From the AP:
Contending that women have more options than they do in the event of an unintended pregnancy, men’s rights activists are mounting a long shot legal campaign aimed at giving them the chance to opt out of financial responsibility for raising a child.
The National Center for Men has prepared a lawsuit  nicknamed Roe v. Wade for Men  to be filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Michigan on behalf of a 25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend’s daughter. The suit addresses the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause.
The gist of the argument: If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose.
“There’s such a spectrum of choice that women have  it’s her body, her pregnancy and she has the ultimate right to make decisions,†said Mel Feit, director of the men’s center. “I’m trying to find a way for a man also to have some say over decisions that affect his life profoundly.â€Â
Feit’s organization has been trying since the early 1990s to pursue such a lawsuit, and finally found a suitable plaintiff in Matt Dubay of Saginaw, Mich.
Dubay says he has been ordered to pay $500 a month in child support for a girl born last year to his ex-girlfriend. He contends that the woman knew he didn’t want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that  because of a physical condition  she could not get pregnant.
Dubay is braced for the lawsuit to fail.
“What I expect to hear (from the court) is that the way things are is not really fair, but that’s the way it is,†he said in a telephone interview. “Just to create awareness would be enough, to at least get a debate started.â€Â
And this is really the gist of the matter.
Having been identified repeatedly as a “conservative” by many of the feminists I hold discussions with (despite being pro-choice, so long as reasonable restrictions are allowed), I’ve noticed a tendency among those who do the labeling to sidestep the questions by following a calculus that makes the jump from conservative male (bad) to conservative male who advocates for “men’s rights” (bad and whiny member of the patriarchy trying to roll back women’s rights). Such a characterization allows many of these feminists—who generally take opposing views on social issues having to do with identity politics from conservatives anyway—to dismiss out of hand the view of the “men’s rights” crowd with nothing more than a mention of their name, an ironic quip, and a sneer.
But despite what one thinks of those who advocate for “men’s rights” (some, I think, are doing so out of spite / vindictiveness, some are doing it to make a social point, some are doing out of a sense of ideological purity and constitutional fidelity), the important thing to do, if we wish to remain intellectually honest with ourselves, is separate out the questions from the questioners.
And in this case, I believe important issues are being raised. From the perspective of the Constitution, what rights should men have when it comes to paternity?
A couple days ago we had an interesting (and fairly well-argued) discussion over the nature of “consent” as it is now being proposed in the UK (a woman can argue rape after the fact if she was too intoxicated to remember giving consent / or actually giving consent; the male, regardless of his level of intoxication, is supposed to divine, somehow, whether yes really means yes, presumably by gauging the level of intoxication of the woman. I argued that such an arrangement amounted to infantalizing women while holding men to a much higher standard of foresight; others made contract arguments as a form of rebuttal).
Here again we have an opportunity to discuss the social and philosophical underpinnings of abortion and (mostly financial) paternity responsibilities as they pertain to the male who, to borrow a bit from the alcohol thread, did not “consent” to the pregnancy—or at least (to reintroduce, in a different context, the “contract” argument), had his portion of the verbal contract violated.
As someone who was adopted, it is difficult for me to honor the pro-choice position but I have, and do—though with restrictions (for instance, I oppose late term abortions; and in cases not involving sexual abuse, I support parental notification). But in doing so, I also look for some measure of reciprocity.
My wife, who as I’ve mentioned here before was a women’s studies major (she also majored in English and Italian, and somehow wound up in project management), has raised some of the same reservations the feminists who comment here raise when it comes to the subject of paternal rights for the man. Although, she being more of a libertarian (or a feminist in the mold of, say, me, or Cathy Young), she is much less dismissive of the concerns I raise from the male point of view than are some other types of advocacy feminists. She sympathizes with the male position, but is unsure what would mark a fair compromise (whereas some other feminists would insist there is no compromise to be made, because the physical burden is all one sided).
And that, currently, is the standard legal answer: that women’s bodies belong to them, and so they are the sole bearers of the childbirth burden; which ownership is fine (from my perspective, up until the point where the social contract says that, barring danger to the mother, a viable fetus has coequal rights and should be carried to term; others would strongly dispute that).
Nevertheless, these are hardly settled issues. And there can be no doubting that a host of difficult, legitimate questions are buried here—and, at heart, they are not only difficult moral and ethical questions, but they are Constitutional questions, as well. Say, for instance, a biological father agrees to raise the child—and the women agrees to carry the child to term—then changes her mind in the second trimester? The third trimester? Should the father be given legal recourse to force the child to term? Conversely, why are men who don’t wish to be fathers—and who would pay for a termination of the pregancy, or who would be willing to give the child up for adoption—not given any say whatsoever in the matter of the subsequent arrangments?
As the essay points out—and this a point that has been made for years—forcing a father to assume financial responsibility for what is commonly called the “choice” of the mother can put undue financial strain on the biological father, without his having recourse to the kind of choice granted women. This arrangement can have a permanent and lasting effect on the course of his life—and he is given no recourse to affect the outcome once the pregnancy happens. Is this fair? If so, why? If not, why not?
The plaintiff in this case, Mr Dubay, doesn’t think he’ll win the case. But he does wish to start a converation. And so do I.
So. Commence discussing! And once again, I invite our internet feminist friends to join in:
Amanda? Jill? Barry? Roxanne? Trish? Cathy? And Lauren (wherever you are…?)
****
(thanks to Maybee)
NOTE: Updated to fix cut and paste. I meant only to grab the links to the feminist sites, not to append the previous post to this one.
Sounds like a bad policy, based on the false equivalency of abortion to the action that the man wishes to take. Also looks like it ignores that one of the purposes of child support isn’t just about ‘choice’ or ‘responsibility’ but also making sure that the innocent child is supported.
I think this post got screwed up. The earlier post about that guy in India who tries to shame women into not aborting female fetuses got appended on the end, thusly:
[Ed’s note: Josh is correct; I meant only to cut and paste the links to the feminist blogs to save myself the trouble of having to do the links manually. Somehow I grabbed too much. Fixed now, thanks.]
What Josh said. I don’t think you meant to end that post like that.
Actus: If we’re going to talk about equivalencies, wouldn’t it make sense to allow the men to cut-and-run because that’s less drastic than an abortion? Rather than disallowing the comparison because of the idea that not-paying-for-support is so minor in comparison to abortion that it’s not even worth allowing?
