quote:

---

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."

---

quote:

---

That's a good idea. Now we don't need abortion. People who don't want children will simply use birth control.

---

quote:

---

his ex-girlfriend's daughter

---

ed'd to add: OK, facetiousness aside. We would never in a million years tell women that the answer to unwanted pregnancy is to "take some responsibility" and "use some birth control".

So why would we say exactly that to men?

[ 09 March 2006: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]

If a woman wishes to continue the pregnancy knowing full well the "father" will not be around to provide support, she has a choice to make.

However, a lot can happen in 9 months, young adults can make the transition in to adulthood in this length of time, fathers can become "responsible", mothers can see fathers differently.

The complete opposite can happen also, fathers who think they can assume responsibility rebel against it and relationships can fall apart; mothers can also take a dislike to the unwanted child.

I do not believe a father should be financially obligated if he has declared he will not be responsible for the child from the start, if he gives enough notice for the mother. However, he should be financially obligated if he agrees with the mother to do so, even if he changes his mind in the later part of the pregancy and it is too late for an abortion.

I'm not sure where the cut off date should be, wherever a safe abortion can be done, maybe.

In an ideal world, the parents of the child, if at all possible, should decide together on its future. However, as human nature oft dictates, a compromise or two might have to be made.

Maybe I have seen too many "corrie" episodes.

[ 09 March 2006: Message edited by: rockerbiff ]

quote:

---

Feit, however, says a fatherhood opt-out wouldn't necessarily impose higher costs on society or the mother. A woman who balked at abortion but felt she couldn't afford to raise a child could put the baby up for adoption, he said.

---

Gee, it all sounds so easy - like parenting is just as simple as balancing a checkbook! If the woman can afford to get pregnant then she should keep the baby, and not expect any financial help from the father. If she can't afford the baby she should give it up for the sake of leaving the father's bank balance alone.

quote:

---

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.

---

Uh hun. Poor child mighta been a medical miracle but she's getting treated like a curse to her father.

[ 09 March 2006: Message edited by: Accidental Altruist ]

quote:

---

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.

---

If she knew his "choice", that he didn't want children with her, she should respect it. We don't support forcing women to birth babies for their partners so I won't support forcing sperm donors into parenting even just finacially. The father should be able to give up his rights. And that means no contact with that child till 18. So he had better be sure.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
To my mind, the question is whether there was a clear agreement between the partners not to produce a child.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
It's a given to me that we should support single parents. But I don't want to see my right to "choice" used to take away another person's rights.

---

I agree in principle - I wouldn't want to infringe on someone else's rights for the sake of my own.

I most certainly do NOT think you have anything in common with the prolifer types. Perhaps I should have found another analogy - such as OJ Simpson having killed his ex-wife, even though racists said he did. Just meant that even people one might loathe (such as this "men's rights" outfit), might occasionally have a point.

[ 09 March 2006: Message edited by: lagatta ]

Back to this weak spot, IMHO, in rockerbiff's presentation:

quote:

---

If a woman wishes to continue the pregnancy knowing full well the "father" will not be around to provide support, she has a choice to make.

---

Now, the implication of that step, put that way, is that the choice the woman has to make is exactly the same as the choice the man has made.

And there's where I think that kind of logic breaks down.

There is no equivalency when it comes to pregnancy. There just isn't. That is why fighting for freedom of choice and control of our own bodies was so important to women.

The woman's body - her health, for the rest of her life - is involved in a way that the man's never is.

So I don't agree that the same consequences automatically flow from her recognizing the purely utilitarian fact that the father "will not be around." That fact will not be the only factor she has to consider as she makes her choice, and yet he has still been an actor in putting her in the situation she is in.

I don't see anything wrong with insisting on both principles: that women must remain free to choose what will happen to their own bodies, and men must remain partly financially responsible for any children they father.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
I don't see anything wrong with insisting on both principles: that women must remain free to choose what will happen to their own bodies, and men must remain partly financially responsible for any children they father.

The situations cannot be made equivalent, and young people should be taught that from early on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rockerbiff:
If a woman wishes to continue the pregnancy knowing full well the "father" will not be around to provide support, she has a choice to make.

---

quote:

---

I don't see anything wrong with insisting on both principles: that women must remain free to choose what will happen to their own bodies, and men must remain partly financially responsible for any children they father.

---

While wanting to agree, I'm simultaneous queasy about this---the claim that there is no equivalency. It's true that women's right to choose is partly predicated on the ownership of her own body...but we don't simply restrict a woman's right to choose on health grounds. If her autonomy is to be taken seriously, then we also allow her to decide what's best for her future, beyond health---like whether she can, say, feed another child given existing children.

Which is pretty equivalent to a large part of a man's interest.

So yeah, women have an added concern, which is why the decision to act on the matter of birth lies upon the woman. But the remainder of the concern is technically equivalent between men and women, and the decision is equivalent, if the woman is willing to bring the child to term.

No Mandos, these are the consequences for the woman. The man's position is not equal and will never be. He does not carry the child around for 9 months. He is not obligated, beyond his monthly support payment (which many women do not ever see) financially for the child, he is not the main emotional and psychological support and his decision to have or to not have a child does not impact his ability to have and keep a job, nor does that bulging belly or soon to be bulging belly offer him up to the dicrimination women get.

Not the same, not even remotely.

[ 09 March 2006: Message edited by: Stargazer ]

Edited because: I can't spell to save my life.

[ 09 March 2006: Message edited by: TheStudent ]

But women should have the right to decide whether or not they ever want to have a bulging belly... God knows I've devoted enough energy in support of the struggle for that right.

quote:

---

No Mandos, these are the consequences for the woman. The man's position is not equal and will never be. He does not carry the child around for 9 months. He is not obligated, beyond his monthly support payment (which many women do not ever see) financially for the child, he is not the main emotional and psychological support and his decision to have or to not have a child does not impact his ability to have and keep a job, nor does that bulging belly or soon to be bulging belly offer him up to the dicrimination women get.

