Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Derec · 05-20-2003, 01:14 PM

Under current laws a man can be forced to pay child support if he was married to the mother or was otherwise led to believe that the child was his even if he later finds out that the child was not his.

So the government rewards women for cheating and fraud (lying for monetary gain is usually defined as fraud) when they should have been punished for fraud.

So the law is even more unfair than shown so far ...

UMoC

Pyrrho · 05-20-2003, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
Under the current law it doesn't even matter if they did talk about it and she said she would abort.

The law is far more interested in getting the women off welfare than it is in being fair.

I think the interest that the law takes (since you have started personifying the law, I will continue in that manner) is in the care of the child. It takes money to take care of a child.

One of the legal issues involved with having a conversation about something is that later on it can be a bit difficult to determine precisely what was said. (I stated "one" of the legal issues; there may be others equally important.) This is one reason why verbal contracts are more problematic than written ones. As for what one can do about it if one wants to have sex and not worry about children, perhaps a lawyer can draw up some sort of contract that both could sign before having sex, for those who are foolish enough to have sex with people they can't trust. (I am no lawyer, and different places have different laws, so you will want to consult with a lawyer in your area if you have an interest in such contracts.)

In any case, people make their decisions about their actions with the laws as they are. If people choose to do something that can give them undesirable results, then they should take that into consideration before they act.

alek0 · 05-20-2003, 03:50 PM

Yes, it takes money to care for a child. That's why you shouldn't have one if you can't afford it. There is no such thing as right to have a child. If you don't want anyone else making a decision whether you have a child or not (either by forbidding or enforcing abortion), you should accept that no one else should have the obligation to provide for the child.

Loren Pechtel · 05-20-2003, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by Pyrrho
I think the interest that the law takes (since you have started personifying the law, I will continue in that manner) is in the care of the child. It takes money to take care of a child.

Yes, it takes money to care for the child. The court is far more interested in ensuring that someone pays than in ensuring the cost is not borne by an innocent party.

As has been previously mentioned, there are men who were duped. Also, even more extreme, there are men who had nothing to do with the child at all. It's possible to get child support from someone with whom you never had sex or even knew! Yeah, she would have to lie in court but nothing comes of it. (Fail to find the guy, get a default judgement. Wait for the statute of limitations to expire, find him. The statute is up, he can't contest it--even though he was never notified.)

As for what one can do about it if one wants to have sex and not worry about children, perhaps a lawyer can draw up some sort of contract that both could sign before having sex, for those who are foolish enough to have sex with people they can't trust.

Child support doesn't care about such things. There have been cases where it was patently obvious the man was never meant to be involved (merely providing sperm for a lesbian friend to get pregnant with.)

In any case, people make their decisions about their actions with the laws as they are. If people choose to do something that can give them undesirable results, then they should take that into consideration before they act.

What we are saying is that the law views the situation unreasonably. If it were anything else it would be obvious--his liability is 1/2 the cost of an abortion/time off work. If she chose to have it instead it would be classed as failure to mitigate damages, his liability would be limited to what it would have been had she taken reasonable steps to mitigate.

Soyin Milka · 05-20-2003, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pyrrho
A hysterectomy is more invasive than a vasectomy, so it is more expensive, requires more time to recover, and is more likely to lead to complications (including death; though that is unlikely for both, it is far more likely with a hysterectomy). With a hysterectomy, the doctor cuts into the abdomen, which is not something you really want to happen if you don't need it done, as it will never be the same afterwards. In the case of a vasectomy, the doctor cuts into the scrotum, which is just skin, and does not involve penetrating through muscle or other tissue.

As for the permanence, although sometimes a vasectomy can be reversed, it is not something you should ever count on.

So, if we were speaking of a monogamous couple who were both fertile, a vasectomy would be, by far, the better choice.

I agree with what you said. I'm just in a nit-picking mood and something has been nagging at me for a while now. I hope you can forgive me.

I don't know of any woman who had a hysterectomy for the sole purpose of contraception. It's a serious procedure and it's much simply to have a tubal ligation instead (mini-laparotomy or laparoscopy).

A vasectomy is still simpler and safer.
I wish I had found a website about this, all I have is that big book at home about medicine and its practice. But it has a table with death rates from different procedures:

Tibal ligation: One death in 67000 procedures.
Hysterectomy: One death in 1600.
Vasectomy: One death in 300000.
Legal abortion during the first 9 weeks: One death in 260000.

