I have debated much of the night whether to bother with this thread any further, for personal reasons. This will be my last post on the matter, regardless of whatever else may be said, either in response to this post itself or in the thread in general. After this I'm walking away, wiping my hands of the matter and will not discuss it further, in or out of the forums.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca
None of it has to be done within a two weeks or so of finding out that she is pregnant. I agree that women should not have a right to sue for back child support without any time limitations, but I don't see how the mere fact that legal hurdles already exist, in and of itself, justifies imposing more legal hurdles, further complicated by extreme time constraints.
|
The simplest answer here is
because right now men are in NO way protected. They can flee, they can hide out, but they are SOUGHT and in the end if they are found they WILL be held accountable.
There seem to be plenty of legal hurdles designed to make sure men are held accountable -- even to the extent that despite your agreement women should NOT be able to sue for back child support without any time limitations,
they still ARE, which means men who have no idea ARE still held accountable via "legal hurdle".
Yet a "legal hurdle" which acts in the interest of men... no, nothing doing.
Quote:
|
Providing everyone with equivalent or semi-equivalent rights is all great in the abstract, but at some point, we have to get into the practical aspect of it. And giving the man the right to opt out of child support in time for the woman to still have the option to abort would entail considerable costs -- and I am not just talking about monetary costs.
|
I could not agree more; we DO have to weigh the practical aspects.
It just seems that the practical aspects as they apply to women seem to outweigh the practical aspects with consideration to men.
I say that KNOWING a woman would be under serious constraints. For the sake of argument we've gone with the presented "two weeks from likelihood of discovering she's pregnant", which has been set at an approximate six weeks. If, however, we're going to be practical, then by all means lets be PRACTICAL:
This is the fastest, simplest read on the matter. There is debate in the scientific community but the stuff presented here is NOT grossly in error. All other debate comes from anti-abortion/pro-religion groups, which I am for the moment discounting.
For the record I AM pro-choice but I despise the way abortion is used often abused as a means of birth-control. Nevertheless:
Late-term abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So we've broadened those time constraints considerably -- in the name of "practical aspect".
That doesn't allay the costs to a pregnant woman during her attempts to contact the man who impregnated her (I'm tired of arguing that one so screw it, he GOT HER PREGNANT) but it most definitely gives her more wiggle-room than the two weeks we've been accepting at face value.
Quote:
|
Whether those costs are acceptable is a matter of subjective opinion, but I think it is self-evident that there would be substantial costs, and they would be almost single-handedly be born by women.
|
That there would be considerable costs is undeniable. That the costs would, at least initially, be borne by women -- also undeniable. Perhaps something might be written in to address that -- IF we considered such a law in the first place, which we are clearly NOT going to do, not now, not ever.
This line:
Quote:
|
(On the anticipated question as to whether the costs of parenthood are presently single-handedly born by men, please see further towards the end.)
|
...I'm sincerely hoping was not addressed to me, but to the general populace. If it was addressed specifically to me, then
for shame.
On the question of my request for specifics on your repeated assertion that laws protecting men or allowing them to sign away parental rights along with their CS obligations might lead to mothers having children forcibly removed from them, you provide this:
Quote:
|
I am just considering the possibilities of how a law requiring notification -- which would be independent from the issue of child support -- would be enforced. I know there is a poster here whose answer to everything is "jail", but that solution would be both extreme and impractical. So I imagine that instead, failure to notify would lead to an abridgment of the woman's right to custody, perhaps even her parental rights. The question of what laws are desirable is inseparable from what is enforceable and how. This is what I meant when I mentioned earlier that I would like a law that requires a notice of pregnancy to the father in every single case -- except that there is no way to enforce it without draconian measures. So -- what teeth would YOU put into the law?
|
Once more asserting that it might happen but without explanation of HOW or WHY any such ludicrous thing would happen.
Is it because a man who was not notified might turn around and sue for custody? Because if it is, that's an issue of
custody, not one of Child Support and it presents NOTHING that's not already present in the current system whereby a man could sue for custody.
If it's not a question of him taking custody OR it's the suggestion that by not being notified in a timely manner he should
automatically be awarded custody, then either
A) I'm too stupid to get WHY you keep suggesting this because you keep failing to present a reason such an act might come to pass and my imagination fails to grasp, or
B) once more it's sensationalism-
c u m-horrorific image meant for emotional shock value but with little hold on reality.
So much for facing the practical aspects, eh?