---

You are confusing three things:

1. The physical difference.
2. The socio-economic issues.
3. The matter of inequality.

It's obvious that (1) is important. That's why we should leave the decision to actually terminate a (at least) not-yet-viable pregnancy in the hands of the woman in question.

However, unless you're willing to commit to the idea that (3) will hold forever, then men and women have to be equal substantially in (2). In which case, their economic rights ought to be the same.

But, admittedly, (3) continues to hold. Consequently, as I said, it's probably premature to think about instituting policies compliant with (2), since the burdens now fall unequally on women.

quote:

---

So yeah, women have an added concern, which is why the decision to act on the matter of birth lies upon the woman. But the remainder of the concern is technically equivalent between men and women, and the decision is equivalent, if the woman is willing to bring the child to term.

---

But this is illogical.

The woman is NEVER living with just one of those concerns. To a woman, either of those concerns is just one-half of the life she has to face, whereas the second (what you call "the remainder") is the whole of the situation the man has to face.

Someone above seems to think that the health considerations a woman faces on becoming pregnant have only to do with whether that pregnancy would threaten her life. That is wrong. Pregnancy, abortion, birth control, all sexual activity, and abstinence - all always affect a woman's health profoundly. Always. Every decision made.

quote:

---

And I don't think any human being should have to support a child he or she never wanted to have.

---

Well I certainly do. As the mother of a son who didn't want to have a child, and was active in that conception of the child, I would never teach him that it was only the woman's responsibility to take care of that child finacially.

I don't believe that a woman is ever facing only the utilitarian decision. She may not have wanted to have a child, and yet that does not automatically determine whether or not she decides to opt for an abortion. She may have many reasons for refusing an abortion, and she is the only person who can truly judge which of those reasons to trust.

A man who didn't want to have a child, faced with a partner who has decided not to have an abortion, will have to learn to accept the same responsibility she has, only he has to do it rationally, where she has been following a double logic.

It's not that hard to accept responsibility for our actions. I was very strict about using birth control, and specifically condoms, precisely because it was the variable that I could control - after the sex, I was not the one in charge.

I was lucky, and never ended up with an unwanted pregnancy to deal with (that I know of), but had I been, I would have accepted that I made the choice to take the risk already. As a man, once you accept the risk by having sex, you need to take the consequences.

As a woman, the consequences are more nuanced. What women do with their own bodies is their own business. That's because men and women are physically different, not because we have different rights.

And what ramifications? Most mothers would be ecstatic if they knew the father of their child was interested in access. Most women do understand and want their children to have their father in their life. I'm not understanding that statement otter, it sounds rather insulting. As if the woman was out to get the guy. What a load of crap.

Case in point, my son's father was ordered to pay child support, and he never paid 1 cent of that money in the entire time he was alive. Even though that money could have been very useful for my son's upbringing, what was more important to me, and what is more important to most women I meet and talk to, is the relationship between the father and the son. Why should the son suffer because his father is a selfish prick who could care less about assisting in the everyday life of his son? As irresponsible as my son's father was, I still thought that it was best they have a relationship, despite the no money factor. You'll find this to be the case for many, many mothers.

[ 09 March 2006: Message edited by: Stargazer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by otter:
Least we forget, the court challenge is all about the money and the fetus involved is simply the focus for that money.

Consider the ramifications of an absentee 'father' that demands access and even custody of the 'child' because its his money that supports the 'child'.

---

quote:

---

if I have sex with a woman I assume she might get pregnant.

---

And this basic understanding of biology only applies to men? Don't women also understand that by having sex, they could be making a child?

quote:

---

Some choices have long term consequences ... doesn't mean you get to take them back.

---

Again: men only, right? Only men need to "step up" and "take some responsibility!".

While the 'getting laid' part is often foremost, or even the only thing, in the person's mind, such individuals seldom if ever consider pregnancy or even stds as a natural consequence of 'getting laid'.

Granted, the ones that use and promote condoms seem to at least be conscious of such consequences, albeit a minority. In fact, i see a lot more promotion and use of condoms by homosexual males than i do hetrosexual and that is primarily about stds not pregnancy - obviously.

Then there is that segment of the male population that view inpregnating women as validation of their own 'maleness' and will go to great lengths to do so with absolutely no interest or thought to the care and maintenance of the resulting infant. It seems this is the target group of this court challenge.

But do we really want males who are so indifferent to the resulting pregnancy to then come forward with their mandated support payments to demand access to the child they were so callous about in the first place?

quote:

---

And this basic understanding of biology only applies to men? Don't women also understand that by having sex, they could be making a child?

---

quote:

---

The woman is NEVER living with just one of those concerns. To a woman, either of those concerns is just one-half of the life she has to face, whereas the second (what you call "the remainder") is the whole of the situation the man has to face.

---

But we are only actually talking about that half here. Remember the point: $$$

No one is talking about him forcing her to carry the baby to term or compelling an abortion---at least, I'm not.

quote:

---

Someone above seems to think that the health considerations a woman faces on becoming pregnant have only to do with whether that pregnancy would threaten her life. That is wrong. Pregnancy, abortion, birth control, all sexual activity, and abstinence - all always affect a woman's health profoundly. Always. Every decision made.

---

Just to be nitpicky, the last two on your list do actually have some male equivalence, and the third will once more reliable reversible options arrive for men (male pill, for instance, and a bunch of other things which are apparently in the technological pipeline). I suspect the point will be moot once those are available. Agreed on the first two---we need to invent artificial wombs

quote:

---

I don't believe that a woman is ever facing only the utilitarian decision. She may not have wanted to have a child, and yet that does not automatically determine whether or not she decides to opt for an abortion. She may have many reasons for refusing an abortion, and she is the only person who can truly judge which of those reasons to trust.

