First: “Pennsylvania Court Orders Sperm Donor to Lesbian Couple to Pay Child Support”:
A sperm donor who helped a lesbian couple conceive two children is liable for child support under a state appellate court ruling that a legal expert believes might be the first of its kind in the U.S.
A Superior Court panel last week ordered a Dauphin County judge to establish how much Carl L. Frampton Jr. would have to pay to the birth mother of the 8-year-old boy and 7-year-old girl.
“I’m unaware of any other state appellate court that has found that a child has, simultaneously, three adults who are financially obligated to the child’s support and are also entitled to visitation,” said New York Law School professor Arthur S. Leonard, an expert on sexuality and the law.
But Frampton, 60, of Indiana, Pennsylvania, died suddenly of a stroke in March, leaving lawyers involved in the case with different theories about how his death may affect the precedent-setting case.
This case is something of a legal outlier, I’d bet, given that the sperm donor was, according to the report, involved with the children, who knew him to be their biological father.
Still, that one of these women would use that fact to compel child support is both cynical and revolting, given that Mr Frampton voluntarily donoted sperm to help the couple conceive, only to be slapped with a bill when the couple split.
It remains to be seen if the ruling will affect cases wherein sperm was donoted anonymously and received through a sperm bank, though this bit from the end of the story should give any potential sperm donors pause:
The state Supreme Court is currently considering a similar case, in which a sperm donor wants to enforce a promise made by the mother that he would not have to be involved in the child’s life. That biological father was ordered to pay $1,520 in monthly support.
About two-thirds of states have adopted versions of the Uniform Parentage Act that can shield sperm donors from being forced to assume parenting responsibilities. Pennsylvania has no such law.
Maybe not. But does it not have a law that honors contracts—even verbal ones?
(h/t Pablo)
Second: “Health club sued for discrimination”:
A lesbian couple who share a last name and are raising a daughter together have sued the Rochester Athletic Club and its owner for denying them a family membership because they are not legally married.
While state law prohibits same-sex couples from marrying in Minnesota, Amy and Sarah Monson exchanged vows in a formal commitment ceremony in 2002. They have also merged their finances and listed each other as beneficiaries in their estate plans along with their 11-year-old daughter.
But when the Monsons tried to purchase a family membership at the RAC in March 2006, the club said they were not eligible for the discounted rate – which would have saved them about $40 a month – because they are not married under the law.
The club invited one of the Monsons and their daughter to join at the family rate, offering the other a more expensive individual membership, according to defense attorney Gregory Griffith. The Monsons declined, deciding instead to file a lawsuit against the club and its owner, John Remick, for discrimination based on sexual orientation.
“This is not about marriage,†said the Monson’s attorney, Joni Thome. “It’s about sexual orientation. The legal relationship is not what matters. What matters is what people acknowledge themselves to be. â€Â
Defense attorney Gregory Griffith disagrees, arguing that the legal status of the Monson’s relationship is a pivotal factor in the case.
“If the state would modify some of the legal standards [marriage laws], that would certainly clarify this situation,†he said. “But as we stand, we don’t believe Minnesota law requires the RAC to provide the Monsons what they’re seeking.â€Â
In point of legal principle, I support the club owner: contrary to what Monsons assert, “what matters” is NOT what people acknowledge themselves to be—though this movement toward self-definition by way of arguing that everything is a “social construct” has been underway for quite some time now, and is especially prevalent in the study of race and sex.
Here, though, the applicable social construct isn’t at issue: the law holds that same sex couples can’t be married, and so it is quite clear that, legally at least, the couple is not married and not eligible for the discount.
Should the club owner change the policy to allow for same sex couples to receive benefits? I don’t know: from a PR and financial standpoint, such a move could help his business. Too, it could hurt business—what’s to prevent any two friends of the same sex to claim a relationship in order to receive the discount?—but ultimately, that choice is left to the club owner.
Of course, I would make the same argument about privately owned restaurants and clubs with respect to smoking—and most states haven’t sided with my arguments—so who knows how Minnesota judges will act.
(h/t Rob)
Two interesting cases. I’d be interested in hearing your views—and, if there be some left who still read this site and aren’t openly hostile, I’d be interested in hearing the views from academic feminists, as well.
I’m not holding my breath on that last, though.
Family discounts make less sense to me than, say, bonuses for recruiting new members. If the new members you recruit happen to be family members—or the same-sex roomie who is so desperate to get into the club that he’d pose as your nighttime wrestling partner—shouldn’t matter.
I read this crap yesterday and started to make me think. Shouldn’t there be some sort of prenup for the donor if he is a friend of the couple? Best lesson learned here, is keep your ejaculations anonymous
Better yet, keep them to yourself. Friends don’t let friends knock lesbians up.
I hate to say it, but our legal system and family law started to go bad when “best interests of the child” became a legal concept. It is not a legal concept, it is a cliche, a mantra, an emotional concept. But it is not a legal concept and it is impossible to give it legal meaning outside of subjective beliefs in what is or is not “good” for a child.
Anything can flow from that. Instead of such a nebulous phrase that can be used to justify anything, there should be rights and responsibilities under the law.
2 people decide to have a child – they are responsinble for that child. Not some third party who merely provided dna. Some common sense should prevail. Yes, some kids will lose out on having a rich “father”, but it is not the state’s job to distribute wealth.
People and courts find that they can justify any tyrannical intrusion into libery under the guise “for the children”.
It is NOT the state’s job to raise or provide for children, and the farther we go down the path were we accpet that it is, in fact the state’s job to raise, care for, and provide for children, we will lose more and more liberty.
Who told the kid that? I suspect Rugmunchausen by Proxy.
There is something innately castrating about men who donate their sperm to women who don’t want to be with men.
I hate to say it, but our legal system and family law started to go bad when “best interests of the child†became a legal concept.
I’d pay to see that. So far, “the best interests of the child” tends to equal “the whims of the adults who refuse to surrender their pride or whatever for the best interests of the child.”
Or who refuse to recognize that their domestic situation isn’t legally or socially conducive to good child-rearing in the first place. Live-in boyfriends or girlfriends tend to fill this bill, among other things. Traditional, permanent marriage was created for the sake of the children, not for the convenience or tastes of narcissistic adults.
I’m a single woman who would like to have children, but until I can provide them with a good father who is a member of their legally constituted family, I’ll remain childless. I’ll sacrifice my maternal yearnings for the sake of any children I might have. Gladly.
You’re also not doing the resulting child any favors. The statistics on emotional development in fatherless children speak loud and clear. Kids do best with a mother and a father, and kids without that suffer deficits that follow them throughout their lives.
You want a baby without a Daddy? Get a puppy.
“I’m a single woman who would like to have children, but until I can provide them with a good father who is a member of their legally constituted family, I’ll remain childless. I’ll sacrifice my maternal yearnings for the sake of any children I might have. Gladly.”
Dicentra,
Thank you for that. That kind of unselfishness and clear thinking is dissapearing in our country…
Two quick thoughts: verbal contracts are worth the paper they’re written on; and, any version of the UPA probably only protects anonymous donors. In this case, the child’s (and the state’s) interest in obtaining support will probably outweigh the father/donor’s estoppel argument. I’ll have to dig that one up.
I’ll also note that care should be taken here: the first decision (3 parents) is a lower level than the second case (which itself is undecided) here in PA. The first case will almost definitely end up in the higher court sooner or later.
