles in the dating scene could make themselves more desirable by agreeing to accept more than 50% of the responsibility.

But I'll bet that most women would insist on 50-50.

And Eric, I hear what you're saying, but for every man who's reluctant to sign up for 18 years of child support over one night in bed, there's a woman who doesn't want to have to raise a kid with zero help because of one night in bed.

|3.21.06 @ 3:02PM|#

"I have no idea how my hypothetical knee injury relates to the topic at hand"
It's an attempt to disengage the emotional side of the issue by rephrasing the "risk" elements in gender neutral terms.

But again, the knee injury does not result in the formation of a third person who has absolutely no respect for libertarian ideals and thus requires someone else to support it for several years.

|3.21.06 @ 3:03PM|#

You really think disdain is an argument, don't you?

I'm imitating things you've done in the past. I do so admire your technique.

|3.21.06 @ 3:03PM|#

Rhywun:

"All of you who are arguing for "male abortion" are basically admitting that you can't control yourselves."

Bullshit. I've never gotten anyone pregnant. I have been with the same woman for 8 years. Don't tell me what I'm admitting. That's like saying "all you people who argue for female abortion are basically admitting that you can't control yourselves" or "all you people who want civil rights for murderers are just admitting that you can't control yourselves". Arguing for fairness in light of the options present is not admitting anything except that we favor equality and fairness under the law.

|3.21.06 @ 3:04PM|#

"Am I the only parent who posts here?"

No. Mine's grown now. It was great, even when he was a baby. Although those teenage years...

|3.21.06 @ 3:04PM|#

But again, the knee injury does not result in the formation of a third person who has absolutely no respect for libertarian ideals and thus requires someone else to support it for several years.

And you will never, ever manage to give a decent explanation as to why someone other than the mother who chose to bear the baby should be forced to support him or her.

|3.21.06 @ 3:05PM|#

Arguing for fairness in light of the options present is not admitting anything except that we favor equality and fairness under the law.

But again, you are trying to force equality where none exists, due to biology. Based on your previous suggestion that a man who can afford it should be allowed to force the woman to bear his child even if she doesn't want to, it sounds like your beef isn't with inequality, but with inequality tilted against you. But inequality wherein a man can force a woman to do things with her body--hey, that's just making things fair, right?

|3.21.06 @ 3:06PM|#

I'm imitating things you've done in the past. I do so admire your technique.

Sorry, I always throw in an argument. I don't act smug and pretend arguments against my ideas haven't been made.

|3.21.06 @ 3:06PM|#

"Am I the only parent who posts here?"

Nope. I'm a single dad here.

|3.21.06 @ 3:07PM|#

Some people on this thread are positing that there could be rules that are more fair than the current rules.

Certain classes of arguments against new rules do not make any sense. For example, if the hypothetical new rule is that under all circumstances the woman is 100% responsible, fiscally and otherwise, for the child, it doesn't make sense to argue that the man should be 50% responsible, because he knew going into it that the woman could get pregnant, because, in this hypothetical world, he knew that he would be 0% responsible.

There are perfectly valid reasons to object to a "woman bears 100% of the responsibility" rule, but saying things like "Don't want to risk consequences? Then don't do the deed." is nonsensical, which is what Eric was trying to point out at 1:40. I'm not advocating woman bear 100% of the responsibility, and I don't think Eric is either; I only use 100% as an example, to-hopefully-sharpen the contrast.

Personally, I am more concerned for the child than either of the parents. I also suspect that technology will solve these issues long before changes to the legal system could. Furthermore, my sperm is frozen and locked away and I use a condom and/or dental dam when I'm having sex with anyone other than my wife, regardless of his sex. I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I do think that if it were possible to means-test to prevent lack of resources from harming the kid, that it's more fair for the woman to shoulder more than half the fiscal responsibility, since she is much more than half responsible for the birth of the child.

Oops ... by the time I wrote this, Thoreau (the person I quote above) clarified his position. From a practical matter, I don't even disagree with it, not because I think it's the most fair, but because I don't see how a transition to a more fair method could be made.

Native NY,

My wife and I have three children, none accidents. They're a lot of fun, and as long as they do it all by telecommuting (so nobody can check their age), I can have them working in a coal mine and turn a profit. No burden whatsoever.

|3.21.06 @ 3:08PM|#

All of you who are arguing for "male abortion" are basically admitting that you can't control yourselves.

Boy, there's an argument you don't see around here do often.

"All of you who are arguing against warrantless wiretapping are basically admitting that you have something to hide."

|3.21.06 @ 3:08PM|#

And you will never, ever manage to give a decent explanation as to why someone other than the mother who chose to bear the baby should be forced to support him or her.

Because without the man's sperm, the baby wouldn't exist. Everybody here is pretending the argument is "why should I give money to a woman if I don't want to", rather than "why should I be responsible for a kid I helped to create."

The answer, of course, is that you helped to create it.

|3.21.06 @ 3:08PM|#

I guess that would add yet another incentive to get a girl liquored up at the bar.. so she would be too sloshed to read the fine print on the pre-coital contract before signing it.

Plus the lighting in most bars sucks anyway..

|3.21.06 @ 3:09PM|#

And Eric, I hear what you're saying, but for every man who's reluctant to sign up for 18 years of child support over one night in bed, there's a woman who doesn't want to have to raise a kid with zero help because of one night in bed.

I emphathize (aside from the woman who decides to have a kid she and the guy didn't intend to, but wouldn't want to raise that kid without his dragooned help). I would hope both parties would be more careful than in the current system (and that precautions would be part of those agreements).

|3.21.06 @ 3:09PM|#

But your argument is twisted in a thousand ways, man! Why? Because the entire question here is whether the offspring will actually be created or not. When there is a CHOICE (abortion), then a child has not been created yet.

NO Evan, your argument is twisted. You're argument basically is : "Since I can't force a woman to abort a kid I don't want, I should be able to walk away from that kid if its born"

My argument is : "Since the choice to have an abortion lies with whoever is pregnant, the other party will have to live with whatever decisions the pregnant party makes."

You may think its unfair, but life is unfair. You had your chance to not be responsible, but you decided to stick your dick in her anyway. Now post pregnancy, you want to whine about how you dont have as many choices as the person who is pregnant? Why do you deserve the same choices as her? Are you pregnant? Will you give birth? Are you assuming the same physical health risks? Are your circumstances the same? No they aren't. So explain why, since the woman obviously bears a much higher burden when it comes to pregnancy and carrying the baby to term, you deserve the exact same choices and rights as her?

|3.21.06 @ 3:11PM|#

Tom:

"First, let's not pretend that abortion is some kind of absolute right. It is very possible that in the coming years, abortions will not be legal and available."

No, let's not---because I don't have all day to sit around here and debate this argument in the context of parallel universes. Let's debate it based on the laws that are in place today. OK?

"Since the laws governing abortion and the ability to terminate pregnancy may change, the laws concerning responsibility once the child is born should be independant of whether or not abortion is available."

You're a piece of work. Really, Tom. Yes, the law should just ignore pertinent facts simply because those facts might change in the future. WTF? Are you serious? I'm beginning to feel like someone is putting me on.

No, Tom, we cannot, and I WILL NOT ignore extremely important and pertinent facts, simply because those facts might change in the future. If they change, then we'll talk.

"Evan, you are the one being inconsistant. The right to abort belongs to those who can get pregnant. The "burden" of supporting the child that you created falls on those who are fertile and can produce offspring."

So, the right to abort only belongs to those who can birth the child...but the burden of supporting that child falls on both parents? Jesus...you really are serious, aren't you? If you're going to take 1/3 of my income for 18 years, then don't you think I should have some kind of role in choosing whether or not to proceed with the pregnancy? And don't start blathering on about how you made that choice when you stuck your wang in her. That's BS...because the choice currently exists to abort. And just because you say that the right to abort belongs solely to the female doesn't mean that it's the "right" viewpoint. I respectfully disagree.