Please forgive me Pyrrho...

Soyin

Soyin Milka · 05-20-2003, 05:14 PM

I reread the thread and I basically agree with many of those asking for more reproductive rights for men. I can imagine situations in which a man should not be forced by law to provide for a child he fathered. Men need more options and protection than they currently have.

I still have a gut reaction though. My experience so far is that men don't place as much importance on contraception and prevention of STDs as I do. I have a fear, maybe unfounded, that if all a man has to do to avoid responsibility is say during the pregnancy that he doesn't want to take care of a child, the burden of taking care of contraception could be shifted even more on women.

Where does it stop also?
A woman can initially decide to carry a pregnancy to term but change her mind later on, for all sorts of reasons, medical or otherwise. Could a man who recognised his fatherhood and initially indicated he would provide for the child change his mind at a later stage during the pregnancy?

I have this nightmare scenario in my mind of a couple breaking up at the fifth month of pregnancy, with the man changing his mind about providing for the child at that moment.

Soyin

lunachick · 05-20-2003, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
....ensuring the cost is not borne by an innocent party.

For the most part, I'm staying out of this debate - despite entering it so early - because it appears to be more about abortion than anything else. And, as a Pro-CHOICER, I am quite horrified by the selfishness and nastiness that Im feeling in the undertones of some of the suggestions and "blame" in here. I'm getting the feeling of women being virtually blackmailed into abortions - akin to forced abortions, IMO. I could be imagining it, of course, but there's something in these attitudes make my skin crawl. I can't articulate it - I'm not a seasoned debater.

But! I did want to return to this - "innocent party" - what innocent party? I'll say it again - if you are a man and you do not want the responsibility of a child, then take responsibilty for your own body and your own fertility, too.
People in this thread appear to be using abortion - something which can have social, spiritual (for want of a better word - no, I'm not talking religion), health and hormonal repercussions for the one who has the abortion. When a woman has an abortion, her body goes from being pregnant to not being pregnant very quickly, and hormones go crazy. Abortion is not a lightweight decision, and shouldn't be treated like a form of contraception - PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN CURE!
As for soooo many men being duped out there - gosh! it must be all of 120% of named fathers! - you guys watch too much Rikki Lake. If you are unsure, get a paternity test. It's not that hard to do.

[/rant]

Buddrow_Wilson · 05-20-2003, 05:33 PM

This is gonna get me in trouble, but being that the woman is the one who gets pregnant, it seems logical that the burden of preventing the pregnancy is greatly on her. Life isn't fair, but we should be hesitant to regulate morality.

lunachick · 05-20-2003, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Buddrow_Wilson
..but being that the woman is the one who gets pregnant, it seems logical that the burden of preventing the pregnancy is greatly on her. ..

And we're back to square one.

(Don't worry - I don't hate you. I don't like your views in this matter - but I don't hate you)

Buddrow_Wilson · 05-20-2003, 05:49 PM

I know you have no reason to believe me, but I would never abandon a woman in a situation like this.

It just doesn't seem to be logical considering the facts of the situation to force the male into a position of supporting an unwanted child in most situations. The strongest emotional argument in my opinion is; why would you want someone to be forced into a role of influence over a child who resents the child's existence?

If a woman decides she doesn't want her child and gives it up for adoption or it becomes a ward of the state, is she forced to pay a monthly stipend for 18 yrs?

Think about STDs. If you get a disease from someone, do you feel they are responsible and should have to pay for any medication or doctor's appointments that results from it? Is it not mostly your responsibility to prevent this from happening?

If a woman is too have complete control over what happens to her own body, then she should be solely responsible for what she allows to develop in it. Unless you believe the father should have a deciding vote on disallowing an abortion? Should I be able to sue a woman for aborting my "child" without my consent or knowledge? If not, then why should I be legally responsible for her decision not too abort, considering I have no say.

Perhaps this argument is getting to the circular point.