I first read about this case the day after my Family Law exam, wherein we had been asked to describe a potential future development in family law. I suggested that polygamy, or polygamy-like structures might gain acceptance in the law, at least de facto. I had cases like this in mind. Basically my argument was that developments in third-party standing, gay marriage, and reproductive technology were likely to create situations where the bundle of rights and privileges we associate with the family would have to be shared more broadly, under current law. You see this here, where the child already had two mommies, we could add a daddy when we weigh two factors: it was his own biological child and he held her out to be his own. Under the UPA (which PA does not have), that probably makes you a daddy.
Oh, and I’m with you on the MN case. It’s the legal definition that counts, not what people regard themselves as. Hell, I regard myself as a three-year old, does that mean that both my son and I get into the movies with a discount? No.
Au contraire.
One of the more amusing adventures in family law and child support is a statute on the books in more than a few places. This item essentially calls upon a FC judge to impute motive as a predominate factor in “awarding” child support.
In other words, a common FC policy—itself a likely corruption of the legislature’s intent—is to try and figure out what somebody intended five years ago as a factor of establishing support levels today.
Ability? Assets? Income? Need? Forget it. What counts here, somehow, is what the Obligor intended. Maybe a half decade ago.
Even when that potential Obligor uses the very and direct results of that prior intent to avoid the obligation!
But what’s more amazing is that knowing this is a flaw of reasoning, the courts are slowly evolving that policy of habit, I’m told, such that the next time one of these cases gets contested for its ludicrously arbitrary abuse of legislative intent, it’ll then likely make fodder for a precedent-setting SC review and clarification.
In short the very political climate itself (in this case the feminist activism that essentially defines and proscribes FC standards, because this item absolutely involves gender) dictates how years or decades of known, egregious errors in FC reasoning eventually progress to critical mass and become overturned, millions of dollars and thousands of lives later.
Call me naive, but as a decidedly un-lawyerly type, this just cracks me up. Even the objective law is entirely subject to political whim. Call me naive.
JH the latter issue regards fees for a gym and not support.
You mean you haven’t read Billy has three Mommies, two Daddies and a Pool Boy.
The courtroom scenes make Jarndyce v Jarndyce look like an episode of LA Law.
And another thing, the irony of this sperm-donor case is exquisite: DNA linkage overcomes all legal obstacles, and like the Bradley Amendment, hammers “dad” without recourse.
Yet “dad” can and frequently is not biological dad, and is equally permanently and without recourse obliged to pay support.
It’s all part of our lovely obligation/guilt-by-accusation society: Demand that that not-dad-livein-guy pay support until Jr hits 18; no problem. Demand that that sperm donor who never darkened the doorway pays support; no problem.
Hell, just make em BOTH pay, it’s your call, sister. And prenups? Prior contracts? This is FC; I’m thinking they don’t mean much anymore. The rest of one’s legal standing surely do not.
These convolutions make me even more convinced that we need a constitutional amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman, period, for the sake of any resulting children. And there can only be one legal father and one legal mother at a time.
Parents divorce, mom gets kids, dad pays support. Mom remarries, dad off hook for support. Easy.
And I say this as someone who would actually benefit from the marriage laws being altered. I’m Mormon, and if polygamy were to become legal, maybe my church would reinstitute it. (But that is totally speculative; they could just as likely NOT.) And then I could find me an already housebroken man and have me some kids without the burden of being the only mom around to take care of the kids and household.
But to unleash polygamy on the general public would be a raging disaster, so I am NOT for it. I’ll die single before I watch the country unhinge itself.
People sarcastically suggest that we dissolve childless heterosexual marriages to be consistent with marriage being for reproduction, but it would be just as legit to prohibit children from being adopted or conceived in any BUT heterosexual unions.
You know just yesterday I got a letter from Sally Struthers telling me that little G’nuk Nik, whom I’ve been sponsoring for years had been accepted to private school.
I guess I should settle.
Easy but not likely to be proper. Rather: Parents divorce, both get kids equally, nobody pays support. Easy.
Also, responsible, principled, not arguable on a host of constitutional grounds, reduces divorce, reduces irresponsible births, elimates improper incentives, restores social fabric to a degree, saves trillions, and reduces the parasitic divorce and custody industries by three-quarters or more.
It’s called a presumption of joint custody and it’s being used or promoted widely. Next up would be to abolish the child support industry.
History is the story of the family of Man, that is, people related by blood. To say that blood relations don’t matter denies millions of years of evolution. Such an ideology is insane and, ultimately, irrelevant to the future of the race. There can be no mother without a father. Sisters and brothers unrelated to one of their “parents” are not really part of a family including that “parent”. It’s a measure of our degeneration that these simple, obvious facts even need to be stated.
Thanks Robert! I’m not blood related to my son, does that mean I’m not his father? And what rights (if any) would you consider “grandparents” of a child born in a lesbian union where the child is not genetically related to either mother? “None” is a valid answer. But for me, I’m just not so sure that, assuming some bond has been formed, we shouldn’t recognize that relationship.
Genetics as a bright line rule does create certainty in some situations, and as a rationale has been adopted in some places. Personally, I don’t feel it’s adequate and oftentimes downright unhelpful.
These convolutions make me even more convinced that we need a constitutional amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman
How does that address the situation? As it does with genetics determining parentage, it is a bright line rule and certainly clarifies things, but I don’t think it actually addresses reality. And using the Constitution to shape society to reflect the reality that we want to see doesn’t strike me as a very good idea?
They’ve got you coming and going.
I would also like to chip in my 16.8 cents (inflation, dontchaknow?), and respond by saying this is possibly the dumbest thing I’ve read all week, up to and including Saint Sully’s latest sallies on the Second Amendment…
You are invited to either clarify or retract before things get uglified up in hyar…
Robert,
Society should reward altruism.
Let’s say there is a married couple who have a young son of 1 yr.
The husband is killed in Iraq and the wife dies in a car accident. They have no immediate blood relatives. The husband had a buddy, also in Iraq who had pledged to care for the family in the event of this very circumstance.
He and his wife adopt the 1 yr. old as one of their own. Later they divorce and a child support battle erupts. What now?
Patrick’s point against application of a “bright line rule” comes into play here.
The problem I have is with assholes who exploit the legal loophole this type of event produces.
Exceptions intended to reward altruism and to protect innocents get twisted and flogged from exception, to precedent, to entitlement.
Ol’ Carl Frampton is probably glad he doesn’t have to deal with this shit anymore. Death may indeed be a lot more fun than listening to/getting sued by these ungrateful cows.
Here’s my idea for child support: when a woman gets pregnant, a legal clock starts. She has to name the father or potential fathers. Then the father or potential fathers get to decide what they’re going to do. If they don’t want the child, they have to pony up the cost of an abortion (including time off work, transportation, and the cost of the procedure itself). The cost is divided up by all the potential fathers (and if the potential father denies it AND the post-abortion DNA test proves it’s him, he has to pay the whole thing and the others get a refund.) Of course, the potential father can not pay anything and wait for the child to be born. Then a DNA test can (if he’s sure his partner only had his sperm inside her) be passed up on. And if the child is born to none of the above, all child support is not paid unless the father is named within a certain amount of time. My proposal is horribly invasive, but the mother can still choose to raise a child on her own (with only the cost of an abortion to pay for the father’s half) and the father gets no rights. And I’d let anyone (even a lesbian woman) be able to claim father rights. The details regarding rape, coerced non-parenthood, hiding fathers, one-nighters and the rest of the But-Ifs can be worked out, but I like my proposal’s potential to strengthen the bonds of couplehood (even in marriage,) since testing can be available to keep a man from having to pay for someone else’s child.