---

So the question is regardless of the different consequences and considerations that woman A might have---does that necessarily bind man B in the areas of his own interest?

I don't think that's been established beyond a naive, "You had sex, live with the consequences" kind of declaration.

quote:

---

But I don't see there is any question that the responsibility should be shared.

---

The guy admitted he was the father, and wanted the woman to have an abortion. She wouldn't, so he said he shouldn't have to pay support.

Justice King said that the moment of decision is the moment when you have sex. You assume the consequences may include pregnancy. The decision to abort or not to abort involves many variables, including religion, ethical beliefs, relationship to others, etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
The guy can't make her choose either abortion or poverty for the child. It is too late for him to have second thoughts about whether he wants a child.

---

But she can force him to have a child he doesn't want, forcing financial hardship on him, right?

So he basically has a choice: never ever have sex again, or become a parent if the birth control fails.

Gee, I wonder what we'd call it if we gave women that choice. Oh yeah, pro-lifers DO give women that choice. And we call them sexist.

[ 09 March 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
Jesus Michelle, as the mother of a child I would assume some solidarity with women.

---

Jesus, Stargazer, as the mother of a child, and someone who is strongly pro-choice, I don't believe anyone should have to be a parent if they don't want to be.

As for the "full responsibility when he decides not to use a condom" - if you made that speech to a woman while denying her the right to choose whether or not to become a parent, you'd be making the same argument as the religious right.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

But she can force him to have a child he doesn't want, forcing financial hardship on him, right?

So he basically has a choice: never ever have sex again, or become a parent if the birth control fails.

Gee, I wonder what we'd call it if we gave women that choice. Oh yeah, pro-lifers DO give women that choice. And we call them sexist.

[ 09 March 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]

---

Well, but, here's where we run into trouble. When it comes to pregnancy, men and women are different. Men cannot get pregnant, women can.

So trying to make equivalency arguments about situations which are definitely not equivalent gets us nowhere.

Women have greater choices once an unwanted pregnancy occurs. On the other hand, women have significantly greater consequences and risks with a pregnancy or abortion. Anyone who argues otherwise is missing the point.

Look, I've participated in a childbirth. My role was to be there, period. Arborwoman's role was profoundly, unalterably different. The absolute worst that could have happened to me (physically) was the loss of my life partner and child - something from which I might eventually have recovered. The worst that could have happened to her was death. As it happened, I got tired and a baby - she got a lot of pain, tired and a baby.

I am 100% in favour of equivalent rights and responsibilities, where the risk and consequences are equivalent. When the risks to me are less, then my rights diminish in proportion to the relative risk of the other person.

Any male over 15 must be aware of this reality by now. Once the deed is done, we are not in charge, because any consequences for us are chump change compared to the potential and actual consequences for the woman involved.

I think the person who has the choice should bear more responsibility than the person who doesn't have the choice. If I choose to bring a pregnancy to term despite knowing that the biological father has absolutely no interest in becoming a parent, I agree with you, that is completely my choice. However, if I am the only one who gets to make the choice, and I unilaterally decide to become a parent (which is my absolute right), then I also bear a heavier responsibility for that choice.

You know, we women can't have it both ways. We can't say, "We want all the choice, all the say! We're not living under the thumb of men! We are completely in charge of our bodies and our reproductive freedom!" But then turn around and say, "Oh, and by the way, now that I've exercised that freedom to reproduce without any input from anyone else, I demand that you financially support my choices!"

As a feminist, I believe I have the right to have sex with anyone I want, as many partners as I want, and if any pregnancies happen, I have the absolute right to decide whether they get terminated or not. I also know that, for me personally, I could never have an abortion, although I completely support other women's rights to have one.

Knowing that about myself, I figure if an accidental pregnancy happens, if the guy's not interested in becoming a parent and I decide that I am going to choose to become a parent, that's a choice to make for myself. As an independent woman under no man's control, I can make a choice that affects my life, and I am ready to take full responsibility for the choice I make. But I sure don't have the right to make that choice for any man.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
To my mind, the question is whether there was a clear agreement between the partners not to produce a child. . . .And I don't think any human being should have to support a child he or she never wanted to have.

---

It's not about either mom or dad. It's about the child, who neither knows nor cares whether either or both parents expected the child. At least, not until the child is old enough to be hurt. By which time, a good parent will certainly not tell the child "you were unplanned," let alone "your father didn't want you." For heavens sake make up an excuse for the guy.

And remember, never say "he didn't want to see you." When the kid is 15 he or she will find dad somehow, phone him up or go see him and ask "why didn't you want to see me?" Almost invariably he'll be unable to be cruel and honest, so he'll have to say "I wanted to, but your mom wouldn't let me." Now everyone's in trouble.

Think ahead. See your child. Pay your child support. And to mom: make the child available to him. Even if he seldom pays, encourage him to see the child. Never talk about money in front of the child.

And never say "I don't want his money, if he'll just leave us alone." That amounts to bribing the guy to stay away from his child. It will work in the short term. At age 15, you'll regret it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by S1m0n:
A father owes child support to the child, not to the child's mother. Decisions the mother makes, or the nature of her arrangements with the father do not affect the father's obligations to his child, once it is born.

---

But I think a parent, female or male, has the right to waive parenthood, simply because forced parenthood is a very bad start for rearing human beings.

quote:

---

So he basically has a choice: never ever have sex again, or become a parent if the birth control fails.

---

Yes. Exactly. If you define a parent as a person who contributes finacially to the child... But no. Not really. If you realize that paying child support does not obligate you to be a father. It's a god damn pay roll deduction.

quote:

---

But the remainder of the concern is technically equivalent between men and women, and the decision is equivalent, if the woman is willing to bring the child to term.