05-20-2003, 01:14 PM	#31
Derec Contributor Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 15,686	Another point ... Under current laws a man can be forced to pay child support if he was married to the mother or was otherwise led to believe that the child was his even if he later finds out that the child was not his. So the government rewards women for cheating and fraud (lying for monetary gain is usually defined as fraud) when they should have been punished for fraud. So the law is even more unfair than shown so far ... UMoC

05-20-2003, 05:14 PM	#36
Soyin Milka Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Absurdistan Posts: 299	Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Man's Responsibility to a Child I reread the thread and I basically agree with many of those asking for more reproductive rights for men. I can imagine situations in which a man should not be forced by law to provide for a child he fathered. Men need more options and protection than they currently have. I still have a gut reaction though. My experience so far is that men don't place as much importance on contraception and prevention of STDs as I do. I have a fear, maybe unfounded, that if all a man has to do to avoid responsibility is say during the pregnancy that he doesn't want to take care of a child, the burden of taking care of contraception could be shifted even more on women. Where does it stop also? A woman can initially decide to carry a pregnancy to term but change her mind later on, for all sorts of reasons, medical or otherwise. Could a man who recognised his fatherhood and initially indicated he would provide for the child change his mind at a later stage during the pregnancy? I have this nightmare scenario in my mind of a couple breaking up at the fifth month of pregnancy, with the man changing his mind about providing for the child at that moment. Soyin

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-20-2003, 03:50 PM	#33
alek0 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 640	Yes, it takes money to care for a child. That's why you shouldn't have one if you can't afford it. There is no such thing as right to have a child. If you don't want anyone else making a decision whether you have a child or not (either by forbidding or enforcing abortion), you should accept that no one else should have the obligation to provide for the child.

05-20-2003, 04:26 PM	#34
Loren Pechtel Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Not Mayaned Posts: 96,752	Originally posted by Pyrrho I think the interest that the law takes (since you have started personifying the law, I will continue in that manner) is in the care of the child. It takes money to take care of a child. Yes, it takes money to care for the child. The court is far more interested in ensuring that someone pays than in ensuring the cost is not borne by an innocent party. As has been previously mentioned, there are men who were duped. Also, even more extreme, there are men who had nothing to do with the child at all. It's possible to get child support from someone with whom you never had sex or even knew! Yeah, she would have to lie in court but nothing comes of it. (Fail to find the guy, get a default judgement. Wait for the statute of limitations to expire, find him. The statute is up, he can't contest it--even though he was never notified.) As for what one can do about it if one wants to have sex and not worry about children, perhaps a lawyer can draw up some sort of contract that both could sign before having sex, for those who are foolish enough to have sex with people they can't trust. Child support doesn't care about such things. There have been cases where it was patently obvious the man was never meant to be involved (merely providing sperm for a lesbian friend to get pregnant with.) In any case, people make their decisions about their actions with the laws as they are. If people choose to do something that can give them undesirable results, then they should take that into consideration before they act. What we are saying is that the law views the situation unreasonably. If it were anything else it would be obvious--his liability is 1/2 the cost of an abortion/time off work. If she chose to have it instead it would be classed as failure to mitigate damages, his liability would be limited to what it would have been had she taken reasonable steps to mitigate.

05-20-2003, 05:33 PM	#38
Buddrow_Wilson Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Arkansas Posts: 1,589	This is gonna get me in trouble, but being that the woman is the one who gets pregnant, it seems logical that the burden of preventing the pregnancy is greatly on her. Life isn't fair, but we should be hesitant to regulate morality.

05-20-2003, 05:49 PM	#40
Buddrow_Wilson Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Arkansas Posts: 1,589	I know you have no reason to believe me, but I would never abandon a woman in a situation like this. It just doesn't seem to be logical considering the facts of the situation to force the male into a position of supporting an unwanted child in most situations. The strongest emotional argument in my opinion is; why would you want someone to be forced into a role of influence over a child who resents the child's existence? If a woman decides she doesn't want her child and gives it up for adoption or it becomes a ward of the state, is she forced to pay a monthly stipend for 18 yrs? Think about STDs. If you get a disease from someone, do you feel they are responsible and should have to pay for any medication or doctor's appointments that results from it? Is it not mostly your responsibility to prevent this from happening? If a woman is too have complete control over what happens to her own body, then she should be solely responsible for what she allows to develop in it. Unless you believe the father should have a deciding vote on disallowing an abortion? Should I be able to sue a woman for aborting my "child" without my consent or knowledge? If not, then why should I be legally responsible for her decision not too abort, considering I have no say. Perhaps this argument is getting to the circular point.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.