Since you continue to present it but without explanation that makes sense to me I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume I'm just a dumb-arse who cannot compete with you in this particular instance. It must be completely obvious to you, but it's not to me and I waive further explanation and instead will simply accept that "it might come to pass", in much the same light a rise in the mainstream political power of American Nazism "might come to pass".
From a man possibly not being notified in time to sign away both right and obligation... all the way to a woman who has no alternative parent to whom she might present a child she's elected to keep anyway BUT the authorities simply strip her of her own maternal rights "just because".
Because unless you might (and Lord knows I've asked enough now) have provided some scenario telling me why-on-God's-green-Earth such a thing would ever happen, that's to what this particular tidbit boils down.
I typically HATE this response, but okay --
whatever.
Quote:
|
At the same time, there are also fundamental differences in what it is they are deciding to do. Regardless of the legal and political justifications for abortion (which, being pro-choice, I won't deny), on a personal level, many women, perhaps most, feel that they are terminating a baby's life when they abort. The decision as to whether or not to do that isn't the equivalent of deciding not to do anything with the child's life, however radical the latter decision may be -- I'm sorry, but it just isn't the same thing.
|
With all due respect THIS is an argument of convenience. In a similar thread where the notion of pushing a woman to continue with gestation came up and the idea of a MAN wanting that child but being unable to be pregnant or give birth through simple biology, the bottom line was that no matter his feelings on the matter, it is and remains:
Her Body, Her Choice.
The assertion was that her
biology could not be
legally compelled to assume the
potential risks of fetal development as this would amount to nothing short of removing bodily autonomy.
And I even agreed with it; we're talking
legality and
biology, so whether I like it or not it really IS just tough luck, pal. Sorry for your loss, but NO.
Suddenly, when we're talking the unfortunate aspects of biology and potential
legality -- her FEELINGS are
important.
That is nothing less than an argument of convenience -- NOT because her feelings aren't important in actuality, but because when it was HIS feelings, biology and legality were the important factors.
You left "bodily autonomy" at the doorstep when you walked into the Feelings-House. And it's clear -- her feelings are more important than his, as is everything else involved.
Quote:
|
And even where, arguably, a man's decision to opt out of child support leads the woman to abort, he still isn't the one who ultimately pulls the trigger. I don't think I am being extreme or unreasonable, or that I am disparaging men, when I say that the moral and personal implications of actually aborting a pregnancy on the one hand and disclaiming parenthood on the other simply aren't the same. A man's opting-out of child support and visitation may be treated as a legal equivalent of an abortion for purposes of this discussion -- but abortion by a woman isn't a practical equivalent of opting out of child support and visitation.
|
See above.
Quote:
|
A man's decision to opt out also doesn't involve necessary trips to a physician and arranging to have an abortion done within the time frame prescribed by law -- something that imposes additional time constraints on women.
|
See presented link above. Also, see information provided further below (reference to the phone call I made). After all we're being practical about this now rather than conjectural. Her abortive options are NOT as short as we've accepted or painted them to be up until now and we need to radically modify those time constraints to fit the REAL picture.
Quote:
|
When you mention how men have even less time than women to make a decision, I think you are forgetting that a lot less would be required of men to actually put their decision to “abort” into execution – and doing so wouldn’t depend on the availability of other people.
|
I'm forgetting no such thing.
Having an abortion (without exploring each and every possibility of what MIGHT go wrong -- in the name of "practical aspect", which means we look at the MAJORITY and not just the horror stories) generally requires a day, plus a day of recovery.
I won't deny more onus is placed on a woman here, physically (unavoidable) and legally with regard to her efforts to contact the man in question (which, as I wrote above, might be addressed somehow).
Quote:
|
Keep in mind, there are laws in place which govern surgical procedures, so a woman can't simply walk in the door of a clinic and have an abortion done right then and there. A lab workup is required, as well as clearances -- one by a physician and another by an anesthesiologist. And the abortion itself must be scheduled, which requires both the doctor and hospital facilities to be available on short notice for what is a non-emergency procedure. So although the law gives women until the end of the 12th week to abort, a woman who makes the decision in her 9th week is skirting dangerously close to the deadline, and if she's in her 10th or 11th week, she's probably out of luck.
|
I can't argue your [bolded] assertion above since it could be on a state-by-state basis. I'd doubt, however, that NY is more restrictive than KY on this:
- A woman must be between 6 and 22 weeks
- Once a woman decides to have an abortion she schedules an appointment, one which is made for the earliest available date
- from 0730 walk-in until procedure completion and recovery, the woman has ultrasound, blood-work, counseling and finally the procedure, excluding complications finally walking out around 1600-1630, depending also on the number of patients present
This was not from internet research or conjecture; this was from the director of emwwomens.org, Louisville clinic, with whom I was on the phone this morning.