I mean, if we’re going to take the position that the innocent children need to be supported, er, doesn’t that cut rather strongly against allowing abortion at all?
Just asking for some argument consistency here (or, if you mean to be presenting someone else’s argument or set of arguments, more clarity as to that fact).
It seems odd to suggest that the two (abortion and non-support) are non-comparable (for a reason never clearly stated, but I assume because abortion involves pregnancy for 9 months, but not paying child support merely involves at least 18 and possibly more years of immense economic impact) while ignoring the “innocent child” aspect of abortion, and then say “hey, child support is for the innocent children too”.
Now, both of those statements can be honestly held, and both may be true (the former being the one in doubt; I’ve never heard or entertained doubt that child support payments are at least in theory aimed at protecting innocent children), it does seem rather odd to hold both of them at once.
Feminists are phonies, just like most self-loathing leftists are. They don’t really stand for women’s rights, because if they did, they would have a problem with the stoning and genital mutilation of women that is common in Islamic societies.
Here is another way of looking at left-wing hypocrisy, in this case, on National Security, and debating it.
I’m probably going to be in the minority here (surprise!) but thinking that abortion is morally wrong (except in “exceptional” circumstances) yet being adamantly pro choice (it is, after all, the woman’s body)AND having made a conscious choice to be a parent by adopting and raising two children, I have to side with the women on this one.
Sure a woman can, after the fact, decide on her own to become a parent AND subsequently obligate the sire to years of financial responsibility. That is a choice the male does not have. However, since that is the law, has been and probably will be, the male certainly does have a choice whether to risk impregnating the female.
Knowing going in (pun intended) what the rules are and what the consequences are, the male makes the “one choice” he has beforehand. That the female has additional options should not enter into the decision he makes. He is free to provide his own birth control in several different ways. That he chooses to roll the dice and depend on his partner to provide the protection is a choice he will have to live with.
Is it fair that the woman has additional options (after the fact); that she can change her mind even months later, or take months to decide? Probably so if you factor in the additional burden the woman carries for motherhood.
Bottom line guys, you have one chance to decide and you can’t change your mind later, you can’t get a “do over”, so decide carefully whether you want to be a parent.
Back in her day, my mother did give me one really good bit of advice. She said, “When you go to bed with a woman you should be prepared to sit across the breakfast table with her in the morning.” Of course that was when abortion was rare and you were expected to make her an “honorable woman”.
Actus
It is only an ‘innocent child’ if someone allows it to come to term and be birthed. Otherwise that isn’t that ‘child’ merely a ‘choice’ that can otherwise be eliminated? Or are you arguing that abortion is the snuffing of an innocent human life?
And ultimately shouldn’t the person who truly has choice bear the full burden of exercising that choice?
I’m not sure it is less drastic. In abortion you have no more responsibilities, other than the moral issues of abortion. With the cut and run, you have someone living 18+ years with half parental support. Not sure which is less drastic.
Also on the equivalency front, its not like the woman’s responsibility ends once the child is born, and then the man’s begins. There’s an equivalency to be worked out post-birth as well. Its that equivalency that this policy seeks to change.
If you don’t see a difference between a fetus and a child, yes. And the further interest in abortion: control of a woman’s body.
This proposed policy also has a choice dimension: I’m sure women’s choice is reduced if the man can declare, in time for an abortion, that he will not fund the child. I’m sure that reduces the choices available to a pregnant woman. If I can figure out what blockquotes jeff was missing in his post, I’d see what this has to do with the punjabi coercion.
They do. Feminist were complaining about the Taliban back when we were still sending them money.
Best to leave personal decisions concerning abortion to the woman.
Keep government the hell out of it.
As to the Punjabi area, maybe it would have been best for the Brits to stick around for another couple hundred years.
If the Brits still ran the place, none of that nonsense about shaming would have even come up.
It sounds nice in theory, but like I said, it ignores other things going on. Children aren’t just burdens to be assigned without care for how well this burden will be met. They’re also people that need support.
This is a problem that could conceivably be handled through insurance. For the sake of argument, let’s call this ‘Errors and Emissions’ insurance.
The group of men wanting to have sex before marriage shares the costs and spreads the risk out. If you’re a male, you agree to certain terms of the contract and pay a premium.
If a woman gets pregnant and you are proven to be the father, and she has the child, the policy could help defray some of the costs of child support.
The court will award what the court will award based on income and other criteria – but this E&E insurance could keep your pimpin’ life from being completely derailed.
Here comes Carl with his usual high-level drive-by comments.
The Government is already in it! Ever heard of the Friend of the Court? That government agency that exists ENTIRELY to take money out of his pocket and put it into hers?
TV (Harry)
I would argue that the core of the “abortion right” for pro-choice individuals (myself included)is not found in notions of privacy or even a woman’s right to bodily autonomy. Rather, it is a belief in the right of an individual to determine whether to become a parent or not. Ask yourself: when science completely eliminates the need for a woman to carry a child in her womb from conception to birth, will you still support the right to an abortion? And if the right to an abortion is really about autonomy of family planning, why should a man’s right in this area be any less than a woman’s right? As a practical matter, I’m not sure where that gets us. Perhaps, assuming paternity can be conclusively determined, a man who wishes not to be a father should be able to require a woman to choose between an abortion and foregoing child support payments?
And yet opposed the removal of the Taliban, and bitch about it to this day. They’ve also made remarks like the one Jeff quoted, about how US concern for women’s rights is just used for “imperialism”.
Which makes me wonder just what the hell they really want. I suspect they just want to strike a pose that makes themselves feel good.
Ray —
I hear you, but it seems to me you are saddling men with more responsibility for the choice to copulate before marriage than you are women. Again, this seems to infantilize women—much like the case of alcoholic consent.
But that aside, consider the particulars in this case (and, for the sake of the hypothetical, let’s say we believe the plaintiff), and the woman knew and accepted that her partner, the plaintiff, had no wish to have a child. And, to further problematize things (and to pre-empt a lot of red herring talk about who is responsible for birth control, let’s say that he wore a condom as well—just in case—but it failed).
It seems to me that a case could be made here for a fraud being committed as the law is currently configured—because the repurcussions are so financial and emotional onerous.