---

That's really one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. I don't know what kind of hypothetical perfect world you're living in but I think it's quite obvious that women end up with the larger burden of parental responsibility, and that's just the tip of the inequivalency iceburg. If all a woman truely had to do was say, "nope, don't want it" than it would be a very different world. Heck, you might even see us in the board room.

As for Michelle's longer post, which starts;

quote:

---

I look at it differently, arborman.
I think the person who has the choice should bear more responsibility than the person who doesn't have the choice. If I choose to bring a pregnancy to term despite knowing that the biological father has absolutely no interest in becoming a parent, I agree with you, that is completely my choice. However, if I am the only one who gets to make the choice, and I unilaterally decide to become a parent (which is my absolute right), then I also bear a heavier responsibility for that choice.

---

I don't think I've read "I" so many times per word in my life. You're forgetting that child support is about the rights of the child. Not the mother or the father.

It seems to me that you're not talking about giving individuals the right to be childless. You're talking about depriving a child of what is rightfully hers; support from the two people who created her. From my point of view you're advocating for child poverty, and for the poverty of women.

[ 09 March 2006: Message edited by: beaver ]

So, there I was, thinking it through while waiting for the drugstore to open (pregnancy scares do kick a girl's mind into gear). In my theoretically pregnant state, I came to the conclusion that it would be unfair for me to choose to have the child and ding him for child support when we'd discussed children and the having/abortion/adoption thereof beforehand, he'd indicated he was completely against kids, and I'd agreed.

Okay, so it's all about the best interests of the child, is it? Absolutely nothing else gets taken into account, right?

Well, I think it's in the best interests of my child if Wilfred Day writes a cheque every month for child support for my son. No, not through his taxes - we all agree that there should be more support for children through social programs and paid for by taxes. I'm talking about the situation here and now, and direct transfers from adult to child. My son would be much better off if Wilfred wrote a cheque for $500 a month and sent it off for my son's well-being.

So, Wilfred, pony up! After all, the absolute ONLY consideration when it comes to child support is whether or not it's in the best interest of the child, right? Doesn't matter what responsibility or choice the person paying had in the creation of that child, right?

I'll tell my son to expect payment by the end of the month. Thanks!

[ 10 March 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]

From a male perspective, our agency happens at the decision to have sex. It is different for women, definitely, but for us that's it - if we don't want a child, we have to make the choices at that moment. I can appreciate your not wanting to impose obligations on someone who explicitly did not want them, but not everyone is so willing.

quote:

---

From my point of view you're advocating for child poverty, and for the poverty of women.

---

People have been advocating the exact opposite of that in this thread.

I think if society offered more support women would have real choice, autonomus choice. Because, law or no, a man can and will find a way not to pay. Happens all the time. And is it better the mother find out Daddy's cheque bounced and she can't afford diapers that month or would it be better if she could make her choice knowing society as a whole will help her out. When thinking about having an abortion it's naive to think that some women don't think about what support they will get from an unwilling partner, and that it influences their decision. I'd like to see that infulence removed.

What good does creating deadbeat Dad's do? How is that in the best interest of the child?

quote:

---

That's really one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. I don't know what kind of hypothetical perfect world you're living in but I think it's quite obvious that women end up with the larger burden of parental responsibility, and that's just the tip of the inequivalency iceburg. If all a woman truely had to do was say, "nope, don't want it" than it would be a very different world. Heck, you might even see us in the board room.

---

quote:

---

I think if society offered more support women would have real choice, autonomus choice.

---

No kidding. What really needs to happen is for society to realise that the massive amounts of work that goes into raising children is not just people's personal deal. This is the next generation they're bringing up and they do it totally for free. It's a disgrace that so much essential labour is going unpaid. It's like slavery. Primary caregivers should receive a wage, end of story.

As for the rest, I sympathise very strongly with fathers who never wanted the burden. That's a tough situation, but it's a good point that once the kid exists, it needs support. Somebody's gotta pay. It may not be fair, but a lot of things aren't. These fathers should be advocating for better social support, instead of trying to dodge paying the piper. That's not a solution to their problem. After all, if a guy really doesn't want to get involved, he can just not do it, as many have pointed out. It doesn't really matter what the courts say. Sure, they carry the stigma of deadbeat dad around all their lives, but things are tough all over.

quote:

---

8 years, 18 years
She got one of yo kids got you for 18 years
I know somebody payin child support for one of his kids
His baby momma's car and crib is bigger than his
You will see him on TV Any Given Sunday
Win the Superbowl and drive off in a Hyundai
She was spose to buy ya shorty TYCO with ya money
She went to the doctor got lypo with ya money
She walkin around lookin like Micheal with ya money
Should of got that insured got GEICO for ya moneeey
If you aint no punk holla We Want Prenup
WE WANT PRENUP!, Yeaah
It's something that you need to have
Cause when she leave yo ass she gone leave with half
18 years, 18 years
And on her 18th birthday he found out it wasn't his

---

Full lyrics!

p.s. I know no one is saying women are like this. It just made me think of it!

[ 10 March 2006: Message edited by: audra trower williams ]

quote:

---

After all, if a guy really doesn't want to get involved, he can just not do it

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Okay, so it's all about the best interests of the child, is it? Absolutely nothing else gets taken into account, right?

I'll tell my son to expect payment by the end of the month. Thanks!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by audra trower williams:
This song puts Kanye West's "Golddigger" in my head!

Full lyrics!

p.s. I know no one is saying women are like this. It just made me think of it!

[ 10 March 2006: Message edited by: audra trower williams ]

---

No one here is saying women are like this. Aigh! My child recently came home after a weekend with her dad telling me how much her daddy loves that song. My child is 11. She has no idea that her dad went for 8 years without paying child support. Took a two-year legal battle and getting the family responsibility office involved before he started paying. And he's singing this song with his daughter?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jacob Two-Two:
As for the rest, I sympathise very strongly with fathers who never wanted the burden. That's a tough situation, but it's a good point that once the kid exists, it needs support. Somebody's gotta pay.