22 weeks is the mark they will not go past at their clinic.
Rather more than the 12 we've been given, which is STILL rather more than the "earliest determining being six weeks" plus the "two weeks" we've been working with argumentatively until now.
Practical aspects and all that, you know. Let's be real.
Quote:
|
I brought up the practical difficulties that would ensue if men are given a choice to opt out of child support (and notice, by the way, women don’t have the choice to unilaterally opt out of child support alone).
|
Notice, by the way, that I AGREED with you quite some time back that opting out should not apply to merely child support but ALL parental rights along with the obligations.
Thus, your "notice" is moot, utterly moot.
And the "practical difficulties" you've noted have all been based on convenience factors and time constraints -- which I've "practically" addressed by expanding the time contraints quite considerably.
Quote:
|
And I disagree that the possibilities I am considering – such as men avoiding service of process, or changing their minds and suing for custody – are rare and remote. I haven’t discussed the really rare cases, such as a pregnant rape victim wanting to carry the child to term. I am not trying to argue that most men, or even a lot of men, would act underhandedly, but I think the situations that I’ve described would be common enough that they should be taken into account.
|
Therein lies part of the problem with this whole discussion:
You only appear to be addressing extremes and exceptions, rarities (and in some cases, balderdash).
You're so dead set on addressing those that you appear to have forgotten basic problem-solving:
1. Figure out how to protect the good guys
THEN
2. Figure out the problems with THAT system and start running interference on them
We are SO determined to not let the bad guys slip away that we're willing to refuse to protect the good guys at all.
As for this:
Quote:
|
Okay, full stop. Please don’t ignore the context in which I made the statement. I alluded to condom non-use in the context of -- hypothetically -- imposing a legal requirement on a man to provide his partner with his real name and address, and the circumstances which would trigger such a requirement. I don't see how this can reasonably be interpreted as a statement that only men are responsible for birth control.
|
My note was the TREND (not just you; the seemingly-preferred trend in general) of citing male lack of condom use while NOT citing lack of female birth control --
not the specific reference made there. Repeated mentions tend to paint
character rather than JUST to make clean statements; I think I made that pretty clear. This post by you (excerpted from an earlier post, cut carefully so as to NOT be affected by the out-of-context nature) is a good example of overall character-painting:
Quote:
|
Meanwhile, what is required of the father? He does not even have to give her his real name or his address -- because I'm sure we can all agree, no legislature will enact a requirement that, before having sex without a condom (or a vasectomy), the man will have to serve his sex partner with a sworn statement setting forth his name and address.
|
When a woman shows up pregnant (see how offensive the phrasing can be despite the practical simplicity and stark reality? so finger-pointing?) and a man dares to complain about what happens to him, the ever-available and much preferred chestnut is
he should have worn a condom. I won't even ARGUE against that; he SHOULD have worn a condom. But it's a societal view held overall that he should have been more responsible and it continues to paint overall perception in a prejudicial light while
she should have been on birth control just comes across as downright offensive.
Nevertheless, I apologize for that bit of misunderstanding and retract any semblance of
distinct directing of it at you -- but NOT the practical aspect of the warning itself to be cautious with regard to references to condom use unless you plan to also cite female failure to be on birth control or use similar measures. That part I DID direct at you (and of note, I've yet to see you suggest such a thing in any thread).
Quote:
|
Here, we are dealing with the legal principle that an affidavit can only be based on the affiant’s actual knowledge. Therefore, we couldn't have a law (again, speaking in pure hypotheticals here) which would require a man to furnish an affidavit only in the event both he AND the woman aren't on birth control, without first requiring the woman herself to provide an affidavit as to whether or not she is taking birth control. Where does it all end? We could, of course, require men to provide affidavits in each and every case -- but here, we are back to the problem of having ridiculous laws that no one is going to comply with.
|
This I completely agree with; people as a whole are stupid -- so why is it so unfathomable to offer men a choice, especially since it's one with which I've already 99 percent agreed? (see further down)
Quote:
|
I certainly don't disparage the male gender or suggest that men usually behave maliciously or underhandedly. Cases where the man does not disclose his real name are, I am sure, rare, but address is another matter. I don't think it's disparaging to men in general to point out that some men -- and not a handful -- don't want to be notified, or don't want to be notified in the manner equivalent to being served with a summons at their home or place of business, for reasons that I stated earlier, reasons that are understandable. What is your position, anyway -- that these situations should not be anticipated? What are the mother's remedies in such a situation?
|
Once more, I'll point out character-painting.