Does that punish women? Only if they can’t own up to their actions. And if they are victims of something, it might just be an additional incentive to do the right thing for their child. Does this punish children? Being fatherless sucks, but having a father who spends your entire childhood resenting the fact that to him you are nothing more than a monthly check sucks too. I say let the child have no official father, and I say we should let the social safety nets help take care of the child (yes, I’m talking about the potential for 18 years of welfare.) Child’s best interest? A father who gives a shit and a mother who finds a father who gives a shit.
As for the Minnesota health club, I am indifferent to the idea that any group can be a family. I’d like for the club to set up a neutral “group” discount, allowing coworkers and exercise buddies as well as people who live together to take advantage, but it’s really up to the owners. They’ll get some bad press for this, and I’m not sure it’s entirely well-deserved since the club owners didn’t make the marriage laws. On the other hand, they are in charge of their company’s policy.
Maybe not. But does it not have a law that honors contractsâ€â€even verbal ones?
I wouldn’t be surprised if child support was an interest of the child, not the parents. And thus the parents can’t contract away that interest. At least not without a court approval that takes into account that interest, say like in a divorce settlement or separation agreement.
Does that punish women? Only if they can’t own up to their actions.
Since it takes two to make a pregnancy, why not have men also keep track of who they’ve potentially fathered? Its about owning up, right?
blockquote>I hate to say it, but our legal system and family law started to go bad when “best interests of the child†became a legal concept.</blockquote>
I think family law went south due to no-fault divorce. How can there be justice when you remove fault, and yet still require responsibility? The result is that marriage is a joke, with these examples as punch lines.
I say, bring back culpability; if you are getting divorced because you beat your wife (for example), you pay court ordered compensation to your ex. If you’re getting divorced because you caught her blowing her boss, she gets nothing, and support to the children is left to your discretion. (and in that example, you should get custody, and she should pay support.) These examples are just off the cuff, meant to illustrate why there is such injustice in modern family law.
The gym membership thing is just another example of our sue-happy society. These greedy bitches just happen to be gay. We really need tort reform, to curb frivolous lawsuits, and stop rocketing consumer prices and medical expenses. A loser pays policy would be a good start.
what’s to prevent any two friends of the opposite sex to claim a relationship in order to receive the discount, for that matter?
I think family law went south due to no-fault divorce. How can there be justice when you remove fault, and yet still require responsibility?
There can still be fault. It’s just not required.
Chris,
The father can own up or bail out. And it should be done in an official capacity. And the social ramifications of being a cad who knocks up women and leaves them in the lurch will be there for everyone (including the child) to see. Keeping track of who a man has sex with is certainly in his interest now, in the future, and in the future under my proposed change. I’m just giving a woman’s right to an abortion the additional responsibility of not having an abortion when the father doesn’t want a child. It’s not putting laws in the uterus so much as putting laws in the way of collecting child support from the unwilling.
And the social implications of being a mother who raises a child that came from a cad won’t be much worse than the status quo. Women will still get screwed if they got screwed by the wrong guy. But I can’t see how that will change, no matter what.
The father can own up or bail out.
No responsibility to track his potential offspring. It’s all on the woman? Doesn’t sound like much owning up.
I’m just giving a woman’s right to an abortion the additional responsibility of not having an abortion when the father doesn’t want a child.
You aint gonna have much luck creating incentives for coercing abortion by creating half-orphans.
Lee- I absolutely agree.
How does that address the situation? As it does with genetics determining parentage, it is a bright line rule and certainly clarifies things, but I don’t think it actually addresses reality.
It addresses reality by saying that if, for whatever reason, you can’t create a nuclear family, the government and society won’t legitimize your attempts to come up with inferior alternatives.
And using the Constitution to shape society to reflect the reality that we want to see doesn’t strike me as a very good idea?
I’m pretty sure the Constitution was devised to create a very specific reality, i.e., a tyranny-free country, which is very much against what many people are naturally inclined to want. How many congresscritters and other members of government have the will to power and would use it if they weren’t restrained?
In this case, we would be using the Constitution to encourage—strongly encourage—people to Do It Right Or Not Do It At All.
There’s a reason why out-of-wedlock births and living in sin, et al., used to carry such a heavy social penalty: such things screw up children, and screwed-up kids grow up to be screwed-up adults, who pass off screwed-up ideas as normal.
Like Potsie being the Fonz and junk.
Thanks Robert! I’m not blood related to my son, does that mean I’m not his father?
Don’t be ridiculous. There have always been legal procedures to accommodate step-parents and adoptive parents. The idea is that you’ve got the mother and father (preferably biological parents of the kids), but if the biological parents can’t fulfill their role, you find another mother and father for them, if possible, and give them the legal rights and responsibilities of parents.
But when it comes to parenting and reproduction, men and women are NOT interchangeable, neither is either one expendable. If a parent has to raise children alone, it is because something has gone wrong. A parent has died or been incapacitated or abandoned his/her responsibilities.
It’s stupid to call that “just another parenting style.” It’s just as stupid as deaf people saying that they’re not really handicapped because sign language is a perfectly good alternative for verbal (but not written) communication. Yeah? You got a substitute for hearing music up your sleeve somewhere?
Single parenting is not as good as hetero-couple parenting just as being deaf is not as good as hearing. You can make your way in life, but something’s missing.
The requirements that that marriage ceremony be performed by specifically authorized individuals, with the witnesses signing forms and the whole package filed with the county/state…
I mean, since they have to be married, they might as well go whole hog, mightn’t they?
TW: england97 swings like a pendulum do…
Nicely reasoned and said.
Not so nicely reasoned at all. This is the slippery slope we have today, imputing irrevocable “fatherhood” solely for the purpose of child support.
DNA testing is the only way. Step parents must have zero legal and/or financial obligation imposed upon them—it must be by choice and revocable. Anything else is simply wrong and conflicts legal sense.
As to fault vs no-fault, no-fault IS fault: It’s called make an assertion, get custody, get paid, get the shack. IT’S ALL ABOUT that kind of fault and it’s abhorrant to common sense, constitutional principle, basic rights, prior law, and the kitchen sink.
Read my earlier comment: Family law as it pertains to kids, support, and custody, is wholly dependant on the political climate. Which is…Beuller?
Which doesn’t stop the opportunists (and their scumbac laywers) using it at every possible turn. In fact, it empowers them, utterly.
“This case is something of a legal outlier …”
Then buddy, you ain’t been paying attention for the last 50 years.
Here’s how these cases are decided:
1) Find the nearest fucking man. Doesn’t even matter if it’s his sperm, or his kid.
2) Take his shit.
3) Period.
It’s all about equal rights, dude. If women were required to cough up 50% of their net takehome pay, then they might get the idea they were just as good as men.
Can’t have that, now can we?
I was going to make a joke about lesbians holding up a sperm bank armed with turkey basters, but I decided that would be in bad taste.
chris,
Do you know of anyplace where there is any mechanism that ensures CS funds are spent for the benefit of the child? I do not.
Do you know of a place where any owed funds are owed to the child? I do not.
Do you know of any other way in which an individual must pay to support an adult child, and yet pay not the child but the other parent? I do not.
But I know that everywhere support is paid, the money is paid to either the “custodial” parent or the state, and that there is no mechanism that requires accountability in how these funds are ultimately spent.