That decision can be just as easily made by not engaging in the act that turns you into a parent in the first place. This notion may sound old-fashioned, but let’s face it – abstinence works EVERY time you try it.
Chunk – I commend you for being consistent here. In your case, whether women or machines carry children to term – you can be pro-abortion (or pro-choice). However, the core reasoning of the pro-choice crowd is that it’s a woman’s body, and we men have no right to tell her what to do with her own body.
If your scenario ever comes up, it will be interesting to see how the pro-choice crowd tries to weasel out of its hypocrisy. Also – will it be so easy to call a fetus a “clump of cells”, when the mother isn’t carrying the child?
Food for thought.
TV (Harry)
TV (Harry)
What does marriage have to do with it? Married couples can diverge on whether to have more children. They might even divorce over that disagreement.
Technically you’ll have causation problems if you have a condom failure, so you might not want to put that in your hypothetical. You wont be able to show that the conception was caused by the fraud.
But again, while it is compelling to compare this to a business deal under current law, you still leave out a big interest in the consideration of child support: the interest of the child in getting support.
They, they, they. Be more precise.
What an a-hole this guy is. I am presuming there is an actual kid involved. Is this piss ant really going to argue in court that he wanted the mother to have an abortion, while his kid sits and watches?
I agree that from a rhetorical/post-modern perspective, the liberals are being hypocrites, but I think that if you are going to bash feminists over the head with their hypocrisy, you have to commit to the underlying principles of the pro-abortionists. I am not ready to do that.
This guy should pay through the nose to support his offspring and the government should demand it since society has lost the balls to shame him into doing so.
If we give up on a man’s responsibilities to his offspring, we give up our struggle to make women do the same.
you still leave out a big interest in the consideration of child support: the interest of the child in getting support.
While this is certainly a big consideration currently from a legal standpoint, the very issue at question is whether or not this is the way it should be, that the interests of the child should trump all others, including the right of the sperm donor to not be a father if he so chooses. Abortion itself is often argued from the standpoint that the interests of the mother outweigh those of the child.
I personally don’t see what the big deal is. If a man doesn’t want to be a father, give him a limited amount of time after being informed of the pregnancy to decide whether or not to forfeit his parental rights and responsibilities. If, after being informed of the man’s decision, the woman decides to keep the baby (or not) so be it. It’s probably better if she knows that the guy is not going to pay before she has the baby rather than when he skips town later.
Friend —
I appreciate that response. But my question would be, in what sense, exactly, is it his offspring? Genetically, on the one hand (and this happens with sperm donors), and financially, on the other. He may have no other rights with respect to the child.
But remember: the premise here is to think in the abstract, and use this case only as a jumping off point. Again, if we believe the plaintiff for the sake of argument, the pregnancy was unplanned, and in fact was actively discouraged by him (with his partner’s consent). Why, then, does he bear the financial burden of her choices without having any legal recourse to assert his own choices.
I understand these are very complicated questions, and I’m trying to play devil’s advocate her, but the two operable ideas at play here are 1) is the child a child or a clump of cells; and 2) depending on your answer to the first question, where does (or should, if at all) the equality of “choice” enter into the legal equation?
At two different times its two different things. This isn’t so hard to grasp. People who are pro choice think infanticide should be illegal. If the discussion is at this level, I don’t think we’ll get to much of the father’s choice/responsibility/whatever.
It really is a hard one to come to terms with. If we are to say that a woman’s right to liberty trumps the unborn’s right to life, then how are we to say that a mans right to liberty is not equally important?
I suppose I can only answer it as to how I feel about it. If I am responsible, intentionally or otherwise, for the creation of a life, then I am as responsible as the other half of the equation for ensuring that the life grows up to be an asset to society, rather than a detriment. Anything else would require that I elevate my needs/wants above those I share the world with.
Unfortunately, even though I am pro-life, this argument does not work as well for the question of whether abortion should be legal or not. That is more of a question of the proper balance between the rights of life and the rights of liberty, and is often dependant on the individual circumstances. My personal opinion, freshly hatched is that abortion should be illegal like jaywalking and that we ought to be teaching our children exactly what abortion and child rearing means rather than hiding behind euphemisms like choice and life. It does us no good to hide the realities of either situation.
How do you come to this conclusion? And please, leave the law and feminist positions out of your answer.
When does it transfer from “clump of cells” to “living human being”? And how do you come to THAT conclusion?
TV (Harry)
Why, then, does he bear the financial burden of her choices without having any legal recourse to assert his own choices.
It’s a fair question.
I submit that it should be answered within a frame of mutually owned responsibility. If through an act of voluntary sexual intercourse, a conception occurs, then both of the people involved bear equal responsibility for that child.
It may be that in the calculus of rights and responsibilities between a man and a woman, one party or the other gains some comparative advantage. However, the default assumption for the man ought to be (in my value system) that the act of engaging in procreative sex is a de facto acceptance of the potential burden of parenthood.
I do believe that if either partner in the act is empowered by society to terminate their responsibility, then the other partner must also have that right. I also believe that it is wrong to exercise such a power; it may be necessary, but it’s still wrong.
How does that translate into the real world?
I suggest that a contract should be drawn up between the parties to a sexual act, laying out the mutual responsibilities. The terms of this contract can be modified at their mutual discretion; there should also be a default societal contract that applies to all cases of voluntary procreative sex where no formal agreement is negotiated. I’d draw a different default than a feminist would, no doubt, but that’s a matter for legislatures to hammer out. And anybody can always make their own contract.
Sigivald has the right of it, really: it’s mighty glib to sing “my body, my choice” right until you’re in stirrups in the delivery room, all the while militating about the father’s obligations to the innocent child.
If we’re predicating the father’s obligations chiefly on the interests of the child, then—if you’re intellectually honest—you must concede that the mother’s pre-natal choices ought to be likewise constrained by the interests of the child.
On the other hand, if you take the position that women’s pre-natal choices should not be constrained significantly or at all, in deference to her personal autonomy, then—again, if you’re intellectually honest—you must concede the tension between the father’s autonomy interests and child-support obligations.
Thus it ought to be apparent that the disconnect, here, is a lack of intellectual honesty. Which is not altogether surprising given actus’ participation in the thread.
TW: He’s more full of crap than normal.