"Why is it so hard to accept that since you can't get pregnant you can't have an abortion, but since you can impregnate someone and that someone might not want/or be able to have an abortion that you are on the hook once your child is born?"

You just slipped up. Once your child is born. Exactly. But we're not talking about after it's born. We're talking about the termination window. Choices can and must be made.

if you continue to ignore my repeated attempts at explaining this logic to you, I'll just have to let it go, I suppose. I feel like I'm trying to debate with a deaf person.

|3.21.06 @ 3:12PM|#

Evan,

Arguing for fairness in light of the options present is not admitting anything except that we favor equality and fairness under the law.

Except you're arguing for fairness in contradiction to the laws of nature. You keep dragging abortion into it, as if a man could get pregnant and have one. I believe ChicagoTom already pointed this out.

|3.21.06 @ 3:14PM|#

"You're argument basically is : "Since I can't force a woman to abort a kid I don't want, I should be able to walk away from that kid if its born"

My argument is : "Since the choice to have an abortion lies with whoever is pregnant, the other party will have to live with whatever decisions the pregnant party makes."

Yet, why should that choice to have an abortion lie solely with whoever is pregnant? You keep stating that as though it's a universal truth. I am simply debating whether this is a valid assertion.

Repeating the same contentious assertion over and over again doesn't make it any more valid.

|3.21.06 @ 3:14PM|#

Because without the man's sperm, the baby wouldn't exist.

Without my introducing two people, that man's sperm wouldn't have gotten near that woman.

You keep trying to push the responsibility off on the man because he enables the woman to get pregnant, but then act befuddled when I ask "well, why doesn't it continue on to the next enabler?"

And yes, there's a baby involved. I raptly await your explanation as to how that has any bearing on dividing up responsibility, since we're all agreed that someone has to take responsibility for the baby.

|3.21.06 @ 3:14PM|#

MNG-

Dave Chapelle did a skit on pre-coital contracts. His skit had more to do with getting consent to avoid charges of assault. There were also boxes on the form which women could check to consent to various acts that might not be considered part of the standard encounter. And he had a non-disclosure agreement so that if the guy embarrassed himself she couldn't tell the world.

Toss in child support agreements and we could make sex in America every bit as lawsuit-driven as any other activity! They've already removed the swingsets from a lot of playgrounds to avoid lawsuits, just imagine what sort of toys might have to be removed from bedrooms!

Somebody get Dave W. in here to explain how the tort system can make sex safer for everybody. And why your date should be able to sue you if you buy her a dessert sweetened with corn syrup.

|3.21.06 @ 3:16PM|#

Must...refrain...from joke...about...gun...that...fires...when...bumped...

Dan T.|3.21.06 @ 3:16PM|#

Let�s lay it out � here are the choices:

1.Whether or not to have sex � both parties have choice.

2.If you get pregnant, you have the choice to get an abortion. If you do not get pregnant, you do not have that choice, but then again you don�t need it. This is true for both parties.

3.If the baby is born, both parties have responsibility to support him or her financially.

4.If the baby is not born, neither party has responsibility support him or her financially, as no child exists.

So what�s unfair again? Both parties have equal choices all the way through.

|3.21.06 @ 3:16PM|#

"Except you're arguing for fairness in contradiction to the laws of nature. You keep dragging abortion into it, as if a man could get pregnant and have one."

"Dragging abortion into it"? Ahem, um, I "dragged abortion into it" because the right of a woman to shirk the responsibility of having a child should not be exclusive to her, unless the responsibility also is. It has nothing to do with whether a man can get pregnant or not----it has everything to do with the man having absolutely no say in something that will affect his life profoundly---while the women has all the power to choose.

|3.21.06 @ 3:17PM|#

Toss in child support agreements and we could make sex in America every bit as lawsuit-driven as any other activity!

So, no change?

|3.21.06 @ 3:18PM|#

Dan T.:

You're forgetting the other part:

2.5) The man wants to keep the child, but the woman aborts it anyway, and there's nothing he can do about it.

|3.21.06 @ 3:20PM|#

You keep trying to push the responsibility off on the man because he enables the woman to get pregnant, but then act befuddled when I ask "well, why doesn't it continue on to the next enabler?"

And as I said before, that's no different than "the restaurant is responsible for making customers fat."

And yes, there's a baby involved. I raptly await your explanation as to how that has any bearing on dividing up responsibility,

Well, I've never said that the man should be responsible for 100% of child-care costs; the responsibility should be divided between the parents.

Yet, why should that choice to have an abortion lie solely with whoever is pregnant? You keep stating that as though it's a universal truth. I am simply debating whether this is a valid assertion.

Evan, I made a response to this earlier, but it may have gotten overlooked since about 20 posts appeared simultaneously. So I'll cut-n-paste it here again:

you are trying to force equality where none exists, due to biology. Based on your previous suggestion that a man who can afford it should be allowed to force the woman to bear his child even if she doesn't want to, it sounds like your beef isn't with inequality, but with inequality tilted against you. But inequality wherein a man can force a woman to do things with her body--hey, that's just making things fair, right?

|3.21.06 @ 3:21PM|#

I will note, for the purposes of disclosure, that my mother was a single parent through most of my childhood, and the child support payments were fitful at best. Of course, the guy in question had been married to my mother and had agreed to divvy up that responsibility.

|3.21.06 @ 3:24PM|#

Since some folks think our legal system is rooted in Judeo-Christian law..

Didn't King Solomon suggest cutting the baby in half?

Problem solved.

|3.21.06 @ 3:25PM|#

"You keep trying to push the responsibility off on the man because he enables the woman to get pregnant, but then act befuddled when I ask "well, why doesn't it continue on to the next enabler?" "

And as I said before, that's no different than "the restaurant is responsible for making customers fat."

If you're willing to deem the chef responsible, why not the restaurant or the food critic who gave a good review?

Well, I've never said that the man should be responsible for 100% of child-care costs; the responsibility should be divided between the parents.

I'm more than happy to say that any guy who is a parent is responsible for a child. Having sex is not parenting, though.

Dan T.|3.21.06 @ 3:25PM|#

Now let�s look at the �male abortion� option:

1.When a child is conceived, both parties have (a future) 50% financial responsibility for him or her.

2.If a woman has an abortion, both parties have 0% financial responsibility for him or her.

3.If the woman gives birth, both parties have 50% financial responsibly for the baby

4.However, if the father has a �male abortion�, he has 0% financial responsibility and then women suddenly has 100% responsibly.

So it seems that this is the option that is unfair since there is never a time when the woman can put 100% of the responsibility on the man.

|3.21.06 @ 3:26PM|#

"3.If the baby is born, both parties have responsibility to support him or her financially."

If this is true we should force single mothers to work and provide an arbitrary amount of money to the child under threat of jail time. She should have to account for expenses to verify that money is actually going to the child, not herself. Same with the money received as child support.

|3.21.06 @ 3:27PM|#

So, the right to abort only belongs to those who can birth the child...but the burden of supporting that child falls on both parents?

Absolutely! Finally you see the light. These are two very different circumstances (birthing vs raising) and different rules apply.

Jesus...you really are serious, aren't you? If you're going to take 1/3 of my income for 18 years, then don't you think I should have some kind of role in choosing whether or not to proceed with the pregnancy?

I or the mother or anyone else aren't taking a third of your salary, you are providing financial support to your offsprince. But your choice of phrasing is very telling.