There. Fixed that for you.
She is the one with the kid, right? And the knowledge of who the father is, ideally? Sort of an inherent ability to track, dontcha think?
Since when? In this state, Michigan, the parent paying support must do so under statute, not based on the mom’s income from a subsequent spouse.
As a matter of fact there is a case here that boggles the mind.
A woman was impregnated by her boyfriend but told her husband that he was the father. Michigan law presumes that the husband of the mother is the father. Once the husband accepts that paternity he can’t do a thing about it. Subsequently the mother divorced her husband and moved in with her baby daddy. She also demanded child support, which the Friend of the Court granted. She eventually left the baby daddy and the bio dad was granted custody. Friend of the Court simply redirected the payments from the ex-husband from her to the custodial parent.
The court is ignoring DNA evidence that shows that it’s not his kid and is forcing a man to pay child support to the guy who knocked up his wife.
Sex has NEVER been free or safe. But now the guys that never even get laid are on the hook?
huh…
I guess no academic feminists visit PW.
No, it doesn’t say that. It may mean that to you, but that’s not what it says. Does the establishment clause of the First Amendment say we can’t have Nativities at City Hall? No, it doesn’t, but it’s still applied that way. Only one other amendment has been written to regulate private conduct, I’m not sure we want to emulate much from that era. Regulating marriage does not regulate families.
Family law is an arena rife with emotionality, for obvious reasons. This is one of the reasons bright line rules are so attractive. Another is the utter disaster that “best interests” seems to be. There are many difficult questions the modern world presents us with, and I don’t know what the answers are. But I’m pretty sure I’m against bringing Constitutional questions into this any more than already they already have been. Doing that always seems to be an attempt to shut down discussion and experimentation.
JAM,
It doesn’t make sense does it? No-fault divorce, the goal of legitimizing all children, and the support jihad have combined to form a pretty nasty stew.
Cunning. They’ve finally found a way of taxing wankers.
Well, the fact that 2/3 of the states have instituted legislation protecting sperm donors from support claims suggests that the vast majority of states have recognized the potential problem.
And the “outlier” status I mention because, in this case, there were other circumstances: the donor was active with the family and was acknowledged as “father.” I still think the ruling is dubious—and like Patrick, I worry that it opens up the door to extend the responsibility for “parenthood” beyond traditional parameters—but I still think the circumstances of the case make it an unusual one, with respect to sperm donors and support.
But I know that everywhere support is paid, the money is paid to either the “custodial†parent or the state, and that there is no mechanism that requires accountability in how these funds are ultimately spent.
Like I said, I still think it would be an interest of the child that can’t be contracted away. It don’t surprise me that a parent can enforce a childs interest and is given the money directly. I would imagine that works with other money that is a childs interestt.
She is the one with the kid, right? And the knowledge of who the father is, ideally?
And he’s the one who impregnated her, with the knowledge of who he’s potentially impregnated, ideally. But no responsibility at all for him to find out if he has a kid? No due diligence requirement vs. the full search requirement on the woman? Sounds not very owning up.
As for fault, it won’t matter for granting of divorces, but can for other purposes. In some places if you commit family violence, that affects custody. It might even affect distribution of marital assets. I suppose this won’t technically be considered ‘fault’ but will fall into another category of the equitable standard of the distribution.
That you’ve said it previously doesn’t make it so. How is payment with no strings attached requiring the money to benefit the child a direct interest of the child?
Tha parent who is paying cannot enforce the child’s interest. There is the state, there is the “custodial” parent, there is the payor and there is the money. There is NOTHING that dictates a benefit for the child. NOTHING.
You’d think that the person who is PREGNANT would sound the alarm, wouldn’t you? Just what the heck is it you’re advocating for here? Maybe intalling a GPS bracelet on everyone you’ve fucked so as to locate them and maintain knowledge of their pregnancy status? Please elaborate on your “owning up” issue and the proper solution as you see it. And also whether you think this owning up should include preventing a woman from aborting a child you’ve impregnated her with.
In some cases it affects custody even if you didn’t. But battery is a crime with its own penalties. No fault means just that: No fault.
Not nearly to the extent that having a penis affects it.
If it isn’t fault, but it affects the distribution of assets, where the hell is the equity?
When’s the last time you were asked for proof that you were married to sign any contract as minor as a health club membership? Most states recognize some form of common law for heterosexual couples, anyway. I think it would be interesting to see what kind of identification requirements this health club requires of their applicants; most don’t require anything other than a credit card, and that only because you need a way to make monthly payments where they can suck the money out without you having to be directly aware of it.
There is OTHING that dictates a benefit for the child. NOTHING.
Directly, no. I don’t think the state directly tells a parent how to raise their kids and use their kids entitlements with too much specificity. But that doesn’t change the fact that support is an interest of the child which another party can’t contract away, even if that party is the one that has standing to sue for support and is given the support. I see how they can fail to use the standing for support. But I don’t see how they could contract it away without that contract having the sanction of someone that noted the childs interest.
If it isn’t fault, but it affects the distribution of assets, where the hell is the equity?
Here.
You’d think that the person who is PREGNANT would sound the alarm, wouldn’t you?
Sure. But so long as we’re owning up, lets all do it. Someone up above had a pretty intrusive and elaborate scheme to make sure that women own up. It stands to reason that it would work better if both parties were searching, and both owning up. I’m sure an equally ridiculous system could be created, with incentives and disincentives. But does it have to be so detailed and ridiculous? I don’t think so.
And also whether you think this owning up should include preventing a woman from aborting a child you’ve impregnated her with.
That sounds completely ridiculous.
They do if you’re a “noncustodial” parent. Ah, entitlements!
If I may…
Indeed.
How much searching does a pregnant woman have to do, in your estimation? And where is your plan? What is your solution? And why is preventing the death of the child you’re supposed to be owning up for so ridiculous? You’re looking for responsibility for the life you’ve created, right?
Please expand.
Oh, btw, New York doesn’t have no fault divorce, except by agreement of the parties. The barbell case isn’t a no fault case.
How much searching does a pregnant woman have to do, in your estimation?
Now? I have no idea. In the program describe aboveiIt seems like she has to name all her sexual partners and tell them about each other. Should we have men do that too? Would that help owning up? Seems like if more than one party is searching that increases the chances. Or maybe this is just a ridiculous system which only makes sense when a one-sided person makes it apply to the other.
And why is preventing the death of the child you’re supposed to be owning up for so ridiculous? You’re looking for responsibility for the life you’ve created, right?
I’m looking for responsibility for whats been done. Which is get someone pregnant. Not to be able to control their body. Part of taking responsibility for impregnating someone is realizing that now that person decides what happens to their body over the next 9 months. Own up to it dude.
The barbell case isn’t a no fault case.
Equitable distribution in New York is no-fault.
I saw something about notifying possible fathers of an actual child. Did you see something else?
The chances of what?
Yes, it is. I think that’s why people are looking for ways to change it. It’s quite broken.
So you want responsibility without rights. I see. But who said anything about controlling anyone’s body? Unless you’re talking about forcing someone to work so that you can take the fruit of their labor. Is that what you mean, chris?
Part of taking responsibility is realizing? That you have no say? Are you smoking illicit substances, chris?
Uh, dude. You’d better read that link you posted again. It’s about fault in distributing assets. In New York.
The chances of what?
The two parents finding each other.
So you want responsibility without rights.
They just dont have the right to control someone else’s body. Thats it. You’re going ot have to be responsible.