The “right” to have an abortion is not in the constitution, but the 13th amendment sure as hell is.
The man is not a slave. This ought to be a legal slam-dunk.
The fact that we have a line-drawing problem doesn’t mean that there isn’t a line to be drawn. There are all sorts of ways to draw this line: birth, viability, conception, etc…
In fact, its a concept of our common law legal system that in a partnership the partners are all jointly and severally liable for the torts of any one of the partners.
So this guy is choosing to analogize to the legal construct of fraud—of arms length dealing and exchange, rather than to analogize to the legal construct of partnership, which would hold them both jointly and severally liable to the child.
I don’t thikn the partnership analogy is perfect, or resolves the issue, because we don’t have a perfect analogy to the formation of a partnership. But it does show that there are other imperfect analogies besides an arms-length fraud.
Well, “intellectual honesty” would require equating the pre-natal interests only, Ie: A father can disclaim his interest in the pregnancy, but not the child once born.
Is that the sort of result we want?
This argument, which pops up here from time to time, is completely specious, and those who use it as some kind of “gotcha” are being either incredibly intellectually lazy, ignorant, or I suspect in most cases dishonest.
It does not follow that because a woman can induce an abortion, a man can sever his financial obligations to born and living offspring.
Women’s legal right to induce an abortion does not flow from some special privilege accorded to one sex to get out of a future “cash leak”. It flows from principles that apply equally to men, and is based on rights, within certain limits, of individuals to protect bodily integrity and to make medical decisions privately.
Men aren’t pregnant, and men don’t give birth, but in theory they have the same right to an abortion that women do, should that ever change.
And, if it has to be pointed out, Women don’t get a mulligan that men don’t. A pregnant woman ALWAYS has her body at stake, there is no “get out of pregnancy free” card.
A threat of out-of-pocket costs does not compare with risks to one’s physical person.
Furthermore, the tradition in western common law is that a born and living child is a boon, that any outlay of money is compensated by love, affection and companionship, having one’s line carried on etc. etc. The cost of raising a child is not a “damage”.
In this case, the child is his offspring in every sense of the word. The act of sex (not even needing necessarily even to be consensual, merely deliberative) carries with it the potential for offspring. What is optional is whether or not, and to what degree, the man decides to nurture his offspring, ie. be a father. Ideally, the man would assume all the responsibilities of a father, but minimally, he must assume the responsibilities of a man who has produced offspring. Anything less than demanding that the man take ownership of, to be crass, the problem, undercuts both the legal and ethical underpinnings of fatherhood itself. This does not change for sperm donors, in my mind. The value structure which seperates a mans body (or ewww, his sperm) from his responsibilities as a man (Harvey Mansfield, which you posted earlier is pertinent here) also allows the legal and ethical debate over a male Roe v. Wade to exist, whose female equivalent in 1972 has already separated the female form from the essence of her femininity.
In the abstract, because his choices are detached from the same moral burden that the woman’s choices are. The decision she faces is whether or not to kill her child to relieve herself of a financial, emotional, or social burden. The man is choosing to abandon a child because of the perceived financial, emotional or social burdens that a child brings. The two are not the same. Sure, both parties make these decisions weighed against other financial, emotional and social repecussions, but the weight of the man’s decision is much lighter than the woman’s, unless the added weight of any attached responsibilities are attached with the offspring. He can still choose to abandon his role of fatherhood, but the bond of femaleness and motherhood is much stronger and therefore weighs much heavier on the mother.
1) yes
2) not necessary to answer given #1
Men aren’t pregnant, and men don’t give birth, but in theory they have the same right to an abortion that women do, should that ever change.
This sounds awfully like the argument used by gay marriage opponents that gay people have the same right to marry as straight people as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. I’m not a big supporter of gay marriage, but I never bought that argument from gay marriage opponents, and I don’t buy it here.
And, if it has to be pointed out, Women don’t get a mulligan that men don’t. A pregnant woman ALWAYS has her body at stake, there is no “get out of pregnancy free†card.
And how does having half of your physical and/or mental labor being taken away for 18 years not amount to putting your body at stake, exactly? Your body is being used for someone else’s benefit. Kind of like pregnancy.
Actus, at times you make compelling arguments. I try to think you are off the mark every time you post but grudgingly admit validity to some of your posts. But you completely lose the room because you come across as a condescending dick. Plus, at other times you are indeed completely full of it. Food for thought.
This subject is of personal interest to me because I sired, with my HS girlfriend (cheerleader…go figure,) a daughter born early in my senior year. While the GF and I never married, the situation has, with luck and hard work, generally worked out pretty well. We live 10 minutes apart, and share responsibilities for our 13yr. old softball shortstop/honors society/class clown of a daughter. When I found I was going to be an 18 year old dad I thought my life was over; now I can not fathom my daughter not existing.
But its been quite a financial and, quite frankly, emotional burden. Given my state of mind right after her conception, would I have bailed on her financially and therefore paternally before she was even born, thereby increasing the chances her mother would have aborted (killed) her? With shame I must admit its an even money bet. Of course, hindsight and all that, had I known then what I know now it would be inconceivable, so to speak.
Perhaps it is unfair to men and infantilizing (not even sure thats a word) to women, but perhaps necessary. At what point does it stop just being about the rights of the two procreaters and consideration for the offspring enter the picture?
How this directly pertains to the Michigan case, even though the discussion supposed to be abstract; the plaintiff does not yet realize what a golden gift he has on his hands with that little child. Perhaps dealing with her mother will be a royal pain in the ass, but for HIS daughter’s sake, he could suck it up and do the best he can.
But the cost is very real and should not be trivialized, especially considering that in terms of dollars, in the vast majority of cases the male’s costs skyrocket relative to the mother. Try that argument in court or, better yet, try buying a car by telling the salesman that, while you don’t have sufficient cash or credit to purchase that car, you will love him and be his friend.
If an “innocent child” can’t be exploited for child-support when a woman chooses to have one without concern for the father or society, what’s the world coming to? Men need to be responsible: they can’t go around having sex without thinking
about the consequences and having the taxpayer pick up the tab. That’s a welfare mother’s job.
Seriously, all the arguments against this man seem to be based upon the notion that a woman should do as she pleases and children are only cared about when a woman wants to get money for one.