Of course you should have a role. But we will disagree one what that role is. You have a role. That role is an advisory and support role. You can tell your partner how you feel, and support her and her decisions. You can discuss how you feel about kids and unwanted pregnancy before you start having sex. And post pregnancy you can offer advice and opinion.
But you will never EVER get the role that you really want: to dictate and control the pregnancy.

Someone has to make the final call. Someone has to be the head chef. There can be only one President/King/Final decision maker. That someone is the woman since all the events of pregnancy will be occuring within her body.

And don't start blathering on about how you made that choice when you stuck your wang in her. That's BS...because the choice currently exists to abort. And just because you say that the right to abort belongs solely to the female doesn't mean that it's the "right" viewpoint. I respectfully disagree.

Right, because explaining to you that you know the potential risks of your actions is "blathering on".

You can disagree all you want, it's your choice. But the fact remains that you don't get and should not get the same decision making rights when it comes to a pregnancy since you arent the pregnant one.

Dan T.|3.21.06 @ 3:28PM|#

Dan T.:

You're forgetting the other part:

2.5) The man wants to keep the child, but the woman aborts it anyway, and there's nothing he can do about it.

But if the man gets pregnant and wants to abort the child but the woman doesn't, there's nothing she can do about it, either.

So it's fair. The same rule applies to both the man and the woman with regards to abortion. If you get pregnant, you can have one without the others' permission.

|3.21.06 @ 3:29PM|#

I'm more than happy to say that any guy who is a parent is responsible for a child. Having sex is not parenting, though.

Having sex is not parenting, but it's a well-known way to become a parent nonetheless.

|3.21.06 @ 3:30PM|#

"So it seems that this is the option that is unfair since there is never a time when the woman can put 100% of the responsibility on the man."

5. Woman CHOOSES to give birth. Man takes sole financial responsiblity for the child. Man pays all medical costs, perhaps some sort of compensation for time.

Not exactly 100% for the man, but strictly voluntary for the women. Still more fair than the current system.

|3.21.06 @ 3:33PM|#

"you are trying to force equality where none exists, due to biology."

I'm not trying to force equality---just trying to equalize the law so that nobody gets stuck into a position where they have 50% of the responsibility, but 0% of the choice, even though a choice clearly exists.

"Based on your previous suggestion that a man who can afford it should be allowed to force the woman to bear his child even if she doesn't want to, it sounds like your beef isn't with inequality, but with inequality tilted against you."

This has nothing to do with whether it's tilted against me or not. Personally, there's almost zero chance that I'll ever be in a situation like this...so I'm simply a disinterested but passionate observer. I have no real personal stake in this. Yes, the fact that the woman is the one who has to bear the child should be reflected, to an extent, in the law. Perhaps a man being able to prevent an abortion is where that could be reflected. I'm still not sure about that one.

"But inequality wherein a man can force a woman to do things with her body--hey, that's just making things fair, right?"

Perhaps it's not---but neither is sticking a man with 50% of the responsibility, but 0% of the post-intercourse decision.

But, at the same time, maybe that egg that got fertilized by his sperm is more than just a financial burden to him---yet, he still has no say.

No say, but half the responsibility, is simply not fair. I'll say it again. Simply because a woman has to go through the 9 month process of birthing a child doesn't mean that men are nothing but a sperm donator.

|3.21.06 @ 3:33PM|#

Something I'm not clear on. Is the choice to leave a child up for adoption entirely at the woman's discretion? In other words, can a woman who doesn't want the financial burden of raising a child she helped create simply say, "Nope. I'm putting the child up for adoption. If the father wants it, he can pay for it."

Here we have an apples to apples comparison of the parental opt out. If women can't do it and men can't do it either, the system is fair up to the limit of fudging with unilateral abortion decisions on the part of women.

|3.21.06 @ 3:34PM|#

Dan, you're a real comedian.

|3.21.06 @ 3:37PM|#

ChicagoTom -

But you are ignoring the whole point of the article Cathy wrote - which is, any argument you make is the same as a pro-life argument. If you say the man has the ability to avoid this outcome by not having sex, well, gee...where do I hear that blared constantly and unendingly? Could it be the pro-life camp? So, unless you're willing to admit that the pro-life camp is right, you can't categorically deny the argument that men should have the same right.

And again, I challenged the whole "having a parasite in your body for 9 months is worse than having a parasite on your life for 18 years" argument above - and noone was able to refute it.

Further, if you argue that being on the hook for 18 years is a forseeable consequence of sex, all the complications of pregnancy are a forseeable consequence of sex. If the sex act binds men to 18 years of servitude, I can see no principled objection to it binding women to 9 months of servitude.

If the man "financially aborts" in the first trimester, you are not talking about a kid. Just like you are not talking about a kid when the woman physically aborts. If the woman chooses to bring the child into the world at that point, and raise it - it is her choice, knowing all of the circumstances. No force is involved.

It really is tortured to try to argue that a woman has a right to kill a fetus but a man can't have the right to disclaim financial responsibility for it. In your world, killing is better than not subsidizing?

|3.21.06 @ 3:37PM|#

Having sex is not parenting, but it's a well-known way to become a parent nonetheless.

It's a pretty popular one, but what does that have to do with forcing others to fund one's choice - not assumption of risk, choice - to become a parent by bringing a pregnancy to term?

If a single woman is pregnant and doesn't think she can support a baby on her own, why should she have the right to force another person to help her just so that she can still choose to have the baby?

Timothy|3.21.06 @ 3:38PM|#

But if the man gets pregnant and wants to abort the child but the woman doesn't, there's nothing she can do about it, either.

Offer to compensate her for having the kid, nothing's stopping you.

|3.21.06 @ 3:38PM|#

Yet, why should that choice to have an abortion lie solely with whoever is pregnant? You keep stating that as though it's a universal truth. I am simply debating whether this is a valid assertion.

Who better to make that decision than the person which is pregnant? It IS a universal truth, no matter how much it bothers you.

I mean really....this is what your whole problem boils down to?? That you cant force a woman to terminate or carry a baby to term. She isn't your fucking property, you asshat. She gets to make the medical decisions that affect her body. I mean seriously, you are demanding that I justify why its a womans right to choose and not a man's or why the man doesn't have veto power?

If you really need it explained why its a woman's right to choose and not a man's, maybe you would be better suited for a place like China where the government gets to control the uteruses (uteri??) of the women and dictate how many and which sex is acceptable. Because that is the logical conclustion of the kinds of "rights" you are demanding.

Dan T.|3.21.06 @ 3:40PM|#

Evan, there�s a point to my comedy � you want fairness, and I�m saying that if you simply apply the same rules about abortion to the man and the woman (if you get pregnant, you can have one), you have fairness.

Sure, it�s true that men can�t get pregnant, so why complain about not having a choice that you don�t need? Consider yourself lucky.

|3.21.06 @ 3:43PM|#

Quasibill,

"So, unless you're willing to admit that the pro-life camp is right, you can't categorically deny the argument that men should have the same right."

No, instead, Tom just keeps repeating the same thing, over and over: the right to abort (or refrain from aborting) rests solely with the woman. Case closed. Period, end. He supports a woman's right to do whatever she wants with the fertilized egg, but the man has no say. His entire argument is contradictory in terms of logic, but who needs logic when you can just keep on repeating someone again and again.

|3.21.06 @ 3:46PM|#

Dan:

Yet, women can shirk the responsibility of having a child by putting it up for adoption, or abandoning at the ER with no repurcusssions. So, you tell me, what's so funny about that? These "deadbeat moms" heave the responsibility for their actions over onto someone else. Yet, if a man tries to do that, he's a deadbeat. He goes to prison. That's fucked up---and there's nothing funny about it.

|3.21.06 @ 3:47PM|#

It's a pretty popular one, but what does that have to do with forcing others to fund one's choice - not assumption of risk, choice - to become a parent by bringing a pregnancy to term?