Please read back through your own responses throughout this and other, similar threads.
These exceptions are the ones you cite over and over. And over.
After a while, no matter the reality of them (with regard to their
existence, not their proferred
prevalence) this constant reference comes to resemble disparagment. I've certainly seen guys make statements which seem factual enough to me and watched you leap on them as disparaging comments plenty in these forums.
For once -- pot, truly, meet kettle.
I know that I often refer to worst-case scenarios involving women; the difference there is that I also occasionally make reference to my own tendency and have admitted in these forums that I can get carried away with a bias.
I don't think you
believe you have any bias whatsoever -- and that's the part that worries me during these kinds of discussions, especially once they get heated.
You know, know for a FACT that I have deep and abiding respect for you, that I would NOT even suggest such a thing unless I really believed I could see a trend. You KNOW this about me... and I DO see a trend.
Quote:
|
The presumption of legitimacy originated at common law, and it's very old -- so it's not something that radical feminists invented.
|
Never suggested it was something the feminists invented. However, the age does nothing to diminish the prevailing assumption of paternity, nor would it be affected since the suggestions thus far have been for pregnancies
outside the bonds of matrimony.
You've behaved as though the two would be inseparable, as demonstrated below:
Quote:
|
However, since a married woman, just like an unmarried one, currently has a choice to abort -- or not -- regardless of what the father wants, I just automatically assumed that the hypothetical law we are talking about would extend to married couples as well. So it would have the effect of radically modifying child support laws.
|
I can see why you'd express concern that someone might try to use it thusly; but to pretend that it simply blows wide the floodgates is short-sighted and shocking. Once more we're so determined to prevent any bad guys we're unwilling to offer any protection to the good.
Quote:
|
That is not a fair interpretation of what I said. Not by a long shot. I assumed -- with good basis, I think -- that the protection would extend to married men -- and that it would create a loophole where in the context of a divorce, the father may (as in, has the legal option to) disclaim paternity on the ground that he was denied the choice as to whether to have the child at all.
|
See above. The two are NOT inseparable but you seem determined they must be.
Quote:
|
Because unfortunately -- and as un-PC as it may be to say so -- some parents, not the majority by any means, but a sizeable number, are perfectly willing to relinquish their relationship with their children if it means not having to pay child support, or significantly reducing the amount. In some cases, this attitude is driven purely by identifying the child strongly with the other parent, rather than with oneself -- and while it's unfortunate, it happens too often to be dismissed as extreme or negligible. Opportunistic litigation in divorces happens constantly. Do only women do it? Or mostly women? Why does anticipating opportunistic litigation by a man reflect an impression that no man wants his children?
|
Because it keeps getting said over and over
as though it's so prevalent it negates any need for a law allowing for unwilling fathers OUTSIDE marriage to "boobooruboo" as a matter of choice (but with full proposed consequences excepting the one discussed further down).
If you call a zebra
pink over and over vociferously, people may not believe the zebra to be pink but they WILL begin to ask "Seriously, does she actually think the zebra is PINK?!? Is this what she thinks zebras far and wide really are, or just this one?"
Quote:
|
Should I assume that any hypothetical law that grants protection to men in situations involving custody or child support is based on an impression that no woman enjoys anything so much as screwing a man over? After all, the situation we are trying to address here – where a woman bears a child against the father’s wishes AND sues him for child-support – is in and of itself uncommon. Or should I interpret the fact that people want to address it as a reflection of their opinion that ALL women do this?
|
Hmm...
IS it uncommon?
Further and more to the point --
IS it the point we're addressing? I thought the point we were addressing was some viable way of giving men
some degree of choice with regard to the obligation of Child Support WHEN a woman chooses to bear a child the man does not want.