---

That's right. And it should be the person who made the choice and took the responsibility for bringing it into the world. And if a woman makes that choice unilaterally, knowing that the sperm donor in question doesn't want to be a parent, that would be her! She shouldn't get to make that decision for him too.

Unless, of course, you'd like to join Wilfred in sending my son $500 a month. It's in his best interests!

I ask because you're asking Wilf to pay you $500 a month to support your son right here on babble. If Wilf is not the father of your child that statement comes off as a flippant money-grab. This is how so many deadbeat parents would like to characterize their child support payments. In child support evaders' minds it gives them justification for not paying - along the lines of the song Audra was quoting earlier.

[ 10 March 2006: Message edited by: Accidental Altruist ]

That's why I included Jacob Two Two in the previous post. It was just a rhetorical thing. Gee, Wilfred, I could be giving you quite a rep!

[ 10 March 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Everyone is encouraged to believe that "independence," human liberty itself, equates with individual financial independence, and in the context of a competitive society in which many individuals as individuals are going to be impoverished. For a socialist, that is always going to be a problematic way of thinking about liberty and equality, and it leads to the reductive ways of talking about responsibility that are bothering people on all sides of this discussion.

I also agree with everyone who has noted above that nothing automatically makes any birth-parent a good parent - sad but true, although financial hardship no doubt contributes to some of the sad stories.

Still, as Jacob says, we live in an imperfect world. And it is worth repeating the observation that the woman's responsibility and her vulnerability are both givens, and are of much more profound consequence than any part of a man's sex life, as far as I know.

For instance, I don't think any scientist has claimed that a man's health is influenced by how many children he has or when, except perhaps sociologically. But there are lots of indications that every woman's health is affected, life-long, by every decision she makes about sex and reproduction. Mandos has done a reductive reading of my earlier claim to that effect, so it needs re-stating. Never having a child (ie: having too many periods?) may affect a woman's health. Almost all birth control is going to affect her health. The age at which she has children, or the number, will affect her health. Our understanding of these effects is still developing, but without question, both responsibility and vulnerability are more than just money issues or sociological issues for every woman.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Accidental Altruist:
And the $500 figure.... my daughter's father pays just shy of half that amount. Just sayin', for clarity and all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
Still, as Jacob says, we live in an imperfect world.

---

Yup. And in that imperfect world, we base direct financial responsibility for children on the parents, the reasoning being that they are the ones who decided to bring those children into the world, and so therefore they must bear the main responsibility for supporting them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Accidental Altruist:
I edited my other earlier post. If there was a preview function I'd use it - honest.

---

No worries.

It's not a money grab to expect the other parent to pay child support for a child they have chosen to bring into the world. My ex and I have chosen to bring my son into the world, and I accept full responsibility for that choice, both emotionally, financially, and time-wise.

It IS a money grab to expect some poor sucker who never wanted kids to pay for your absolutely unilateral choice to bring a baby into the world using his sperm if he makes it clear from the start that he has absolutely no interest in becoming a parent - whether it happens accidentally or not. Sorry, but it is, just as much as it would be if you forced a woman who had given a child up for adoption (instead of aborting it) to make monthly child support payments for 18 years. We wouldn't dream of doing that, would we?

You know, it's funny how people downplay the significance of having a chunk of your paycheque going every month for child support. Again, I think that's only right for people who have chosen to have children, like me. But it's a fuck of a burden for people who don't want children and never wanted children and who were forced to have them.

Those people who don't think money has anything to do with parenting - I can't imagine how you figure that. Money is a huge issue when it comes to parenting - that's why we fight so hard for supplements and services for families with children! People who choose to have children are not just choosing a life of joy and cuddles. They're choosing a life of financial sacrifice, too. Lots of people choose not to have children because of that.

And I think we've seen what happens in other threads on babble when "sperm donors" get too uppity and actually decide that, since they're on the hook financially for a child due to being considered the other parent, they should also get involved emotionally, and then start requesting time with the child. If it's not done entirely on the mother's terms, then suddenly we start hearing, "He has no right to my daughter! He's infringing on my rights!" Whoops, waitaminite, I thought this was all about the best interests of the CHILD. I guess that only applies when we're talking about child support.

If the assumption is that all women are perfectly capable of setting themselves up independently so that they can raise children on their own, with no financial support from the biological father, then given the present statistics we have for women's employment and earning capabilities, we are setting up an impoverished class of single mothers - and children, of course.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
[QB]Well, my feminism goes along with being a socialist,

---

So does mine. I believe this debate shouldn't even be necessary. But as you say, it's an imperfect world.

quote:

---

For all the pure individualist-materialists here, that's the hard truth you're going to have to sign on to.

---

I hope that wasn't aimed at me. Because I'm not an individualist-materialist or any other $10 phrase you want to throw around. And I also don't believe that all women are capable of setting themselves up as self-supporting single mothers. That's why we have CHOICE. We have the choice about whether to bring a child into the world, and in this imperfect world, that choice takes finances into account.

But for a lot of women, that is not going to be the case. I believe it is mistaken to expect that large numbers of women can, will, or should make their decisions on that basis.

Bearing a child, like aborting a child: the historical evidence is overwhelming that women have always gone ahead and done either on the strength of convictions more powerful than any rational argument, moral or material.

I know we have to be careful on this kind of topic, as passions run high, even among socialist-feminists. But I'm most decidedly a socialist - of long standing and pretty hardline to put it mildly - and not an individualist, though I am a materialist in philosophical terms... (whatever that has to do with the debate).