As I said before: you're viewing this as "why should I give money to a woman if I don't want to," rather than "why should I pay for a kid I helped to create."

|3.21.06 @ 3:47PM|#

Upon further consideration of something Thoreau said:
My guess is that the more desirable women could persuade men to sign contracts where the man accepts more than 50% of the responsibility. And women who encounter obstacles in the dating scene could make themselves more desirable by agreeing to accept more than 50% of the responsibility.

In such an environment, if a woman isn't willing to go for the "we're just dating, neither of us wants a baby, we split contraception costs and abortion if I get pregnant" option, how likely is she to sell the "we're just dating, but if I get pregnant, I reserve the right to have the baby with you contributing monetary support via the following schedule"?

Dan T.|3.21.06 @ 3:48PM|#

No, instead, Tom just keeps repeating the same thing, over and over: the right to abort (or refrain from aborting) rests solely with the woman. Case closed. Period, end. He supports a woman's right to do whatever she wants with the fertilized egg, but the man has no say. His entire argument is contradictory in terms of logic, but who needs logic when you can just keep on repeating someone again and again

Any man who is pregnant can legally have an abortion as well. So it's fair.

|3.21.06 @ 3:49PM|#

As I said before: you're viewing this as "why should I give money to a woman if I don't want to," rather than "why should I pay for a kid I helped to create."

No, as "why should I pay for a kid I didn't want to have and that someone else deliberately chose to have?"

|3.21.06 @ 3:54PM|#

No, as "why should I pay for a kid I didn't want to have and that someone else deliberately chose to have?"

Because the kid needs to be taken care of, and it's not the kid's fault that his parents are irresponsible twits.

|3.21.06 @ 3:55PM|#

"Who better to make that decision than the person which is pregnant? It IS a universal truth, no matter how much it bothers you."

Well, now that you put it THAT way, I'm convinced. It IS! It IS!!!! Come on, Tom. Fine, I'll humor you. So, if she gets 100% of the choice, then how is the man compensated for this? Or is it just, fuck him? He pays 50% and gets no say in anything, because he's the one with the penis. And that's a universal motherfucking TRUTH! It IS! Ugh. Debating with you is like debating a high school kid who only knows like 3 or 4 things, and they keep repeating it, and saying, "it's true, I tells ya!"

"That you cant force a woman to terminate or carry a baby to term. She isn't your fucking property, you asshat."

No, I never said anyone was my property. Asshat. All I said was that if the man is to be treated unequally in terms of choosing to have the child, then he should not be treated equally when when it comes to supporting the child. That's all. But I surely appreciate the namecalling. It lends credibility to your already-stellar argument.

"She gets to make the medical decisions that affect her body."

She also gets to make financial decisions that affect her body. Like shoving the kid out to an adoption agency. Men never get this option. Fair? Oh, that's right, he gave up all his rights when he whipped out his dick.

"I mean seriously, you are demanding that I justify why its a womans right to choose and not a man's or why the man doesn't have veto power?"

No, I'm using the example to show you that men should not have to be treated as "equal" when it comes to responsibility, since they are not equal when it comes to choosing whether or not to have the child.

"If you really need it explained why its a woman's right to choose and not a man's, maybe you would be better suited for a place like China where the government gets to control the uteruses (uteri??) of the women and dictate how many and which sex is acceptable. Because that is the logical conclustion of the kinds of "rights" you are demanding."

Ah, yes, the tirade to end it all. Get a grip, jefe. Calm down, take a deep breath, and think for a minute. When I advocate for the male right to be treated commensurately when it comes to responsibilities as he is treated when it comes to choices, it is nothing like China. Your hyperbole is amusing, though.

|3.21.06 @ 4:00PM|#

"Because the kid needs to be taken care of, and it's not the kid's fault that his parents are irresponsible twits."

So should women be prohibited from putting the kid up for adoption? Or should they be forced to put it up for adoption if they can't take care of it without the man's financial help?

|3.21.06 @ 4:01PM|#

quasibill,

You seem to be conflating arguments. Whether the right to an abortion should exist is a completely seperate question than who gets to excersize that right.

I don't really understand the point you are trying to make. Do you feel that a man should be able to dictate whether or not a woman has an abortion or not?

Biology has made it that its the woman who gets pregnant, not the man. Therefore any medical decisions that are made, since they will directly physically impact the woman, should be her decision. Once she makes that decision, both the sperm donor and the egg donor must now figure out how to proceed based on that decision.

Now as to the matter of "financially aborting" -- what you are saying is : If a man can't force a woman to abort, than he should have the right to wash his hands of the situation if he so chooses.
That's a load of crap. You know going into it that you are at the mercy of the woman and her decisions. You decided to risk it anyway. Whatever happens after that is your responsibility.

In exchange for nature blessing men with the ability to not get pregnant, men don't have a right to control a pregnancy.

I don't see what the right to terminate an abortion has to do with your requirement to support the kid. Abortions are an option (and options are by definition optional) that are a last resort. And they can spare you from having to support the child. But that isn't the same as saying "since the option is there and she didn't take it then I should be able to walk away"

Isn't that really a just form of blackmale and coersion? Aren't you really just pusing for the ability to say "Either abort or I wont support it....either way I get my way"

|3.21.06 @ 4:01PM|#

Because the kid needs to be taken care of, and it's not the kid's fault that his parents are irresponsible twits.

And if you didn't give an irresponsible woman the power to latch on a guy's wallet to pay for a baby, she'd have a serious reason not to have the baby, now wouldn't she?

Again, why is the buck stopping on the guy (and not the matchmaker or Barry White for serenading the conception) if the question is of making sure babies aren't stuck being raised by women who can't care for them? You keep switching between it's the guy's responsibility and it may not be the guy's fault or choice, but that baby needs support.

Dan T.|3.21.06 @ 4:03PM|#

Dan:
Yet, women can shirk the responsibility of having a child by putting it up for adoption, or abandoning at the ER with no repurcusssions. So, you tell me, what's so funny about that? These "deadbeat moms" heave the responsibility for their actions over onto someone else. Yet, if a man tries to do that, he's a deadbeat. He goes to prison. That's fucked up---and there's nothing funny about it.

I�m not sure about the rules of adoption � do both parents have to consent to it?

As for the �ER Rule�, that is in place as a lesser of two evils � if any woman is that desperate to rid herself of a child then better to have it turned over to the state than left in a dumpster somewhere. Certainly it�s not advertised as something ER�s really want to do.

Plus, I think that same rule applies to a man who has custody of an infant, so I�m not sure how anything is unfair here.

Can�t assume that only women have custody of children.

|3.21.06 @ 4:03PM|#

More thoughts:

1) Dave W. can explain how a combination of contracts and lawsuits will make the whole system so much more transparent. Except instead of a discovery process overseen by the court, the people involved will go on Jerry Springer where the guy will find out the identity of the true biological father.

2) Since many people arguing here hinge their arguments on "Well, she can have an abortion so she has 100% of the control", let's talk about everybody's favorite abortion exception: Rape.

Say a woman is raped. I think everybody here would agree that if the crime is proven beyond a reasonable doubt in court, then the criminal should have to provide compensation to his victim. Libertarians are big on that sort of thing (or at least many of us are). She should get some compensation for pain and suffering, certainly.

What if she becomes pregnant as a result of the rape? How much should the damage award increase? Should the damage award only increase to reflect the expense of an abortion? After all, if the baby is born it's because of a decision that she made, right? She may not be responsible for the pregnancy, but aren't people here arguing that she's responsible for the birth?