This has long been considered a given, but I think it debatable.
But beyond that point, what about the obverse example that I raised? Where the man WANTS the child, which, though it is part of her body until it becomes viable or autonomous, it is still, by necessity, half his. And yet he has no claim.
I also raised the issue here of the “fraud” that might have been perpetrated in this case (or if not, then just assume, as a hypothetical, it was). How to address this? Because in such a case, the risk to the women’s body is HER choice to take—and so it begs the question as to why the male (except by choice or conscience) should be compelled to take financial responsible for the choice of another?
In my experience, a forced relationship, be it financial or face-to-face, with a hostile person is by far more damaging than one in which both parties at least want to do the best they can, even if they disagree.
Meaning that if a person doesn’t want to have any responsibility to his or her children, s/he shouldn’t have to.
Sign away those legal rights—but don’t get to bitching when your taxes go up.
Shorter Lauren: Every child a wanted child.
Careful, Lauren—you’ll give playah grll a heart attack…
I really hate this line, because it should read ‘Every child a wanted child, by the mother’.
The man may want the child, but be fooked by biology.
There is an imbalance a woman with an unwanted pregnancy has several choices all of which will have long term repurcussions. (I’m firmly pro-choice but realize abortion isn’t a decision to be taken lightly).
I have the feeling that a lot of the guys that would like to bail are looking for an out with no serious repurcussions for themselves. Women, no matter what their choice don’t have that option. I wouldn’t be surprised if some are potential free riders who want to keep their options open. In the back of their mind might be the thought “I don’t want to pay for this kid, but maybe I’ll look him up in 10 or 15 years to see how he turned out”.
If a man wants to renounce his biological children he should be able to do so, but it needs to be a similarly high stakes choice. In other words no changing his mind 6 days, months, or years later or when he gets Religion or whatever. Once made it’s final and irrevocable with something like a permanent restraining order against the parents from ever communicating or associating with each other and for the child or biological father to ever seek each other out.
This is probably all completely impossible legally, so I’m going to have to come down (roughly) in favor of the status quo. If a man has consentual sex with a woman the chance of being stuck with an 18 year bill needs to be in the back of his mind…it’s already in the back of the woman’s mind.
Hmmm.
At the moment I’ll take the Solomon point of view.
Force the men to pay the child support until the child reaches his or her majority, i.e. 18 years old, and THEN allow the man to sue the woman for all the money he paid her.
Now that the kid is no longer dependent on the mother for support, she can go back to work and pay that money back.
I figure with this solution I’ll piss everyone off.
sw: “problem” as in “it’s your problem”.
I’d agree with that, as long as there were provisions if as the child grew and became more self-aware and wanted to know who/where daddy is, an arrangement could be made. But what a pisser for the woman who bore the physical and financial burden of raising a good kid, only to have the sperm donor back in the picture in time for high school.
Tough call.
Ok everybody, name that scene!
(hint: Monty Python’s Life of Brian)
If I may put words in Actus’ mouth, I think his main point is that, once the child is born, the child’s needs take precedence over the rights of the parents. Unfairness be damned.
That’s a reasonable position to take.
The real problem here is with abortion itself. Once you decide you’re pro-choice, there’re a whole lot of important questions for which you can give no better answer then “eh…oh well.” And this is one of them.
I call bullshit on this:
It flows from principles that apply equally to men, and is based on rights, within certain limits, of individuals to protect bodily integrity and to make medical decisions privately.
This is arrant nonsense, given that “life and health of the mother” exceptions to abortion prohibitions are routinely construed to permit women to abort for reasons of economic hardship or even mere social stigma. It’s patently preposterous to pretend that personal autonomy isn’t the animating principle behind much modern abortion law and virtually all modern pro-choice advocacy, and it’s equally preposterous to suggest that the male’s autonomy interests terminate when he pulls out and gets up to pee.
The cost of raising a child is not a “damageâ€Â.
This is true only if one accepts that the rationale for the Western common law tradition, that you’ve helpfully recited, is still sound. And given that the rationale predates rather enormous changes in familial and sexual mores and relationships, attitudes towards children, and the position of children in society that have taken place over the last forty years…
I do savor the irony, though, of liberal feminists taking intellectual cover behind the Western common law tradition. I guess those penis-wielding, womb-butchering patriarchs aren’t so bad when they’re enabling a woman to soak her partner for child support, never mind that he didn’t want kids and tried to avoid having them, but she went ahead with a pregnancy anyway.
Jeff,
Had to attend a meeting and just now getting back to something more important – this!
My point was and still is that the male does have a choice. It is just that he must make his choice, so to speak, before the event. If he relies on a condom for his protection, then he must take into consideration the rate of failure. A vasectomy is a much surer method that is an option, especially now that the process is reversible.
I’m not attempting to infantilize the female of the species, I’m just stating what is a biological fact – women, because they are women, have more options regarding parenthood than men do. They basically have an insurance policy against defective methods of birth control – abortion.
My daughter is currently pregnant with her second child (her husband’s fourth) and it was a complete surprise. There was no intention of having another child. Her moral stance is that abortion is not an option, therefore she has come to the point where she is looking forward to another son.
Responsibility for pregnancy is joint between the male and female. Parenthood is the same. I honestly do not know what the solution is in the case of the male wanting the child and the female deciding to abort. I do know that, as a male, I have no say what any woman does with her body.
It certainly is a conflicting mess you have dropped on us today. Some heavy discussion, deep thoughts regarding equality of the sexes and the morality of abortion. Maybe others can come to grips with this better than I. I just can’t get away from the fact that men also have a choice and must accept responsibility for their actions.
It’s as if, recognizing that biology creates a disproportional burden on females, so society compensates by giving men a disproportionate financial burden (that is, one theoretically out of proportion to their choices in the matter).
I agree with Lauren.
Let’s don’t forget the choice of adoption as well; there are three choices that can be made.
One aspect that hasn’t been discussed here- how would knowing that a man won’t be forced to help pay for her to raise the child change the woman’s behavior? Would she be more likely to abort, or put the baby up for adoption, or be more cautious with birth control, if she doesn’t have visions of monthly checks from the baby daddy?