Uh, dude. You’d better read that link you posted again. It’s about fault in distributing assets. In New York.
It says:
And is this a problem that needs solving? When there are two parents, odds are they’ve already met. So, I’ll ask again: Just what is it you think men ought to do to monitor the pregnancy status of women they’ve had relations with? And should they do this with women they’ve used a condom with? Had only oral sex with? Women who told them they were on the pill? Please, grace us with your plan.
What about the child’s body? And what about the control the mother will take over the man’s body? How would preventing an abortion be controlling a body? Is preventing a murder controlling the murderer’s body? What about a molester? If you stop him/her are you controlling their body? You seem to have a triple standard going here. You also seem to have an odd conception of what responsibility is. Please explain in terms that aren’t so empty and circular.
Right. Fault can be a “just and proper” factor in the division of property. Which contradicts your statement:
The linked article then goes on to say:
One of us is quite confused.
And is this a problem that needs solving?
Somebody up above came up with a very intrusive scheme for it. If it’s not a big deal then no intrusive solution is needed. I suppose the first step of owning up to your potential children would be to be aware of who all the people you have potentially impregnated are. That means, if you know your sex-ed, being aware that birth control methods do fail, specially from the unilateral perspective. Like when you simply rely on your partner to take care of it.
As for the need of this sort of thing, I am assuming it from the person who posted the intrusive system on women above. Since you didn’t bring it up then, I assumed you found the need too. But if you don’t see a need for it, then we don’t need to discuss it, because I don’t have a belief either way.
How would preventing an abortion be controlling a body?
You understand this anatomy thing, right? How a fetus is something in the body of the woman?
Fault can be a “just and proper†factor in the division of property.
More accurately, it was conduct that ‘shocked the conscience,’ which is different than marital fault needed to have the divorce. Simple adultery, for example, would be fault for the purposes of granting the divorce. But the equitable distribution doens’t just look at that ‘fault.’ The conduct might even be something that isn’t the basis of the divorce, since it falls under a ‘catch all.’
So it would be more accurate to say that equitable distribution in NY doesn’t generally look at fault. Rather than to say it is ‘no-fault’ except for conduct that ‘shocks the consciencee.’ My mistake.
No, someone upthread came up with a way for men to have the same right to opt out of parenthood, during pregnancy, that women enjoy. Women have the knowledge of a pending child. Men generally do not until, unless they get it from the woman.
We’re not talking about potential children. We’re talking about actual growing children. Real pregnancy. Real babies. Not possibilities. But let’s say I’m fully aware. Then what? Should I track these women, and perhaps try to get urine samples for pregnancy testing? Again, simple question: What are you proposing?
Then it’s odd that you would propose some sort of sexual partner monitoring plan, on which you refuse to expand, 5 times on this thread, in the name of owning up, which you seem to insist on.
Yes, it’s a child, inside a woman. That’s why she knows first when there’s a child on the way. You have no interest in actually fleshing out an answer to the question, I take it? How about this? Should a woman “own up” too? Or should she have an absolute right to opt out of parenthood that a man shouldn’t?
Except for when it does. But again, NY is an exception all the way around, and not the rule.
BTW, there is no “conduct that shocks the conscience” divorce. It’s fault, specifically cruel and inhuman treatment, the finding of fault for which she was granted the divorce, and the majority of the assets.
We’re not talking about potential children.
We’re talkign about potential fathers. Which one is if one has potentially impregnated someone one.
Again, simple question: What are you proposing?
What sorts of ways can we have people be owning up to their potential children? We could have them be aware of who they have potentially impregnated; have them make sure that such women know how to contact them; maybe even have them be polite enough to check in on them. Just some brainstorms. If there is no need, then we can forget about it.
Then it’s odd that you would propose some sort of sexual partner monitoring plan, on which you refuse to expand, 5 times on this thread, in the name of owning up, which you seem to insist on.
Jon’s plan seemed interesting enough to talk about and expand on. This is a blog discussion. It aint gonna happen and is pretty academic.
Should a woman “own up†too? Or should she have an absolute right to opt out of parenthood that a man shouldn’t?
Of course she should be owning up. She’ll be responsible for the child. I don’t know about this ‘absolute right to opt out’ means. Are you talking about having a pro-choice/pro-life debate? Not interested.
Are you talking about giving the father a potential veto over the womans decision to abort or carry a child for 9 months? Are you talking about giving the father the ability to disclaim any responsiblity for a child that is actually born? Those latter two sound just plain ridiculous.
BTW, there is no “conduct that shocks the conscience†divorce.
In NY, there is fault divorce. And then there is distribution. They are separate things with separate legal tests and criteria. Distribution has several factors, none of which is necessarily the same as the divorce fault. The marital fault is not to be considered, unless it is conduct that ‘shocks the conscience.’ Which I don’t think something like adultery would be.
The article also mentioend that NY was in the middle. So it looks like some states do consider fault in distribution and others dont. With NY just ‘generally’ not.
Again, we’re talking about real pregnancy, not hypothetical.
You really like the word “potential”, don’t you? How about, since she’s the first to know, if the woman raises the alarm when pregnancy happens? That’s been working pretty well for pretty much ever.
Everything that happens begins with discussion, and the discussion isn’t limited to this blog. It’s taking place in the real world as well.
You know exactly what it means, and I assume you know jon’s post had everything to do with the fact that abortion is an option. So, one parent can kill the child if they like, and the other has no say whatsoever, including whether they’ll have to bear responsibility for the child. Why aren’t you interested in a discussion of the rights of all parties in a pregnancy situation? Do you think there’s any equity in that arrangement? Do you think there should be?
Why? Saying that both sound ridiculous sounds ridiculous. A woman can disclaim responsibility forever for a couple hundred bucks. Women have a right to choose, so why shouldn’t a man have an opportunity to opt out? Remember we’ve made this a choice. Which means that giving birth is a choice that a woman makes.
Except for when they’re not, right? Like in the Havell/Islam case, and the other two cited.
Again, we’re talking about real pregnancy, not hypothetical.
We’re talking about potential parents. And you can be a potential parent whether you know about a baby or not. Of course from the mother’s perspective, there being a real pregnancy makes the system easier. But from the father’s perspective, I’m sure you can appreciate that it is a bit different. For example, jon came up with the idea of a very precise procedure that mothers take towards nameing potential fathers and funding abortions. We can be that precise when we know there is a baby. But from the potential father’s point of view, there isn’t that certainty, so we have a different set of things we talk about, things which facilitate the finding of these potential fathers later on, facilitate their being made responsible, and keeps them aware of their potentiality.
So, one parent can kill the child if they like, and the other has no say whatsoever, including whether they’ll have to bear responsibility for the child.
Abortion is something that pregnant people sometimes do. You want to talk about ‘kill the child’ and have the pro-choice / pro-life debate? Not interested.
Women have a right to choose, so why shouldn’t a man have an opportunity to opt out?
The problem is that a woman terminating her pregnancy doesn’t lead to a child being born. Obviously we can’t have men forcing women to have abortions. And obviously we can’t have them forcing women to not have them. So I think you want this opt out to be a sort of disowning? As if this equalizes the situation? Not really. Because it leaves around something quite obvious: a child. Thats not the same as when a pregnancy is terminated. You seriously want to advance this position? And not as a promotion of a pro-life view or something? Thats pretty shocking. We can’t have people leaving children in the lurch. At least not on the ‘own up’ thread where people talk about the value of fatherhood.