Or should the damage award go up to reflect the cost of raising a child (if she gives birth and keeps the child)?

|3.21.06 @ 4:09PM|#

Evan, it still sounds to me like you're blaming the law for an inequality of biology. I asked you before what law you would recommend to wipe out this inequality, and your suggestion was "let the man force the woman to have the baby so long as he's willing to pay her for it," which only switches the inequality from "women get control over a man's wallet" to "men get control over a woman's body."

Are you still sticking by this, or do you have another law to suggest, that can wipe out the biological fact that it takes two to make a baby but only one to carry it to term, and make reproductive matters one-hundred-percent equal for both parties?

|3.21.06 @ 4:09PM|#

1) Dave W. can explain how a combination of contracts and lawsuits will make the whole system so much more transparent.

I don't want lawsuits. I think we need contracts and a default condition that doesn't involve lawsuits and pursuit of the guy's money.

What if she becomes pregnant as a result of the rape? How much should the damage award increase? Should the damage award only increase to reflect the expense of an abortion?

To the extent that the rapist has custody rights, which damn, I hope is pretty settled law. *shudder*

(And, anon2, I'm shuddering at the idea of a rapist having custody rights, fuck you very much.)

|3.21.06 @ 4:10PM|#

Tom:

"Biology has made it that its the woman who gets pregnant, not the man. Therefore any medical decisions that are made, since they will directly physically impact the woman, should be her decision. Once she makes that decision, both the sperm donor and the egg donor must now figure out how to proceed based on that decision."

So, since the man plays such a small part in this whole process (he's just a sperm donor, afterall), shouldn't his financial obligation in raising the child be commensurately reduced?

"You know going into it that you are at the mercy of the woman and her decisions. You decided to risk it anyway. Whatever happens after that is your responsibility."

Now we're getting into a circular nexus in which the existence of the laws that we're arguing over are used as a justification of themselves. Jesus, please, no. Not this. Anything but this.

So, when someone asks whether it's valid for the government to outlaw weed, you would respond, "well, sure, because those potsmokers knew going into it that weed was illegal, but they decided to risk it anyway." That still speaks nothing to whether the law itself is just. The existence of a law speaks nothing to whether it is justified.

"In exchange for nature blessing men with the ability to not get pregnant, men don't have a right to control a pregnancy."

So says ChicagoTom. They get no say, but they get all the responsibility afterwards.

|3.21.06 @ 4:13PM|#

Wow. Can we get this to 1000 comments?

What if the man is raped/drugged by the woman? Would it be ok for him to disavow responsibility?

Does he have to pay for the mother's hemmorhoid treatment?

|3.21.06 @ 4:14PM|#

"I asked you before what law you would recommend to wipe out this inequality, and your suggestion was "let the man force the woman to have the baby so long as he's willing to pay her for it," which only switches the inequality from "women get control over a man's wallet" to "men get control over a woman's body."

Are you still sticking by this, or do you have another law to suggest, that can wipe out the biological fact that it takes two to make a baby but only one to carry it to term, and make reproductive matters one-hundred-percent equal for both parties?"

Jen,

As I noted several times already, that was just one suggestion---and I'm not sure about it.

There's nothing that will ever make reproductive matters 100% equal for both parties---but not forcing a man to take on 50% of the financial responsibility for 18 years would be a start. Maybe he doesn't get off scot-free---but if he's not equal in terms of reproductive rights, then why should he be equal in terms of reproductive responsibilities?

|3.21.06 @ 4:17PM|#

What if the man is raped/drugged by the woman? Would it be ok for him to disavow responsibility?

Hey, good question. Thoreau?

|3.21.06 @ 4:17PM|#

Eric-

Let's assume he doesn't have custody or visitation rights, which I certainly hope is the case. Regardless of custody, he is clearly 100% responsible for the pregnancy if it is determined that he coerced her into sex. The question is whether he bears any responsibility for the child that might result.

I don't think the lack of custody or visitation rights has any bearing on whether or not he should be responsible for the consequences of the pregnancy. By committing a violent act he forfeits certain rights, but he also becomes responsible for his actions. For those of us who don't engage in violence we get to enjoy some rights alongside our responsibilities, but those who are convicted of a violent act lose their rights while keeping their responsibilities.

So, should he be responsible for any sort of child support? (And I know that in practice he might not be able to pay much child support, but he might turn out to have a savings account from before going to prison.)

|3.21.06 @ 4:18PM|#

"Isn't that really a just form of blackmale and coersion? Aren't you really just pusing for the ability to say "Either abort or I wont support it....either way I get my way"

That ignores the fact that women can (barring medical complicatings) still get pregnant again, by someone else, afterwards. Someone who wants to father the child, perhaps?

|3.21.06 @ 4:21PM|#

What if the man is raped/drugged by the woman? Would it be ok for him to disavow responsibility?

Absolutely. No consent, no responsibility.

|3.21.06 @ 4:22PM|#

Maybe he doesn't get off scot-free---but if he's not equal in terms of reproductive rights, then why should he be equal in terms of reproductive responsibilities?

Because again, I'm looking at this from the point of view of a kid who needs to be supported, not a woman who wants to get money from a man. Letting men walk away from any financial responsibilities would only result in even more kids growing up in poverty, with all the social problems that would cause.

And yes, I know it's stupid for a woman in this era of (for now) legal abortion to have a kid if she can't afford to care for it, but the sad fact is that stupid people WILL continue to breed, and if they all stopped then humanity would probably go extinct before too long. Women will continue to have kids, so the question is, should the kid grow up in poverty because Daddy doesn't feel like contributing to his support?

|3.21.06 @ 4:23PM|#

Regardless of custody, he is clearly 100% responsible for the pregnancy if it is determined that he coerced her into sex.

Yes, but it's still the woman's option whether or not to have the child. (The idea of considering the baby the woman choses to have as "damage" creeps me the hell out, Thoreau. It makes even more sense to consider the baby as the mother's, apart from the rapist's involvement...otherwise, the baby is either declared damage - or, if we don't go there, the rapist has a claim to having benefited the mother. I'm not sure if that's worse or not.)

|3.21.06 @ 4:23PM|#

All I said was that if the man is to be treated unequally in terms of choosing to have the child, then he should not be treated equally when when it comes to supporting the child

Why? Explain to me why the man deserves to be treated exatly the same in two competely different circumstances.

In fact, explain to me why you, as a man who isn't pregnant and never will be, should have any say as to what a woman does with her body while pregnant.

I will make it as clear as I can for you since you don't seem to get it.

A woman has the right to make all medical decisions that affect her. Choosing to keep or terminate a baby is a medical decision. That's why you can't force her to abort or keep the baby.

The newborn child has the right to be supported by his parents. That's why you don't get to walk away from a child that is born that you fathered.

Both of these rights trump any claim of your perceived rights to force an abortion or to be a deadbeat, unless you were raped.

No, I never said anyone was my property.

You implied it when you demanded veto power over a womans health decisions (yes that includes pregnancy).

If you can claim the right to force a woman to abort, do you also demand the right to force her to keep the child against her will?

|3.21.06 @ 4:24PM|#

What if the man is raped/drugged by the woman? Would it be ok for him to disavow responsibility?

Absolutely. No consent, no responsibility.

|3.21.06 @ 4:31PM|#

Jen,

BTW, I'm not blaming the law for a biological inequality. But the fact of the matter is, as long as a choice exists, the law should reflect this in some way---either through giving the man more role in choosing to proceed, or less role in the minimum obligations of raising the child.

|3.21.06 @ 4:34PM|#

And yes, I know it's stupid for a woman in this era of (for now) legal abortion to have a kid if she can't afford to care for it, but the sad fact is that stupid people WILL continue to breed, and if they all stopped then humanity would probably go extinct before too long. Women will continue to have kids, so the question is, should the kid grow up in poverty because Daddy doesn't feel like contributing to his support?