Depends on the woman. Some women have multiple babies with multiple men and collect not a cent in support from the male. The government pays the tab. With the relaxed welfare rules the non paying male can even cohabit, as long as they are not married. To answer your question I would say that an employed woman, maybe on a career track, would certainly take more precautions than an unemployed (perhaps unemployable) single woman that already has children. After all, another child would mean an increase in subsidy.
Just saying.
Good point. I’m going to go get knocked up again to get another $50/week in food stamps. Score!
Shorter Lauren
Huh, on a shorter Lauren, your boobs would look bigger. Bonus points!
Lauren- I don’t think many women make the choice to get knocked up to increase the subsidy. I do think, however, that knowing they will get subsidies/check from dad they may make an imprudent choice to keep a baby (or not use adequate birth control).
MayBee, the pros clearly don’t outweigh the cons. I’ve seen others write on this specifically—I’ll see if I can drudge up the links.
Jason:
Um, this is not an intelligent response. There is a difference between sharing money and sharing your internal organs.
Lauren- you don’t have to. I don’t believe for a second that the pros do outweigh the cons. Something makes women choose to have and keep babies they obviously can’t afford and too often, don’t intend to put much effort into raising well. Perhaps we can attribute some of this to them having the mistaken idea that the pros will outweigh the cons.
But I’ve kind of sidetracked this discussion.
Which maks a piss poor argument for saying we should change the pros and cons, since reality is obviously not impacting the decision.
Um, this is not an intelligent response. There is a difference between sharing money and sharing your internal organs.
Not really. Obtaining money involves the use of labor (usually), which involves the use of internal, as well as external, organs. When you share money, you’re sharing the labor you exerted to produce that money. Simple as that.
Unless working takes no physical or mental toll on you, which if that’s the case, I applaud your ability to obtain an easy job.
But many people have jobs that require them to make physical and mental health related sacrificies for the sake of providing for others. Someone who works in a coal mine, for example, might take years off of their lives, through damage to their lungs or other internal organs, for the sake of sharing their money with others.
No wonder I feel fucked at work.
Jeff
,
I was actually making a Dialogue in my head on my way home from the grocery store, with a related question coming from Simplicio
I think you know how Sagredo answered. The reason the kid isn’t “yours” during pregnancy and yet is “your” child after birth is that before birth it’s inside another’s body, and THAT body isn’t yours.
The baby really isn’t yours equally until it’s born.
Hmmm…I don’t know. Underestimating how much support you are going to need vs how much you’ll receive isn’t the same as saying reality doesn’t impact the decision.
Say you are a horrible decision maker, and you think getting $500/month is going to be enough to raise a baby on. That’s different than going into it knowing you’ll get $0/month. I think even a horrible decision maker could notice that difference, and it may alter her decision.
The baby really isn’t yours equally until it’s born
At that point can a man say equally, I don’t want this baby? Can he compel a woman to put the baby up for adoption?
If she wants to put a baby up for adoption and she does not- he can block the adoption and take on responsibility for the child. Is she then compelled to pay child support? (that is something I truly don’t know)
I agree then that we should make sure that everyone in this country knows that getting pregnant to increase your subsidy is not worth it. Then welfare mothers and welfare cutters won’t be ignorant anymore.
I guess pointing out the insurance angle, which fundamentally is what the case is about, isn’t as sexy as talking about infantilizing women and discussing bodily rights.
Maybe a talking gecko would help.
OOps.
…If she wants to put a baby up for adoption and he does not..
Who are you agreeing with? Who thinks someone would get pregnant to increase the subsidy?
Although I will agree there are too many people that don’t spend what little subsidy they get on their children, that’s really another issue altogether.
Look, we’re saying MEN need to understand their responsibility at the moment they decide to have sex. Knowing they might be held responsible might change their behavior. So can’t we say WOMEN need to understand their responsibility at the moment they decide to have sex. Knowing they might be held COMPLETELY responsible might change their behavior.
What, only men can understand consequences?
SHRODINGER’S BABY!~
I got grandkids to watch tonight, so I haven’t read all the comments yet. I wrote my own post on this here.
The is no “equality” on this issue. A child, regardless of circumstance, has been created and is deserving – legally, morally and ethically – support from both parents.
The male in question here is no man. Men do not whine about being a victim of their penis. Men understand they don’t victimize a child no matter how indecent the female is that gave birth to it.
Men and women are not the same and the equating of child support after birth with the question of what will happen to an unborn child before birth is silly on so many levels.
Adults realize that when taking a risk they may have to bear unintended consequences. Females who use abortion as birth control and males who snivel about child support have got to GROW UP.
I would disagree that the man is acting as a victim of his penis. In this day and age it would not suprise me in the least if a woman said she would get an abortion, and then decide to have the child and get financial payback.
Me, somewhat cynical? Nope, totally cynical.
Darleen —
The child deserves parents that want him or her; but beyond that (and I hate to say this, because I usually agree with you more often than not, and I generally find your comments much more nuanced), the idea that the guy is a victim of his penis is absurd given the facts of the case. Plus, to aid in the discussion here (and as an attempt to ward off such angry responses), I added to the hypothetical. If you wish, and when you have time, you can address that portion of the post.
Sure, this guy didn’t have to have sex with the woman. But we shouldn’t forget that that particular concept of “choice” was ridiculed and rejected by feminists as part of their Roe argument. To turn around and use it against a man now is a fairly transparent double-standard.
As someone else noted above, some of the arguments used by those on the pro-choice side had to do with financial hardship on the woman “compelled” to have the child (or the social stigma of being pregnant out of wedlock, etc). But what about the financial hardship on the man—particular given that if he wants his child, but the woman decides to terminate the pregnancy, he has no say whatsoever in the matter?
The point of this post was to raise and discuss seriously the inequities in the system. What you think of the plaintiff is beside the point, as far as I’m concerned. Morally and ethically, perhaps he should support the child if he’s able. But when you note that legally he should—that there is no equality on the issue—well, that both begs the question and frightens me, from a perspective of sexual equality and law.
lol, jamais de ma vie!
Lauren has neither the originality or the IQ to give me a heart attack.
Scient POV. Until the embryo is sentient and self-sustaining, it is a parasite. hmmm. perhaps you could consider shared genome and possibly call it a symbiote. debatable.