It is a woman's choice, and even if I think it is utterly nuts to go through with a pregnancy if one is alone, isolated and impoverished, I support that right, even though I do think it is a right to make a stupid decision. (Not to mention the pro-life religious drivel shovelled down women's throats to make them think they are some kind of criminals for eliminating an unwanted foetus)...

quote:

---

Originally posted by pollyperverse:
I think that guy would have made a great Dad, so had I chosen to have the child against his wishes and our agreement, I would have tried to patch things up and get him involved in the kid's life.

---

I've seen a few cases where the young immature Mom wanted to give the child up for adoption, but the more mature Dad said "I'll raise our child." And sure enough, in a few years when Mom became mature enough to see farther ahead, she ends up taking an equal part in parenting. A great Mom, even thought her first impulse was otherwise. Just like some Dads.

Michelle: too bad your child already has a father. I'm a great Dad, or I would have been, except I had to go to a meeting.

[ 10 March 2006: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
Aborting a child?

I know we have to be careful on this kind of topic, as passions run high, even among socialist-feminists. But I'm most decidedly a socialist - of long standing and pretty hardline to put it mildly - and not an individualist, though I am a materialist in philosophical terms... (whatever that has to do with the debate).

It is a woman's choice, and even if I think it is utterly nuts to go through with a pregnancy if one is alone, isolated and impoverished, I support that right, even though I do think it is a right to make a stupid decision. (Not to mention the pro-life religious drivel shovelled down women's throats to make them think they are some kind of criminals for eliminating an unwanted foetus)...

That means better support for parents with low incomes, and better job opportunities for women, better childcare for all parents.

---

Well, my use of "child" may have been sloppy, given my convictions, but then opinions are going to differ on that usage.

The point remains: women go ahead to bear children and they go ahead to abort. Always have done both; always will; and neither political nor religious arguments will ever account for the vast majority of those decisions so far as I can tell.

I had three, adopted two, fostered a dozen and am now ear deep in grandbabies. And have always supported a woman's right to an abortion. I've been upset, angry, livid, furious, even felt vengeful toward men who forfeit on child support, and I've single-mom'ed it with no help of any kind from my ex. I've seen first hand what it does to kids to realize their dad has money for a case of beer and nothing, not even a phone call, for them.

Yes, I have my utopian fantasy; the one with a guaranteed and adequate income for all citizens, automatically adequately increased with the birth of each child. I dont' expect to see that happen.

I've never had an abortion. I don't think I could have done it. I would never deny one to a woman who has decided that is the avenue she will take.

Our vocabulary and language is flawed and we have for too long let the compulsory pregnancy people control the discussion. They are the ones who on one hand talk of gifts from god and on the other spout bitter recriminations which make the kid sound like punishment for "loose" behaviour.

And there they are, a nation of little kids, trying to find their way in a world where life is easy for few, and they are surrounded by people who are talking about "not wanting" them.

A crummy point of view reflected by our federal governments who have yet to get from their brain trusts a proper daycare system and our provincial governments which see cutback to all programmes impacting kids as the way to pay for the Olympics.

quote:

---

And I say bullshit to that. That's just as sexist as saying a woman makes her choice to potentially have a baby when she has sex. It's not true for me, and it's not true for my sexual partners.

---

Michelle, a women does potentially make a choice to have a baby when she has sex. That's the way life is. That is what happened to me. I had sex see, with this man, and we both were NOT thinking of having a child, yet that was the end result. And you are saying, oh well, that guy has no right to support the child, but I do. And that is feminism? If so, it's not my feminism.

And if teaching our sons they have no responsibility towards a child they helped create is feminism, you can have it. I'll stick with my brand. My grandson comes first, not my son, and not me. He does. And he needs financial support, along with everything else he is being denied because two people, a male and a female, decided to take a chance and produce a baby neither of them was ready for. Shall that child have no right to expect his father to support him?

I have seen some versions of feminism, but some of those expressed here leave me to believe that it overlooks a lot of things...oh...you know...like the resulting baby.

Yell all you want about me being 'wrong' but it is obviously a matter of perception. You know, when i was pregnant a lot of men used the exact same argument on me - that the child's father owed the child nothing. Those men didn't like women much, but for some reason, I'm seeing women from the left throw the same right wing male attitude at women here. That's your point of view, and maybe that of a few others (I'm sure the major supporters will be men). We can deny all we want the differences between the two experiences, and we can cut right out the baby that is the end result and doesn't that make the world a better place.

I'm through participating in this thread. I find it sort of sickening to be attacked by females and to 'screw solidarity' because you know. men have rights do, except in this case, they really don't, because some people have allowed them to opt out. Except the mom, for she must suffer, being the one who has the ultimate responsibility and all, due to conditions, oh like biology, that she can't help.

This isn't an attack on you Michelle or anyone else. It's a different position, at least respect that there can and are some.

Enough from me on this. Defend men to the core. All the power to you. Just know that the people who suffer are the children but hey....a man's right comes first.

[ 10 March 2006: Message edited by: Stargazer ]

[ 10 March 2006: Message edited by: lucas ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
Well nowadays, despite a lot of access problems remaining, women do have far more of a choice as to whether or not they wish to go through with a pregnancy.

---

Having gotten pregnant despite using birth control - and thereby taking responsibility for my participation in the act - I would in no way allow the decision of the man in question to override my life-long choice not to bear children. I was very clear about that up front with him. (To the point of bluntness: if he wanted children he should be having them with someone else.)

Please do not put words or thoughts in my head that I didn't say in my 'disgusting post' on my own personal experience.

quote:

---

If you know you are going to want to keep any child that could result, you should NOT be sleeping with someone who has stated that they do not. I don't care if you are male or female.

---

Hmmm...funny that. Makes sense logically but in the real world two people meet, have sex and sometimes have babies without discussing at length who wants to have them and who doesn't.

quote:

---

Please do not put words or thoughts in my head that I didn't say in my 'disgusting post' on my own personal experience.