What if the guy (sorry, not "daddy", I have a regard for fatherhood) is dead? Should the kid grow up in poverty then?

|3.21.06 @ 4:36PM|#

But the fact of the matter is, as long as a choice exists, the law should reflect this in some way---either through giving the man more role in choosing to proceed, or less role in the minimum obligations of raising the child.

But how can this be done without either a law eroding a woman's right to control her body or a law eroding a baby's right to have its parents care for it until it can care for itself?

|3.21.06 @ 4:38PM|#

Well, let's get down to basics - If I have sex, pregnancy is not a possible consequence for me (or any other man, fertile or not). If a fertile woman has sex, pregnancy is very much a possible consequence for her.

Comment by: Eric the .5b at March 21, 2006 01:40 PM

Eric, IMHO you've hit the nail on the head with this comment. If the woman has the ultimate authority on what happens to her body, then she should be willing to take ultimate responsibility of her choices.

|3.21.06 @ 4:38PM|#

ChicagoTom:

It's funny how you employ this old bait-n-switch technique when talking about abortion. When it's the woman's decision, it's automatically a "medical decision". Never ever does it have anything to do with financial obligations. Nope. Good god, no woman would ever get an abortion just to get out of having to pay for a damn kid. Never!

Just because you label it a "medical decision" doesn't mean that plenty of women abort simply because they don't want to or cannot afford to have a kid. So, then, it all comes down to intentions for you, I guess.

So, Tom, should a woman be able to get an abortion simply to shirk the financial obligations of raising a child?

|3.21.06 @ 4:39PM|#

"Women will continue to have kids, so the question is, should the kid grow up in poverty because Daddy doesn't feel like contributing to his support?"

Mommy chose to have the kid. She should get a job to support it.

|3.21.06 @ 4:40PM|#

But the fact of the matter is, as long as a choice exists, the law should reflect this in some way---either through giving the man more role in choosing to proceed, or less role in the minimum obligations of raising the child.

But how can this be done without either a law eroding a woman's right to control her body or a law eroding a baby's right to have its parents care for it until it can care for itself?

|3.21.06 @ 4:40PM|#

Absolutely. No consent, no responsibility.

Unless we're willing to say sex is consent to have a child, contraception and abortion be damned, I think the same thing applies to a guy who doesn't want to have a kid with someone he's sleeping with.

Jennifer - does the guy's consent to have sex matter to you?

|3.21.06 @ 4:42PM|#

When it's the woman's decision, it's automatically a "medical decision". Never ever does it have anything to do with financial obligations

It's still a medical decision even if it's inspired by financial incentives. Same way deciding to get cosmetic surgery is a medical decision even if it's just to look pretty rather than fix a health problem.

|3.21.06 @ 4:43PM|#

SEND MORE SQUIRRELS!

Dan T.|3.21.06 @ 4:43PM|#

Remember folks:

- The fact that a woman can get pregnant but not a man is not unfair to the woman
- The fact that a woman can get an abortion but not a man is unfair to the man

That�s the argument, in a nutshell. Amazing.

|3.21.06 @ 4:44PM|#

"But how can this be done without either a law eroding a woman's right to control her body or a law eroding a baby's right to have its parents care for it until it can care for itself?

I wouldn't say that not forcing the man to pay 50% for 18 years is necessarily "eroding the baby's rights".

Ok, then, how do you feel about the many women who choose not to seek child support from the man? Should she be "forced" to seek child support? If not, isn't that a case of "eroding a baby's right to have its parents care for it until it can care for itself"? What if the woman was promiscuous, and couldn't find the father. What about the baby's "rights" in that case?

|3.21.06 @ 4:45PM|#

Jennifer - does the guy's consent to have sex matter to you?

Of course.

|3.21.06 @ 4:47PM|#

"It's still a medical decision even if it's inspired by financial incentives. Same way deciding to get cosmetic surgery is a medical decision even if it's just to look pretty rather than fix a health problem."

So, then, how is this any different from a man who has 1/3 of his income consfiscated for 18 years? Isn't it also to be considered a "medical decision"?

|3.21.06 @ 4:51PM|#

Dan T.:

No, that's not the argument. The argument is that as long as a woman can choose whether or not to carry the child to term, it remains a choice that only she can make (according to some people here), because it's her body.

As long as a woman has the option to terminate pregnancy, I fail to see how that is "unfair" to women.

|3.21.06 @ 4:57PM|#

one thing i've not seen, but maybe it is buried in this stack somewhere...

there are plenty of reasons why a man should not be able to compel a woman to bring a baby to term. perhaps she is prone to hypertension or diabetes, and pregnancy might endanger her

perhaps she is a high powered attorney or business-person or sous-chef or television actress or whatever, whose career would be negatively affected by the inevitable slow down that occurs in the final month of pregnancy and the immediate period thereafter

since men and women do not assume equal risks for a pregnancy, they should not be given equal responsiblility when it comes to decisions about that pregnancy (which is NOT the same thing as equal responsibility when it comes to parenting)

my response to men who want a child but their partner is unwilling? find another partner

|3.21.06 @ 4:57PM|#

Jennifer - does the guy's consent to have sex matter to you?

Of course. If the woman gets pregnant via raping the man, he shouldn't have to pay anything, she should go to prison for rape, and the baby should be sent to an adoption agency since Mom won't be getting out of jail soon enough to raise the kid.

But the number of male rape victims forced to pay child support to their rapists is pretty small, I suspect.

|3.21.06 @ 4:58PM|#

Goodnight, all. Most of you, I respect your arguments---and, to be honest with you, some of you have helped me to see this from another perspective (you also helped me shirk the responsibilities of my clients...hehe).

Others, well, let's just say that calling me an "asshat" and showing complete and utter disrespect for me, simply because I happen to not be as "traditional" as you are when it comes to reproductive rights...it's not a good way to convince people that your argument is right. Just a suggestion. Flies and vinegar, not so good.

G'night!

|3.21.06 @ 5:00PM|#

"It's still a medical decision even if it's inspired by financial incentives. Same way deciding to get cosmetic surgery is a medical decision even if it's just to look pretty rather than fix a health problem."

So, then, how is this any different from a man who has 1/3 of his income consfiscated for 18 years? Isn't it also to be considered a "medical decision"?

How is it different? For starters, what medical procedure does the man have to undergo as part of paying child support?

|3.21.06 @ 5:17PM|#

Holy cow!! I've finally caught up...

Lot's of good arguments on both sides, and a few bad ones. Am I the only one here still on the fence?

|3.21.06 @ 5:18PM|#

Ah, Republican, you think that because you do not pay outright that you have evaded the bill? Unpaid bills tend to circulate and spread out. Remember the episode of Mash when everyone started trading favors? You can pay directly to the mother. You can pay for the enforcement to make her responsible. You can pay for the enforcemente to take the baby from her. You can pay for the foster care, you can pay for the emergency room hospitalization, if she cannot afford health insurance. Or you can let charity take care of the baby - except that charities are tax exempt, which means that the rest of us subsidize them...

Bills that are not paid tend to travel around a bit until they land on your lap.

(Reminds me the story about Hitler calculating what would Italy would do "either Mussolini is with us, and that will costs us 20 divisions to shore him up, or he is not, and that will cost us 20 divisions to keep him at bay... either way, 20 divisions.")

(I have a lingering sympathy for Mussolini. Perhaps because, as Churchill said, he was the only man who had the guts to shoot his son-in-law)

|3.21.06 @ 5:25PM|#

Eric the .5b,

And, anon2, I'm shuddering at the idea of a rapist having custody rights, fuck you very much.

Huh? Have I said anything suggesting my (or your) opinion of custody rights for rapists? I hadn't even considered it, nor is it on my agenda for today.