Anyways, abortion pre-sentientence is not murder–not a “person”. Use fMRI to determine development of the neo-cortex and hippocampus at about six months. 24 week olds can survive in incubation, mostly… even tho they might be micro-preemies. Induce, deliver, and send daddy the bill.
abortion mitigates biology. makes XX the equal of XY. i personally cannot understand why anyone would want to force a woman to carry an unwanted child. the embryo’s circulatory system would be awash in anger/hatred chemicals and neuro-hormones. the mother might not follow good nutrition protocol.
madness.
my advice? wait for the j-womb to press this issue.
I don’t understand the argument that the man must be responsible regardless. If he has expressed his intention not to have children, and the woman has accepted this as a condition of their relationship, then that is a verbal contract. She doesn’t have to agree, but if she does, her choice should she becomes pregnant is to either raise the child alone, or abort. Call the guy a cad if you like, but if the woman made the agreement, she should not have the right to unilaterally change it.
The default is that if two people have sex, they are both equally responsible for any children that result from their actions. There’s no reason, though, why people can’t come to different agreements on that subject. The difficulty in court is proving that a different agreement existed, and for that a verbal contract might not be enough.
and yes, ditto to ardsgaine.
if there is no contract (like, for example a marriage contract or common law contract), the sperm provider has no rights, and no obligation.
One argument for abortion is that it will save girls from impoverishment, which follows inexorably from teenage pregnancy. But if you make this argument, it must also apply to men (equal protection, after all). So men must have the ability to coerce abortions.
If abortion was severely restricted, there would be no problem. Sex would be a ‘contractual’ relationship, the end of which could be pregnancy. But since one party controls pregnancy, that’s not the case anymore: Women can entrap a man. Sex equals pregnancy? Maybe. Sex equals family? Nope. Change the abortion laws, then we can talk. Until then, give me a break.
I’m against abortion after the first trimester—if you cannot decide within the first three, hey your screwed—but that is just the logical reductio of both identity politics and unfettered access to abortion.
Damnit, never mind, you guys made all of my points for me.
DAMN YOU GOLDSTEIN!!!
Mendooooooooozzza!
That’s a bit stronger than what I said. You’re saying that in cases of casual sex, there’s no implied agreement to share equal responsibility for the child. As the default, though, I believe both parties should share equal responsibility. They share equally in the decision and in the act, so the responsibility is equally theirs, too.
as long as the XY can’t get pregnant, they cannot have equal resposibility.
it’s all about the BIOLOGY!
That may be one argument for abortion, but it’s not mine, and it’s not a very good one. I don’t think your conclusion follows either. Allowing the man to opt out of the “pregnancy” wouldn’t require that the woman be forced to abort.
I don’t see how the option to abort changes the underlying contractual agreement implied in sex.
I don’t follow that at all.
The only thing I can add to any of this is that I’d find it a lot easier to adopt the “child’s benefit” line of argument if I knew even one (of probably fifty or so) unmarried woman with children who spent even a substantial fraction of the so-called “child support” on the child. Ain’t gonna happen, in my experience. In every single one of the instances that I have close knowledge of, the situation is precisely an analogy of the British law—the woman intends the payments as punishment for the man’s having sex with her, and in most cases acknowledges it outright, at least among her peers.
And in one specific case I know where this was the case (in fact, the girl threw it in his face in the aisle at the grocery store), the male looked the judge square in the eye and said (more profanely), “Jail? Sure. Means I’ll never have a job that pays enough to give her a red cent. Where do I sign?”
But then I’m widely considered cynical. Not, perhaps, cynical enough.
Regards,
Ric
tw: involved. ‘nuf said.
Okay, they can’t both carry the child in their wombs, but they can both have the same financial responsibility.
Just to clarify, I’m talking about equal responsibility for a child, not a fetus. By virtue of her biology, the woman gets to decide whether to have the baby or not. That part isn’t equal, but men are well compensated by nature for this inequality by being able to pee in the woods without dropping trou–a skill they can use far more often and far more happily than choosing to have an abortion. It balances out.
Ardsgaine, the case in question is focused exactly on my points; a woman gets pregnant without the ‘consent’ (for want of a better word) of the guy.
She did not have to carry the child to term (or have one in the first place). If sex led to pregnancy and pregnancy led to children, if not inexorably then normally, then the contract ‘theory’ holds.
But abortion makes childbearing a feature in and of itself, quite apart from sex; you could have unprotected sex 6 times a day forever, and never father a child.
That’s the whole POINT of having unlimited abortion; to decouple sex from family. The sexual revolution, in other words. But once sex is distinct from family, so are the familial obligations. And that’s the whole POINT of lots of anti-abortion conservatives (other than the whole murder thing).
This problem goes away if abortion is circumscribed to special cases (incest, rape, medical), because then that restores the link from sex to family.
Okay, they can’t both carry the child in their wombs, but they can both have the same financial responsibility.
Can they both put it up for adoption? Can a man compel a woman to put a baby up for adoption? I ask because at the point of adoption, the womb is no longer in play.
Why the contract analogy, why not the partnership one?
Also, an excellent question.
If I follow you, then you’re saying that the fact that the woman can choose to abort means the man is never responsible for the child. Because the woman has the ability to choose after conception whether to give birth, and the man does not share equally in that choice, he should not have to share equally in the results. Not that you agree with that result, but you believe it is a reductio ad absurdum of the pro-choice position–or to be more exact, it shows that the evil of abortion must lead, logically, to the evil of the dissolution of the family.
Naturally, I disagree.
As RLS argued above, the man has the choice to engage in sex or not, and I believe he should have the right to set conditions, which the woman can accept or reject. If he engages in sex without setting any conditions about not wanting children, then he has equal responsibility for the result. The woman, by virtue of biology, has the final choice about whether to carry a pregnancy to term. If she does so, then both of them are responsible for the child. Her ability to make that choice doesn’t absolve the man of the responsibility he incurred by having sex. It doesn’t break the chain of causality that led to her making the choice. No, he doesn’t get to make the same choice, but then, he doesn’t have to carry the child for nine months either.
This is an interesting conversation.
Ardsgaine- What do you think would constitute setting conditions about not wanting children? Wearing a condom? Asking her if she’s using birthcontrol? Being married to someone else? Not knowing the woman’s name? AND can a drunk that has sex give consent to possibly become a parent? ;p
No, I wouldn’t think that either could force the other to relinquish his (or her) rights once the child is born. Why?