Except for when they’re not, right? Like in the Havell/Islam case, and the other two cited.
The tests are different. Its just that the facts meet both the tests in the particular case. The test for the divorce is the wide category of ‘fault.’ And the test for the distribution is the subset of that of ‘shocks the conscience.’ Even though they are different tests, sometimes you will get a case where both are met by the same situation. Not surprising.
But there needs to be a baby coming or it’s all moot. You seem to be talking about follow up on all sexual activity, which sounds like severe overkill.
If there’s no pregnancy, there’s neither a mother nor a need for a system.
Not really. The question is what happens when there’s a pregnancy.
It seems to be more a matter of notifying the parties so that they can explore their options, abortion being but one of them.
All of which is pointless in the absence of a pregnancy.
Those are the options when faced with a pregnancy. What is it you do want to talk about?
Can we have women forcing men to support their choice?
Or, depending on who you ask, a choice. Which is entirely the mother’s right to make. And she can choose disowning by abortion, without any input from the other person who is liable for responsibility, but seems bereft of rights.
Duh.
As a matter of equality. Do you not think that rights and responsibilities should go hand in hand? Or do you think it’s proper for one party to have all the rights and the other to have only responsibility?
But we can kill them unilaterally? That’s shocking.
Which is their ability to pay the mother by all indications, which controls him and his body by forcing him to labor to benefit the mother, with the hope that this might benefit the child. It almost sounds like what would happen if you forced a woman to complete a pregnancy. And you don’t want to do that.
But hey, they’re only guys, right? Fuck ‘em! They don’t need to have the sort of choice which is an absolute right of the female, do they? It’s not like there’s supposed to be equal standing. Chicks rule, guys drool!
And fault then becomes a determining factor in asset distribution. I think we’re done with that issue.
But there needs to be a baby coming or it’s all moot.
Of course. But when we’re talking about the responsibilities of the person that does not yet know they have fathered someone, but could have, then we talk about what responsibilities they have in the face of that uncertainty, in the face of that possibility. In their subjective position. Which is why this: “If there’s no pregnancy, there’s neither a mother nor a need for a system. “ Is useless to the situation. Because we’re talking about how we handle to possibility of a pregnancy, not waiting till we have one to resolve the issue.
Or, depending on who you ask, a choice.
Once it’s born, it’s a child. Again, you’re bringing in the pro-choice / pro-life debate. Not interested.
And she can choose disowning by abortion, without any input from the other person who is liable for responsibility, but seems bereft of rights.
But she doesnt really choose ‘disowning.’ She chooses to terminate the pregnancy. Which means there is no child to disown, as there is no birth.
Which is their ability to pay the mother by all indications, which controls him and his body by forcing him to labor to benefit the mother, with the hope that this might benefit the child.
If the child is born they are both going to have to raise the child. Terrible injustice this thing is.
And fault then becomes a determining factor in asset distribution. I think we’re done with that issue.
Calling it fault might lead to misunderstanding, because its not the same as marital fault. yes. we are done. Overall I think.
Uh, no. We’re talking about what to do when there is a pregnancy, not what to do when you’ve gotten laid. Unless that is the issue you think needs addressing, in which case, I’d still like to hear the specifics of your plan and whether it includes urine sample collection. Just to be on the safe side!
When there is a pregnancy, you’ve got months to figure things out.
So, it isn’t a child that two people make. It’s a choice that you want one person to make unilaterally. So, this is a debate about equity in rights and responsibilities, which, if you weren’t interested in, you wouldn’t be commenting on this subject.
Bullshit. You have an elective abortion so as not to give birth to a child. There is no transformative magic that happens in the birth canal.
No, she can keep choosing. In most places she can drop the kid at a hospital or police station and just walk away. Or she can offer the kid up for traditional adoption. What choice does a guy have at any stage of the process? Where is the equity, and if there isn’t any, isn’t that a problem?
It’s cruel and inhuman treatment: marital fault, and grounds for divorce.
We’re talking about what to do when there is a pregnancy, not what to do when you’ve gotten laid.
From the mother’s side. From the father’s side there are other options. Thats what I’m talking about. Maybe you are talking about something different.
So, it isn’t a child that two people make. It’s a choice that you want one person to make unilaterally.
Again, you’re not really listening. Of course there’s a child that two people make. And of course a pregnant person can terminate their pregnancy. I just told you this, but then you write the opposite.
It’s cruel and inhuman treatment: marital fault, and grounds for divorce.
Right. Which is a different test than NY uses to determine distribution.
You have an elective abortion so as not to give birth to a child.
Which is how we get to the fact that there is no child. Because one isn’t born.
What are they?
Oh, but I am. And you told me that there’s no child until a birth. It’s just a choice for the mother. Remember?
Except for when it’s exactly what they use, as noted in the Havell/Islam case. I truly don’t know where you’re going with this, and it’s become quite pointless for you to keep denying the content of your link.
Because you had it killed so you wouldn’t have to deal with it. Choice!
I notice a glaring omission in your response. I asked a very direct question which you have not answered: What choice does a guy have at any stage of the process? Where is the equity, and if there isn’t any, isn’t that a problem?
tw: question75
See? It knows.
Except for when it’s exactly what they use, as noted in the Havell/Islam case
But they didn’t use the test of whether something was ‘cruel and inhuman’ in the Havell case. They didn’t just rely on plain marital fault that was the basis of the divorce. They used a different test of ‘shocks the conscience.’ The same situation can pass both tests. But they are still different in that there might be different results.
What choice does a guy have at any stage of the process?
I suppose he can choose to act in all sorts of ways in relation to the woman he has impregnated. He can be a dick, or he can be cool. He can be responsible, or loving, or he can be the obstinate type that refuses to listen.
I don’t see what sort of equity you want to saddle him with, as we’re not goign to be making men undergo pregnancy and abortions. We’re also not goign to be giving them vetos, or allowign them to force abortions, or allowing them to avoid support for any children they father.
Yes, they did.
The same conduct which was used to determine the distribution of assets. Furthermore, it isn’t only conduct that shocks the conscience that can be used to determine asset distribution:
including:
And outside of New York,
It strikes me as odd that I need to keep quoting your link to you.
Ah, so is that a legal standard? And what are her options? Is killing the kid being a dick or being cool?
Yes, you do. But you’re choosing to ignore it. Equal rights and responsibilities. And we don’t make women undergo either of those things. They choose them. Choice is the law, for women.
But they don’t father children! Because it’s part of the mother, and not a child at any point that they play a part in the process, according to what you’ve told me.
Dad has nothing to do with giving birth and it isn’t his child while Mom is pregnant, so why should he be responsible in our brave new world of choices? It’s her kid, because it was part of her until she delivers it. Why should he be held responsible for what you tell us is not his? And if it is his, and you tell us he is responsible, why shouldn’t he have some say in the matter?
Yes, they did.
I’m sorry. I should have been clearer. They didn’t use ‘cruel and inhuman’ to determine the distribution. They used that to determine whether there was grounds for divorce. Different tests. Both of which are met.
It strikes me as odd that I need to keep quoting your link to you.
Not at all. You still keep thinking that there is one legal test that applies to fault and distribution. I gave you the link so that you could see the plethora of issues that are affected. You told me fault didn’t matter. So I brought in that article, and now we’ve seen that even supposedly ‘no fault’ distribution can contain things that look like fault, but they will have different tests than marital fault.