---

I am the one disgusted so don’t be putting words in other people’s mouths yourself. Which by the way, you did in the post that disgusted me so much. You attacked and ran. And then came back to dish out some more.

quote:

---

All I am getting is attacks, from other females at that.

---

Pot meet the kettle below.

quote:

---

I have seen some versions of feminism, but some of those expressed here leave me to believe that it overlooks a lot of things...oh...you know...like the resulting baby.

---

quote:

---

I find it sort of sickening to be attacked by females and to 'screw solidarity' because you know. men have rights do, except in this case, they really don't, because some people have allowed them to opt out. Except the mom, for she must suffer, being the one who has the ultimate responsibility and all, due to conditions, oh like biology, that she can't help.

---

quote:

---

I'm seeing women from the left throw the same right wing male attitude at women here.

---

quote:

---

Enough from me on this. Defend men to the core. All the power to you. Just know that the people who suffer are the children but hey....a man's right comes first.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
The fetus ceases to he a fetus when it is a baby doesn't it?

---

This is what I'm thinking, and why I am confused by much of this thread. I apologize in advance for the many questions...

Once the child is born, surely the best interests of the child are paramount? And the child has two biological parents. That cannot be changed. The child has been born. The interests of the child supercede the interests of the parents. The interests of the child don't supercede the interests of some random guy (which is why Wilf Day doesn't have to pay Michelle), but I don't understand how you could say that the interest of the child don't supercede the interests of its biological parents.

Of course before the child is born the interests of the fetus are nil.

What we are talking about here is a situation where the mother wants to carry the child to term and the father wants to abort. I am reading a lot of talk about "forcing" the father to have a child. But in this instance, isn't the alternative to "force" the mother to abort? And wouldn't that be the far worse alternative? It sucks either way, and someone has to do something they don't want if the parents can't come to agreement. But I could never support forcing the woman to abort. The alternative is forcing the father to support the child, and I think that is an acceptable alternative to dictating abortion.

Or are you saying that the father should be able to force the mother to abort? I don't think so, but can't read it any other way.

We can disagree, we can present very different points of view, we can and must pick over every word and every syllable in order to clearly define what we think and mean but we must NOT get nasty with each other. Concentrate on those areas where we agree and support each other while at the same time examining those areas where our opinions differ.

Otherwise we're doing the work of the Compulsory Pregnancy nuts. Otherwise we're letting the irresponsible fuck'em-and-leave mentality increase its numbers.

I admit I flat-out do not understand the shrug-it-off attitude of some men. I know of several who have numerous kids by several women and not only do they not pay a cent in support, they in no way are involved in the lives of their kids. But they BRAG about having however-many kids. And just laugh when challenged on their refusal to support the kids. At times I think fondly of tom cats and trips to the vet and....

a friend who is much younger than I am suggests these guys have huge holesthey are trying to fill and that they think they are "proving" something about their masculinity, their virility, their....???? It escapes me.

And it is so obvious the governments, provincial and federal, CHOOSE to do fuckall. If you owe $$$ to the income tax people they find many ways to ensure they get it from you...default on buying a car and see how far in it you can go... but try to collect unpaid child support and you might as well serenade your gumboot.

Unplanned and unwanted pregnancy is a tragedy for all concerned but I suspect it is most tragic for the kids.

We try to be "fair" and life isn't fair. Some babies are born with challenges and handicaps, some people are crippled by illness or accident, we do not go from cradle to grave healthy and free of pain, and that's just how it is.

We do not need to attack each other in debates over feminist ideals. Better we use the energy to find those areas where we agree and then work toward demanding a system which doesn't go out of its way to make life even more miserable for the most vulnerable and helpless.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
Hmmm...funny that. Makes sense logically but in the real world two people meet, have sex and sometimes have babies without discussing at length who wants to have them and who doesn't.

---

Here is where I think the onus is on the person who does not want children to be upfront and clear about this.

Hell, the lavalife profile that I had for all of five minutes indicated that, AND I manage to weird people out by informing them of this little detail on the first "date".

This is what I mean by "taking responsibility" - despite the uncomfortable nature of the discussion, some things are just not meant to be left up to chance.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
I didn't chose the fetus over a woman's well-being. I was talking about me for god's sakes. I know exactly what kind of a handicap a child is on a 17 year old - I was that 17 year old child having a child.

---

[ 10 March 2006: Message edited by: Makwa ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Knowing that about myself, I figure if an accidental pregnancy happens, if the guy's not interested in becoming a parent and I decide that I am going to choose to become a parent, that's a choice to make for myself. As an independent woman under no man's control, I can make a choice that affects my life, and I am ready to take full responsibility for the choice I make. But I sure don't have the right to make that choice for any man.

---

I don't think you have the right to deny the child his rights, either. That is effectively what you are doing by absolving the father of the responsibility to support the child. Once the child is born, it has the right to support from both parents. One parent doesn't have the right to sign away the kid's rights in that regard.

What if you die? What if you become unable to support the child? Is that child just out of luck, then, because you made an agreement on its behalf before it was born? Your agreement works as long as you are stable and able to care for the child, but what if that changes?

[ 10 March 2006: Message edited by: v michel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by v michel:
One parent doesn't have the right to sign away the kid's rights.

---

[ 10 March 2006: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

quote:

---

Scout, filled with so much venom towards me. I'm sorry that you feel I am attacking. I was actually presenting a different side. You find my actual liived experience..oh fuck it. I am so saddened now about this I literally am going to go cry. I have never felt so disheartened in my entire life. Yeah I know, crying is weak. Well hey, I'm a weak and emotional person.
But if you must, continue the attack.