Jennifer,

If you're looking at it from the point of view of a kid who needs to be supported, what if there were two financially well of people, man and woman who had consensual sex. They're so well off that either one of them can shoulder 100% of the financial burden of rearing a child without hardship, but not quite so well off that they can do so and live life exactly as they were accustomed to. Ignoring the fact that we want laws that apply as broadly as possible and this is a very narrow case, wouldn't it be fair for the mother to support the child 100% if she chooses to bear him? We're stipulating that its fair to the child. We'll also stipulate that having 0% financial responsibility is fair to the father. That leaves the question of whether it's fair for the woman-the only person who can become pregnant and give birth? We'll also stipulate that she'll know before they have sex that if she becomes pregnant and bears the child that she'll bear the burden.

This particular scenario doesn't erode the woman's right to her body, nor does it erode the child's right to be taken care of. It does require the hypothetical woman to have a lower standard of living than prior to having the kid.

Trey,

There's more than one fence. Some people appear to be arguing about different sides of different fences.

|3.21.06 @ 5:27PM|#

One argument I keep hearing, and it�s a poor one, is (from Dan T and others) �If you get pregnant, you have the choice to get an abortion. If you do not get pregnant, you do not have that choice, but then again you don�t need it. This is true for both parties.�

In other words, the current legal situation is just because men are as equally free to get abortions as women are. Of course, men can�t get pregnant, but still�

This reminds me of the argument against gay marriage. �Gays already have the right to get married. Of course, they can only marry someone of the opposite sex like everyone else, but still�

|3.21.06 @ 5:29PM|#

And Eric, I hear what you're saying, but for every man who's reluctant to sign up for 18 years of child support over one night in bed, there's a woman who doesn't want to have to raise a kid with zero help because of one night in bed.

Comment by: thoreau at March 21, 2006 03:01 PM

then, thoreau, why doesn't said woman:

get an abortion?
give the child up for adoption?

|3.21.06 @ 5:30PM|#

Of course. If the woman gets pregnant via raping the man, he shouldn't have to pay anything, she should go to prison for rape, and the baby should be sent to an adoption agency since Mom won't be getting out of jail soon enough to raise the kid.

Why does he get out of it? He helped create that baby.

|3.21.06 @ 5:31PM|#

Let�s lay it out � here are the choices:

1.Whether or not to have sex � both parties have choice.

2.If you get pregnant, you have the choice to get an abortion. If you do not get pregnant, you do not have that choice, but then again you don�t need it. This is true for both parties.

3.If the baby is born, both parties have responsibility to support him or her financially.

4.If the baby is not born, neither party has responsibility support him or her financially, as no child exists.

So what�s unfair again? Both parties have equal choices all the way through.

Comment by: Dan T. at March 21, 2006 03:16 PM

Dan, I'll type slowly, so you can keep up: during the pregnancy, the woman has a choice to terminate the pregnancy. Men do not have this choice. Ergo, both parties don't have equal choices all the way through.

|3.21.06 @ 5:35PM|#

One thing I hate to see in all this, especially as a father, is the fact that children are seen only as a cost in this equation. This is terrible, and I think a symptom of something really wrong with out society.

I am trying to sort this out in terms of rights, and ownership, instead of costs. Here goes?
1. You cannot own a person
2. You can own parental rights to a person
3. These rights are generally highly valued, although trade in them is currently restricted by law.

I see this as a (the) major problem. One, which if fixed, could go a long way to making this debate moot.

Yes, I think you should be able to buy and sell parental rights to a child, in utero. Like I said, children are generally seen as good, and the right to take responsibility for a child is highly valued. If these rights could be bought and sold, a mother might ?buy out? a reluctant father, and option her unborn child to a couple for a tidy profit.

Markets are supposed to move things to where they are most highly valued.

|3.21.06 @ 5:45PM|#

This is another one of the situations where we start with "I don't want to pay for all those" (bastards, smashed up motorcycle riders, lung cancer victims, "cancer clusters") that we bring the power of the state in to either attempt to lower the frequency (helmit laws, smoking bans) or find someone, anyone to send the bill to.

|3.21.06 @ 5:53PM|#

That was me. (Stupid smartass ideas for lame jokes...)

|3.21.06 @ 5:54PM|#

anon2:

Huh?

Pre-emptive insulting response in case you wanted to make another disparaging suggestion.

|3.21.06 @ 5:55PM|#

If the woman gets pregnant via raping the man, he shouldn't have to pay anything,

Why not? There's still a baby that he helped create. Why is it suddenly society's problem (via the adoption agency) and get gets off without having to take responsibility?

|3.21.06 @ 6:06PM|#

It would be nice to know how everyone arguing here feels about the legality of abortion. I do think these issues are very much linked.

Someone who is pro-life/anti-choice would be consistent in denying the abortion choice to both parties, the man and the woman, in the interest of the third party; the child.

Someone who is pro-choice could, I think, only be consistent by allowing choice for both parties involved, the man and the woman. By definition, allowing abortion denies that there is a third person involved, otherwise it would be murder (see pro-life position).

If a woman can chose to kill the fetus before it is born, I do not see why there would be an issue with the man terminating parental rights and responsibilities for the fetus before it is born. It is not a child until it is born, viable, whatever line is agreed upon (Ha!).

I think it is the hypocrisy that makes this such an interesting topic.

Pro-choice for some, pro-life for others, tiny American flags for all!

|3.21.06 @ 6:06PM|#

Eric .5b,

If you're referring to my "You're taking the risk of being identified as a misogynist" comment, it was tongue-in-cheek. I thought your analogy was fine, but that it wouldn't be received well.

I don't think you're a misogynist, nor do I have a problem following your analogies. Above where I wrote "Eric was trying to point", I didn't mean to imply that your point wasn't well understood by some (most?) readers, only that it wasn't understood by some. Perhaps I should have said "Eric pointed out".

If it was something else, let me know.

|3.21.06 @ 6:15PM|#

Because without the man's sperm, the baby wouldn't exist. Everybody here is pretending the argument is "why should I give money to a woman if I don't want to", rather than "why should I be responsible for a kid I helped to create."
The answer, of course, is that you helped to create it.

Without the sperm donor's sperm, the baby wouldn't exist. Why then isn't he held responsible for the child's support? He helped to create it.

This fact throws every arguement on this topic out the window. Because every arguement equates sperm and responsibility. They are not identical.

As long as you keep making that assumption you will keep running around in circles.

|3.21.06 @ 6:17PM|#

It was tongue-in-cheek

Sorry, I took it as a random insult and didn't even see your other post.

|3.21.06 @ 6:25PM|#

And because I missed your other post, anon2:

I'm not advocating woman bear 100% of the responsibility, and I don't think Eric is either

Actually, I am. I think, absent any agreement to share raising or supporting a baby with someone else (such as marriage), a competent, adult woman who has a baby should have sole responsibility for and all parental rights and powers with regards to that baby. Unless the man agrees, he should have no obligations, and unless the woman agrees, he should have no rights.

|3.21.06 @ 6:53PM|#

Eric,

Well, to be honest, it is a random insult, but not aimed at you. It's random in the sense that I wasn't insulting anyone in particular, but the mindset that characterizes people as misogynists when they point out the unfairness of the current rules.

I apologize for misrepresenting your position; it wasn't deliberate.

I believe I now know your position and I think I understand it. I don't agree with it, because I think in the real world there will be enough women who won't be able to properly support their kid on their own that compelling the father to contribute is an acceptable compromise. However, I think there needs to be a lot more checks against abuse, including means-testing and some sort of way to verify that the kid is the beneficiary of the father's money.

|3.21.06 @ 7:12PM|#

I apologize for misrepresenting your position; it wasn't deliberate.

Thank you, and again, I apologize for my later insult.