Yes, you do. But you’re choosing to ignore
Say it then. Give me your inequity, and your proposed change to make equity. I’m not seeing an inequity nor a change to make an equity.
But they don’t father children! Because it’s part of the mother, and not a child at any point that they play a part in the process, according to what you’ve told me.
Children have fathers. Look it up. Grow up.
It’s her kid, because it was part of her until she delivers it.
Its also the ob/gyn’s kid, because he chooses to deliver it too, right? Jeezus christ.
Why should he be held responsible for what you tell us is not his?
The child is his. The ability to terminate a pregnancy isnt’. You get this. Its not hard to get. But you do get it. I think you don’t want to get it. Because you want something. So give it to me. Give me your “solution.”
When does the child become his, chris?
The child will always have that father. Thats the way it works. Everytime you need to find the parents of the child, he will be the father. Biologically, of course.
That doesn’t answer my question, chris. It is his child when he creates the pregnancy?
It is his when Mom kills it unilaterally?
Those are yes/no questions, btw.
He is always the biological father of that child. Always . That should be enough for you to answer any ‘when’ questions. There is no escaping that basic biological fact. I’m surprised you dont’ get it. But not surprised you pretend not to.
But I think you’re still interested in having the abortion debate. Sorry. No go.
If he’s always the father and she’s always the mother, why should she have an opportunity to abdicate responsibility that he does not?
I’m glad to see that we agree there are two parent from the very beginning, though.
This is not an abortion debate, although it seems like one to you because you’re having to recognize that there is a child from the beginning. This is a debate about rights and responsibilities in pregnancy and parenthood. So, both parties have an interest in the developing child from the moment of conception, don’t they?
Oh, and you could still directly answer my yes/no question: Is it his child when he creates the pregnancy?
If he’s always the father and she’s always the mother, why should she have an opportunity to abdicate responsibility that he does not?
A woman is able to terminate a pregnancy. A man is not. And a man won’t ever experience the joys of pregancy. Sad.
This is not an abortion debate
Of course not. It just uses the language from the abortion debate when you call an abortion ‘killing a child.’
Oh, and you could still directly answer my yes/no question: Is it his child when he creates the pregnancy?
Always. Its always his child. Don’t you know your birds and the bees?
I’m not talking about ability to terminate a pregnancy. This is not an abortion debate. I’m talking about the ability to abdicate or accept responsibility, to make choices and to control your own life.
Why should a mother have the opportunity to abidacte parental responsibility that a father does not have? He doesn’t need to have an abortion to do this. He just needs to choose for himself what to do. Why shouldn’t he have the opportunity to do that while the mother does?
Are you saying it isn’t alive, or that it isn’t a child? Because we need to know when it becomes its father’s child, and if it isn’t at the beginning, we need to know how it becomes his.
An abortion debate is a matter of whether it is right or wrong. The laws says it’s a right, so we can stipulate that with no need to discuss it any further. That isn’t the question here.
It it his child before the sexual encounter? No. Is it his child before he himself is born? No. I had a child born in 1955. No. Was she my daughter in 1492? No. So, it isn’t always. There’s a beginning point. What is it?
And assuming that your answer is an oblique way of saying “yes”, and he has an responsibility to support and protect the child, shouldn’t the mother have the same responsibility?
Surely, you see a lack of equity in rights and responsibilities here.
Doh! That’s 1995, not 1955.
That panicky feeling is called cognitive dissonance.
I’m not talking about ability to terminate a pregnancy. This is not an abortion debate. I’m talking about the ability to abdicate or accept responsibility, to make choices and to control your own life.
If not abortion then what are you talking about? How is this ‘abdication’ happening? What ‘choice’ are you talkign about?
It it his child before the sexual encounter? No. Is it his child before he himself is born? No. I had a child born in 1955. No. Was she my daughter in 1492? No. So, it isn’t always. There’s a beginning point. What is it?
Philosophically, we can always speak of you being the father of your child born in 1955. But lets not, and let us recall your earlier limitation: “We’re not talking about potential children. We’re talking about actual growing children. Real pregnancy. Real babies. Not possibilities.” Real pregnancy? I think you can tell that we can talk about who is the father to what child given a real pregnancy.
And assuming that your answer is an oblique way of saying “yesâ€Â, and he has an responsibility to support and protect the child, shouldn’t the mother have the same responsibility?
Off the top of my head I don’t see why not.
That panicky feeling is called cognitive dissonance.
Are you high?
The ability to opt out. I thought that was clear.
Nice dodge, but it doesn’t answer the question. At what point does a man become a father? He is not always a father. When does that begin?
Then you don’t think she should be allowed to abort? That’s surprising.
No. That’s why I’m not having a problem answering questions.
The ability to opt out. I thought that was clear.
How do they opt out? with an abortion? is that what you’re talking about? Because you said you weren’t talking about abortion. But below you are.
Nice dodge, but it doesn’t answer the question. At what point does a man become a father? He is not always a father. When does that begin?
We can call him the father as soon as we have a pregnancy. Apparently this is a ‘dodge.’ To me its the birds and the bees.
Then you don’t think she should be allowed to abort? That’s surprising.
Its not surprisign that you would jump to this. Not at all.
No, silly. Men can’t have an abortion. They could just opt out of their parental responsibility, just like Mom can. What more detail do you need?
See, that wasn’t so hard, was it? So it’s a child with two parents who should take responsibility for caring for, raising and protecting it from the time the woman becomes pregnant. Or it isn’t. There’s no middle ground, and no reason for one parent to have a world of options while the other has absolutely none, is there? Everyone should get to choose, shouldn’t they?
Well, you said he’s responsible from the moment of pregnancy. If so, he’s responsible for a child, right?
Oh, and even better, Mom can keep hers if she likes, since there’s no abortion involved when he opts out. That’s an option he’s not going to have, because of the biology.
They could just opt out of their parental responsibility, just like Mom can. What more detail do you need?
The detail where its ‘just like mom.’ How is mom ‘opting out’ if we’re not talking about abortions? Or are we? Because there’s a problem with calling that ‘just like mom.’ Dude opting out is not ‘just like mom’ having an abortion. Can you think of a difference between the two? The interests of a third party maybe? You know how to think about the interests of another right? Egotistically, it may be ‘just like mom.’ But objectively its not. Good thing we don’t have ego problems.
So it’s a child with two parents who should take responsibility for caring for, raising and protecting it from the time the woman becomes pregnant.
Thats a good question. I don’t know to what extent dude is liable to support the costs of pregnancy and delivery. You sound like the type that is quite experienced in such affairs of the heart. What do you know about it?
Everyone should get to choose, shouldn’t they?
Certainly. Everyone has the same decisional privacy interest in their bodies.
It’s just opting out. “I decline to accept parental responsibilities.” No abortion needed. That’s Mom’s choice, not Dad’s, as we’ve determined.
Dude, if Mom has an elective abortion, she’s opting out.
Yes. When Dad opts out, Mom can still decide what she wants to do. When Mom opts out, Dad has no choice to make.
Hey, if we can kill the third party, surely we can abdicate our responsibility to her/him. And Mom can just drop them off and walk away, even after birth, with no regard for their interests.
Please explain what you mean by that. It’s ambiguous.
Actually, I know about all that, and funeral costs. Trust me, you don’t want to go there. Let’s keep this in the realm of equality among the parties in their ability to make life altering decisions, structured around biological realities.
You don’t seem to want that. You seem to be in favor of enslaving one party based on the choice of another. Please correct me if I’m missing something.