TW: Men. Heh.
Ardsgaine, I certainly agree that men have obligations for children. I am also not against abortion within the first trimester, though I would like it circumscribed heavily. I also like your observation that the man, if he does not ‘contract’ for a child, should not necessarily bear total liability if they conceive. I don’t essentially want to debate all of the fine points now…I’m in my PJs, after all.
My point is more generic, and thanks to MayBee, I can generalize it more. Let’s stipulate that abortion is impossible and remove that from the equation. Lets also stipulate that all sex, everywhere (hmmm, leaving this one alone), will always result in pregnancy, to term.
The fact is that a woman has nearly full authority whether to keep the child or not, through adoption, if nothing else.
My personal preferences is a world of Ozzies and Harriets, but shit happens. Even in the dystopia I outline above, a man has no choice about his family life, whereas the woman does have an ultimate decision, checked perhaps by the government. That’s not really about reproductive rights, its about families, and also about coercing one side and giving a pass to the other.
Keep in mind: I am absolutely fine with coercing men to raise their children. But women should be forced to raise their brats as well.
The contract is the basis for the partnership. Any partnership must be based on an understanding. Marriage is notorious for having to be renegotiated along the way, but if one partner feels very strongly about an issue, then that’s something that should be known prior to the marriage taking place. There can be good reasons for not wanting children, and if it’s discussed ahead of time and both parties agree to not have them, then the woman shouldn’t be able to unilaterally decide to nullify the agreement without taking upon herself the consequence of raising the child alone. If she finds that the agreement no longer suits her, then she can either try for a renegotiation, or get a divorce.
I’d say the common endeavor for mutual pleasure is the basis of the partnership. And they’re both liable to third parties hurt by the partnership: ie, the kid.
Vercingetorix,
I see your point now. Leaving aside abortion, you’re saying that the woman has the choice to put the child up for adoption and thereby get out of her financial obligation, but the man does not have that right.
Is that true though? I don’t know the law, but if the man is aware that the woman is pregnant with his child, can’t he prevent her from giving the child to someone else? Can’t he sue to keep the child, and then have the court require her to help support it?
I mean, I’m pretty certain that my wife couldn’t give up our child for adoption without my consent, but I don’t know what the rules are for people who are single, or for those who are co-habitating.
well, that’s crap
Lol. Hurt by it? Are you taking the Socratic point of view on life, then?
Right now women are not responsible when it comes to getting pregnant because they know they can always force a guy to support her once she has a baby. Its just not fair. If she wants to have a baby without his blessing, then she should pay for the baby herself. Its her body and her right, but its his wallet and she should keep her hands off of it.
Hurt as in unsupported. That’s my understanding of what determines these things: the child’s need.
It just makes so much sense!
Bing! Bing! Bing! I’m right there with Actus
During a mutual agreement if there are damages cause the law usally stipulates that both parties are responsible. Unless, there is a prior contract that defines liability it’s normally 50/50.
However, you have to think that asking for a notarized document signing might ruin the mood unless the has a legal sized paper fetish.
BTW, I personally thought it was funny in the article that the lady from NOW was angry over the “Roe v Wade for men” name because it used their pub but never seemed to have a problem with the possibility that womens ability to support their offspring might be effected. I guess they’ll protect your right to kill the baby before term but you’re on your own when it comes to getting child support.
I think that may be possible. On the other hand, the opposite case—a man sueing to get the woman to give UP the child, and thus his responsibilities—would be scandalous, amazing in these debased times, so I think that it would be hard or impossible to do.
There is very little protection for men for having ‘mutual pleasure’; granted that both parties should be more responsible, it is also a fact of life that some women can coerce men into providing eighteen-year stipends. They do it with welfare; child support is par for the course.
Ric says
The only thing I can add to any of this is that I’d find it a lot easier to adopt the “child’s benefit†line of argument if I knew even one (of probably fifty or so) unmarried woman with children who spent even a substantial fraction of the so-called “child support†on the child.
Jesus, Mary and Joseph… Yes Ric, let’s take the sniveling male in this case who had to sell his prized f*cking CAR and is making a $475 per month payment…
Want to tell me how someone raises a child on $950 a MONTH???
Honest to GOD, what has happened to MEN in this friggin country?
ARGH
But in the man’s case, there was no intent to harm. His intention was not to have children. The woman chose to have a child anyway, so she is the one responsible for the fact that the child will not have a father’s support. Therefore, she has to supply the remedy. If she can’t support the child by herself, she shouldn’t have had it.
You’re skipping right over the fact that the man did not want to have children, and the woman deliberately got pregnant. Are you taking the position that men who do not want children should simply not have sex? Are you opposed to contraceptives and abortion?
Incidentally, addressed to everyone else, my position does allow the man the right to an abortion, in a sense. He has the right to say ahead of time that if the woman becomes pregnant, he would prefer that she have an abortion, and if she chooses not to, he will not share responsibility for the child.
As I said, though, I don’t think that should be the default understanding, and I think he’d better get it in writing.
Gah! I have to go to bed. Will rejoin the conversation tomorrow.
TW: A corps-e is what I’ll be tomorrow.
Women who have kids to keep their ‘baby-daddies’ in their lives? Maybe, Darleen? Or should the gentlemen just pay for the kid for the rest of his life, because some broad decided to get knocked up and entrap him?
Christ on a crutch, let’s not blame our lily-white virginal mothers-to-be for exercising their ‘reproductive rights’, right onto the dole and onto some poor shmuck’s debit card for the rest of his life. I mean, jeez, its just a car payment, right? I know I’ve got the seven or eight sports cars, like every other man, so why doesn’t the patriarchal imperialist white dudes just make that little sacrifice.
It’s only a car payment, after all…SUV…with insurance…but I’m sure he has money just to BURN…*SPIT*
That’s also assuming he’s named on the birth certificate.
Very good.
I think that is valid in a known relationship. Well, first I should say that within a marriage, the guy is absolutely responsible no matter what the agreement is. That’s what marriage is all about.
Within a more undefined but long-term relationship, I think Ardsgaine’s position is good.
BUT I think when it comes to people that have virtually no relationship, the default assumption must be the couple is having sex for pleasure, and not for procreation.
Vercingetorix- thanks for covering the adoption angle.