---

Are you serious? Venom towards you? I quoted your attacks. Some of which where directed at me? You verbally attacked those who disagreed with your opinion. You attacked our politics in a personal manner. And now you’re accusing me of being venomous towards you? WTF? I just disagreed with you, I didn’t make it personal. I have always been in your corner; to accuse me of being filled with venom because I don’t agree with you and I called you on your hostility is crazy! I was your hero the other day.

quote:

---

Originally posted by white rabbit:
It is she who must experience the rigours and hazards of pregnancy on her physical body, not the man.

---

That I don't want children has bloody little to do with the "rigours and hazards" of pregnancy.

I DON'T WANT CHILDREN.

I can easily see how a man might feel the same way.

Edit: I understand that this is a really difficult idea for people who have children. I'm not being condescending, I have had enough discussions on this subject to know that it fundamentally offends the sensibilities of people who like and want children (and to an extent, I like children - other people's children who are going home at a set time, and only children of a certain age). For me that case where the man was seeking a court injunction to prevent his girlfriend from getting an abortion was so infuriating that I really cannot imagine forcing someone to become a parent. And it is "forcing" regardless what you want to call it.

And yes, I do not feel sorry for people (male or female) who do not even attempt to take responsibility for their actions, which does include using adequate birth control and clearly stating that they are not parentally-inclined. Birth control can fail. I KNOW THIS. FIRST HAND.

And that said, I would like it to be clear that I do not want to be a mother exactly because I have a clear understanding of what it entails, and not because of some "Peter Pan" ideal. You can be a fully-grown (emotionally and physically) adult and NOT WANT CHILDREN.

It's rather insulting to imply otherwise.

[ 10 March 2006: Message edited by: het heru ]

[ 10 March 2006: Message edited by: het heru ]

I've never known a woman who decided to abort with cavalier ease. Oh well, ho hum, flush isn't exactly what goes on before the decision is made.

I am really upset by the strife which has surfaced between two women whose postings have taught me so much and whose opinions I respect.

But I am much more upset by the way we seem, as a society and culture, to be ready to excuse the males of any real responsibility. It's as if we're saying OH , it's great if they want the kid and bond with the kid and treasure the kid and are there in every way for the kid but if they arent , oh well, too bad.

I've heard the "you never take a bath wearing gumboots" bullshit, and I've heard the "well it's up to her to take the pill" bullshit and I know there are many who think I'm just a hardassed old dyke, but it really is time for men to start putting pressure on other men to just for the love of all humanity GROW UP.

Peter Pan is the story about a little boy who didn't want to grow up. We seem to be turning out a lot of Peter Pans in this society.

If you don't want to ensure birth control and you don't want to have kids and you don't want to pay child support then become very good friends with Mother Thumb and her four daughters.

Or maybe buy one of those inflateable dolls.

Of COURSE both partners should use birth control. If it fails... both share the responsibility for the child.

If a guy really really REALLY doesn't want kids then it's up to him to ensure he doesn't get anybody pregnant.

Is it so much to ask for responsible behaviour?

quote:

---

Originally posted by white rabbit:
When a male engages in intercourse with a female he
is taking on the responsibility of any pregnancy that might result.

---

Having sex is to pregnancy is as walking off a cliff is to falling ... you have to expect that it'll follow the laws of nature despite what anyone wants. Not true for date rape, that's totally a human decision (ie the raper is completely responsible).

quote:

---

Originally posted by retread:
... nature makes the decision.

---

You don't randomly wake up one day thinking, "I'd really like to be a mom," or not. You know it long before you decide to have sex - and I think it is incumbent upon you to know yourself and what you want before this possibility is realized.

I will say that I believe that the disrespect and bias in this thread is astounding. This is an example:

quote:

---

It is a woman's choice, and even if I think it is utterly nuts to go through with a pregnancy if one is alone, isolated and impoverished, I support that right, even though I do think it is a right to make a stupid decision. (Not to mention the pro-life religious drivel shovelled down women's throats to make them think they are some kind of criminals for eliminating an unwanted foetus)...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by het heru:

Except that only one person can override the decision of nature.

---

Sure, because giving birth isn't a symmetrical process. If both men and women played the same role in pregnancy it'd make sense that both had an equal say in continuing it. But from personal observation (have a couple of kids ... my wife did 100% of the pregnancy) that's not the case. The woman is the only one taking the risks involved in abortion or childbirth, the wear and tear on her body and so on, so its her decision which way to go on it. And after that a new asymmetry appears when the baby is born, and neither father or mother get a choice in the matter ... life sometimes puts you in places where you don't get to change your mind about your actions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by anne cameron:
She is also the one who has to endure all the emotional and physical CRAP around the abortion itself. It isn't quite as simple as just applying another layer of nail polish. Abortion often leaves women with years of turmoil and a burden of guilt, shame, and sorrow.

I've never known a woman who decided to abort with cavalier ease. Oh well, ho hum, flush isn't exactly what goes on before the decision is made.

---

Please. There are some women who have an abortion and never think about it again (or very rarely). I don't think they're "cavalier". They've made a choice and are comfortable with it.

[ 10 March 2006: Message edited by: pookie ]

I thnk the problem is that we (on all sides of this issue) feel we can really let loose on a thread like this. Let loose a lot of resentment - decades sometimes - either of not receiving adequate financial and moral support in raising children, or being lectured and patronised about not having any (my case).

And yet as Anne said, I'm sure there isn't anyone on this thread who is opposed to abortion rights or not committed to the fight for more funding for low-income parents and for daycare/early childhood education and other social measures.

quote:

---

Originally posted by retread:
Symmetrical rights don't apply well to assymmetrical conditions, and the whole making babies process is very unsymmetrical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by het heru:
You don't randomly wake up one day thinking, "I'd really like to be a mom," or not. You know it long before you decide to have sex - and I think it is incumbent upon you to know yourself and what you want before this possibility is realized.

---