BTW, you skipped right over that. I’d appreciate an answer.
It’s just opting out. “I decline to accept parental responsibilities.†No abortion needed. That’s Mom’s choice, not Dad’s, as we’ve determined.
So she says this, and then what? there’s an adoption? an abandonment? thats what you’re talking about? Ok.
Please explain what you mean by that. It’s ambiguous.
Whats the ambiguity? From the point of view of a woman, she has an abortion and no longer raises a kid. From teh point of view of a guy, he ‘opts out’ and no longer raises a kid. Egotistically, subjectively, those look the same for each of those parties (ignoring, of course, complications from abortions). But objectively, looking at the whole, there is a key difference. In one of those scenarios, a third party is born, and will need support. Which means that the situations are not ‘just like’ each other.
You also give other reasons why they are not “just like” each other.
Hey, if we can kill the third party, surely we can abdicate our responsibility to her/him.
But we can’t kill a kid that’s been born, so the “abdictation” is no longer operative there. Perhaps the way to have your “equality” is have the guy not be responsible for the pregnancy, but be responsible after birth if he chooses to ‘opt out.’ But again with the ‘kill’ language. Thats from the abortion debate. No thanks.
Well, you said he’s responsible from the moment of pregnancy. If so, he’s responsible for a child, right?
He’s a father from the moment of pregancy. I asked you if he has support obligations from that moment, if he has to contribute to the delivery and medical care, etc.. Or if those only kick in at birth.
You seem to be in favor of enslaving one party based on the choice of another.
You’re going to have hard time teilling me that the choice to carry a child to term is ‘enslaving.’ You haven’t been very clear. And have been dancing with me for a bit. Not interested anymore.
Either. While the first is more frequently used, both are available options, aren’t they?
That’s Mom’s choice, isn’t it?
It is what it is, whether you like it or not.
Those words don’t come from a debate, they come from reality and the English language. Why do you object to them? Are they factually incorrect, in your estimation?
Unless Mom decides to opt out pre-birth. And he has no say in that.
There are no needs of the child until birth.
No, forcing obligations on someone who doesn’t want them would be enslaving, much as we’ve heard that forcing someone to carry to term who doesn’t want to would be. But the former lasts a lot longer.
Oh, yes I have. You just don’t want to accept the facts, or address the inequalities.
You seem to be leading, with moves like “That’s from the abortion debate. Not interested.” You don’t want to dance, then stop doing it.
Cognitive dissonance is a bitch, isn’t it?
Unless Mom decides to opt out pre-birth. And he has no say in that.
We don’t have pregnancies without fathers. This is really tiresome. Until you learn this, I’m not discussing this anymore.
Cognitive dissonance is a bitch, isn’t it?
Something tells me you have personal experience with bithces.
I couldn’t agree more, but the problem comes into play when you tell me there’s no child until birth, only a pregnancy. A father and a mother are required to make a child, and I think we’ve established that that happens at pregnancy. Pregnancies don’t have parents, children have parents. You’re arguing that it isn’t a child when it’s aborted, so if that’s the case, it doesn’t have a father. Of course, the truth is that it has both a father and a mother, and it is a growing child. But you don’t want to hear about that because then it’s too much like the abortion debate. So be it. Logical consistency is still required.
If Mom gets to opt out, Dad should too. That’s what you need to argue with. You can’t logically say that Dad has an obligation that begins at conception while Mom’s doesn’t begin until birth, with the exception of some brave new world situations.
Pregnancies don’t have parents
Barring oddities, there’s a father and a mother. Check your birds and the bees. I really can’t believe this.
If Mom gets to opt out, Dad should too. That’s
what you need to argue with.
I’ve told you how dad’s “opting out” is not the same when it comes to abortion. Actually you’ve told it to me too. I don’t know enough about other “opting outs” such as abandonments and adoptions. I do know that these laws will vary from state to state and that certain “opting outs” will land you in jail.
If you read the legal opinions on which abortion is grounded—Roe, Casey—you will see that mom gets to decide what happens to her body. Dad has similar decisional privacy interests too. Its just that he has no pregnancy to terminate. You seem to think there is some terrible injustice in the fact that a pregnancy inside someone is decided on by that person. Thats really all there is to your argument. And the counter is quite simple: the decisional privacy is about controllign your pregnancy, not your status as a parent. These overlap, in the case of a woman terminating a pregnancy. But they don’t overlap in other cases, such as when somene wants to leave a baby in a dumpster. You don’t have a decisional privacy right to do that. If it was based on ‘opting out’ of parenthood, then you would have that right. But you dont. So we know its not about ‘opting out.’ We know it is something else.
This isn’t really a subletly. People are able to understand when different bases for something seem to overlap and be similar, but are actually quite different. It took awhile for you to figure out the Havell case above. I think it will take longer, forever even, for you to figure it out here. Because I don’t think you want to. I think you’ve decided it is some sort of terrible injustice, you just won’t see it another way.
Sorry. It really comes across as sounding like an egotistical deadbeat, because all it sees is the egotism of what is happening.
Try not to knock anyone up. From what little I’ve seen since we started, I’d recommend people avoid you as well.
I’ve said that I don’t know whether dad’s obligations begin at conception. I asked you if they did. I would guess mom does have some obligations before birth. Mom also has a decisional privacy interest in what is happening inside her body.
Children have a mother and a father
Right. Dad doesn’t have an abortion. He just opts out, just like Mom does, but without the abortion.
That should be fixed then, shouldn’t it? Because of the equality under the law.
Right. But he has an obligation, which currently makes demands of his body, that he should have an equal right to decline. Men are currently ordered to work and pay Mom under threat of incarceration. His body is imposed upon by the law. That is not equality.
No, my argument is about an imposition on the man that is not on the woman. We’ve already stipulated the right to abortion, remember?
No, it’s about obligations being imposed on someone who does not desire to be obligated.
Women do, just not with the dumpster, which is murder. But with hospitals, police and fire stations, yes. They can abdicate, upon their choice.
Women do. Men don’t. And women can also decide to opt out via abortion.
No, that’s exactly what it is.
No, it isn’t subtle at all. It’s blatant discrimination wherein one gender gets to unilaterally obligate another, who has no recourse.
You mean that distribution os assets was decided based on marital fault? No, I got that right away.
You seem to have trouble with it, and I can’t imagine why you’re going back there.
I’m open to a logical argument. You haven’t made one.
What egotism is that? This is merely about the opportunity to make determinations for oneself in regard to parenting. It’s all about choice. One gender has a plethora of options to choose from, the other has none, mandated by discriminatory law.
Dude, abortions for everyone! It’s no big deal, just a choice. And really, you shouldn’t have kids born because the world has enough morons already. Genetics, you know.
You’ve said that he’s a father at conception, and that fathers are obligated. Do the math.
Really? What are they?
And dad should have a decisional privacy interest about what he does with his body.
Remember when you said:
You’re arguing that it’s OK to kill it (if you’re Mom), but not to simply walk away from your responsibility to it (if you’re Dad). Can you see the difference between the two?
Children have a mother and a father
I got this far and I gave up.
News flash: water is wet.
Can you handle that?
Pregnancy:
I wonder what color cigars you pass out when you become the father of a state, condition or quality.
“It’s a something or other! A quality, maybe!
tw: decision83 Well, yeah, but we prefer to call it a choice.
Decisional privacy interest, or compulsory servitude, aka slavery?
You be the judge.