I think in the real world there will be enough women who won't be able to properly support their kid on their own that compelling the father to contribute is an acceptable compromise

Honestly, I just really don't see why it should be put on a guy who didn't want a child. It just strikes me as welfare-by-scapegoat.

If the goal, as folks like Jennifer put it, is helping the kid, why not just say "OK, we support a form of welfare in this case?" And I'll admit it, show me a welfare system that's limited, targeted, and is designed to minimize the temptation to depend on it (or make plans based on the assumption of being able to rely on it), and that's a not-strictly-proper government program I'll worry about after the eight million worse programs are gone.

But damn, this has been a long thread. I'm out, for now.

|3.21.06 @ 7:42PM|#

If a guy pays half, does he get half custody?

A friend was raised by his mom who only refered to her ex-husband as That Bastard. My friend has said if he's ever in charge of his bio father in old age he will send him to the worst nursing home he can find.

I wouldn't want to pay and yet be treated as the Evil Other

|3.21.06 @ 8:25PM|#

Because the kid needs to be taken care of, and it's not the kid's fault that his parents are irresponsible twits.

Well then, the next time a bible-thumping pro-lifer offering a tax cut is running for office, I'll be voting for him. Apparently I'll need every dime I can get to support the offspring my girl friend unilaterally decided not to abort.

Juice Leskinen|3.22.06 @ 7:09AM|#

Trey

'...a sympton of something really wrong with our society...'

And then you go and throw in maybe the scariest scenario so far: Free markets for parental rights. Maybe you're just trying to illustrate the general attitude here by suggesting something as nuts as that?

But if you're really serious, consider what you're saying... A whole ---d up industry could spring up if that was the state of affairs, with not only the baby farming mothers but also pimps and such entering the new kinds of markets and all. Also, the 'demand' for babies would naturally go down before too long and then what? Advertising, bonus points, special offers..?

But you weren't serious, right?

|3.22.06 @ 7:53AM|#

Okay, I have a hypothetical:

Let's say my sister used her evil magic to trick me into impregnating her, with the intention of raising our inbred, bastard son to kill me in a final, apocalyptical battle.

Should I have a legal right to force her to abort? Or should I be obligated to pay for the bastard's upkeep and training, which would eventually lead to my fall?

|3.22.06 @ 8:32AM|#

Artie-

But, you see, when you send your henchmen to drag her to the abortion clinic, there will be a long chase as she tries to escape them. She'll fall into the river, and they'll report that she's dead. But she won't be dead. She'll be taken in by some simple village folk who will show her great kindness, nurse her to health, and care for her during the pregnancy. She will reward them by using her magic to make the village prosper, and in time these devoted village people will be the core of your bastard son's army of doom. (They're real macho men!)

So the very act of trying to coerce an abortion will drive her into a situation where your bastard son can raise an army. What you should have done is let her give birth and let the kid grow up as an obnoxious, unimpressive trust fund kid who will never amount to anything on his own and hence pose no threat to you.

|3.22.06 @ 8:52AM|#

Come on, soooo close to 300 comments...and you all just give up?

|3.22.06 @ 9:17AM|#

There **is** a free market solution to the problem of unwanted babies.

Jonathan Swift wrote it in the eighteenth century about Ireland...

|3.22.06 @ 9:34AM|#

Artie,

Your best friend will kill your bastard son after your death.

Just ignore his spiritual infidelity with your wife!

|3.22.06 @ 9:39AM|#

t:

Me taking counsel from a mad, forest-dwelling hermit? Been there. Done that.

|3.22.06 @ 10:27AM|#

[a lawyer] can explain how a combination of contracts and lawsuits will make the whole system so much more transparent. Except instead of a discovery process overseen by the court . . .

Are there discovery problems here? The family law problem here seems to be not so much hidden information, but that we can't agree on what the outcome should be even if we know all the facts. I remember at Berkeley the people who cared about this issue towed a pretty hard Jennifer line, but the world may be backing off of that.

As I have said b4, quasibill is one of my favorite posters and I think he is making the best posts on this thread (must admit that I haven't read them all).

|3.22.06 @ 12:51PM|#

Artie: The problem is your best friend and your wife. Your bastard will use them to bring disaster to you.

It is best to put distance between your best friend and your wife. Send your best friend in some loooooong errand. Like looking for some lost cup or something.

|3.22.06 @ 12:53PM|#

Artie: The problem is your best friend and your wife. Your bastard will use them to bring disaster to you.

It is best to put distance between your best friend and your wife. Send your best friend in some loooooong errand. Like looking for some lost cup or something.

|3.23.06 @ 9:41AM|#

I've followed this debate fairly closely and it actually took me a little while to really get my thoughts straight on the topic. I find the arguements concerning abortion, although intriguing from a perspective of social commentary, irrelevent to the question at hand. Before you bite my head off, please allow me to expound on this and hopefully clarify. Whatever your opinions on abortion, it is absurd to try and use one instance of unbalance in the existing system to justify the creation of another. By trying to justify the shifting of the financial responsibilities of raising a child onto the government, you are allowing a pair of individual's actions to impose a heavy financial burden on the general populus. Yes, women currently hold a commanding control over abortion decisions, but that is a seperate issue. Abortion decision making is an area that should be given proper debate, however given that a child already exists, under all normal circumstances, it is the financial responsibility of the pair that assumed the risk of creating it. Some areas where my above "normal circumstances" come into question would be if a prior arrangement existed (such as a legal contract), rape, or perhaps in the case at hand, one member purposely choosing to knowingly decieve the other into a false (lowered) estimation of the risks the other was taking. Perhaps this is a difficult position to understand, but it makes perfect sense when you consider the fact that I am a member of the very rare breed of individuals who are non-religous and yet pro life.

Reason.com

New at Reason

KipEsquire|3.21.06 @ 10:07AM|#

Timothy|3.21.06 @ 10:30AM|#

Mike|3.21.06 @ 10:35AM|#

Timothy|3.21.06 @ 10:43AM|#

Mike|3.21.06 @ 10:44AM|#

Dan T.|3.21.06 @ 10:47AM|#

Gimme Back My Dog|3.21.06 @ 10:54AM|#

Dan T.|3.21.06 @ 10:55AM|#

Timothy|3.21.06 @ 10:59AM|#

Mike|3.21.06 @ 11:01AM|#

Dan T.|3.21.06 @ 11:06AM|#

Dan T.|3.21.06 @ 11:20AM|#

Timothy|3.21.06 @ 11:27AM|#

Dan T.|3.21.06 @ 11:40AM|#

Dan T.|3.21.06 @ 11:45AM|#

Dan T.|3.21.06 @ 11:47AM|#

Dan T.|3.21.06 @ 11:49AM|#

Timothy|3.21.06 @ 12:06PM|#

Dan T.|3.21.06 @ 12:10PM|#

Dan T.|3.21.06 @ 12:20PM|#

Timothy|3.21.06 @ 12:23PM|#

Dan T.|3.21.06 @ 12:24PM|#

Timothy|3.21.06 @ 12:25PM|#

Timothy|3.21.06 @ 12:32PM|#

Dan T.|3.21.06 @ 12:32PM|#

Dan T.|3.21.06 @ 12:37PM|#

Gimme Back My Dog|3.21.06 @ 12:50PM|#

Dan T.|3.21.06 @ 12:51PM|#

Gimme Back My Dog|3.21.06 @ 1:00PM|#

Dan T.|3.21.06 @ 1:01PM|#

Dan T.|3.21.06 @ 1:06PM|#

Dan T.|3.21.06 @ 1:10PM|#

Gimme Back My Dog|3.21.06 @ 1:28PM|#

brian423|3.21.06 @ 1:35PM|#

Gimme Back My Dog|3.21.06 @ 1:44PM|#

Gimme Back My Dog|3.21.06 @ 1:51PM|#