Let's take a look:
Quote:
|
I previously proposed an enforcement scheme where a man who walked away from fatherhood would suffer severe financial penalties in the event he ever violated his portion of the restraining order or sued either the mother or the adoptive father – and you objected to it on the ground that this provision may be abused by a vindictive or malicious mother notwithstanding the requirements imposed on her to prevent contact between the child and the biological father. I would submit that this possibility, too, is remote, yet you invoked it as a reason not to impose these penalties on men who, literally, would only opt out of the responsibilities of fatherhood, but not the benefits. So – do we guard against remote possibilities or not? Or do I take your objection to mean that ALL mothers are vindictive and malicious and that’s why you object to the restrictions? Does anticipating dishonest or malicious conduct on behalf of anyone reflect one’s opinion of the gender? It seems to me, the assumption that it does cuts both ways.
|
THIS is the one that kept me up last night and the reason I debated bothering with this at all rather than simply walking away. Given all the rest, I'd simply have walked, have decided this argument just isn't worth it. It's grown in hostility and animosity and that was never my intent. I would definitely have walked but for this one.
Your proposal, quoted:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/16664377-post140.html
Quote:
4. Any opt-out of child support (again, putting aside the problems I discuss above) would have to be conditioned on a complete and irreversible severing of the parent-child relationship, now and for all time -- like a real abortion. Of course, I would add provisions that would obligate the mother to maintain confidentiality, but as long as she complies with those provisions, and there is no fraudulent intent on her or her child's part, any later contact between the child and the biological father -- regardless of the child's age or who initiated it -- should trigger the payback of child support, with interest. That should create a sufficient incentive for the biological father not to be found. I would also create draconian penalties for frivolous litigation, should the biological father ever bring a lawsuit against the mother or the adoptive father to reverse or modify the opt-out.
That last paragraph must have sounded harsh. So I hasten to add that this applies only to biological fathers who want an equivalent of an abortion. I say they should get one. Those who want to be involved with the child's life should be given every opportunity to be so involved. I just don't believe that the proper way to compensate men for their inability to abort is by absolving them of financial obligations, while keeping the possibilities open for enjoying the benefits of parenthood. And in any event, let's take people at their word. If a man states unequivocally that he does not want to pay child support because he does not want this child, any future interference with the child or the child's family can only be a result of maliciousness on his part -- or regrets that the law cannot entertain any more than it can entertain the regrets of a woman who had an abortion.
|
...and my response:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/16671673-post141.html
Quote:
Quote:
|
[Redisca]...any later contact between the child and the biological father -- regardless of the child's age or who initiated it -- should trigger the payback of child support, with interest.
|
...with which I don't agree solely because it leaves potential for intentio malevolens / mens rea contact on the part of a vindictive mother or child who comes to feel spurned...
|
But I've renounced the whole thing, right?
You provided the following:
- Maternal responsibility to mind her P's and Q's or face penalties
- Filial incentive (per an earlier post basically telling the child off in a most hostile manner to prevent any desire to seek the bio-father out) to stay away
- Paternal responsibility to mind his P's and Q's or face penalties
...and I AGREE with all of this but do NOT agree with the blatantly catch-all clause:
Quote:
|
... any later contact between the child and the biological father -- regardless of the child's age or who initiated it -- should trigger the payback of child support, with interest.
|
...which puts ALL accountability back on the father whether he's done his bit or not (if you think that reads differently, by all means, read AGAIN) and thus I've effectively rejected your proposal?!?
We're never going to get anywhere if I'm dismissed that lightly in discussion, heated or not; if my assertion of tweaking a proposal to make it more fair (at least in my perception) just negates any sense of cooperation or well-intended overture, why am I even discussing in the first place?
This:
Quote:
|
Look, we can always take a page out of Soviet Russia’s book and have a law that says that neither parent is obligated to support a child who is actually in existence unless he or she wants to do so. That’s how we could give both the father and the mother identical rights.
|
...deserves scorn. I'm appalled that the money itself is the only point you see in anything I've said thus far, that
choice fails to be the point I've presented. Perhaps the failing is mine; I thought I'd said it several times. I won't be bothering to say it again.
Quote:
|
On this, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I believe one's options to opt in or out of parenthood are dictated by the duration of one's physiological input. In fact, by law, the woman's options terminate long before her physiological function in making the fetus viable is over.
|
This reminds me of an occasion when my mother-in-law sat at a table and while remonstrating men as a whole and our (in her eyes) perceived wimpiness, touted that "If MEN had to have the babies, they'd stop at ONE. THEY could never go through that. They're just weak."
It's the kind of short-sightedness that fails to realize we ARE hindered by biological chains which lie beyond choice; but we're NOT halted in the pursuit of equanimity.
In her case she absolutely could not see that if men were capable of having babies then we'd have been having them all along, as well as possessing the necessary "equipment" to have them, so her assertion would be foolish at best, utterly retarded at worst.
In this case the woman has ALL the choices: Keep or terminate (I really hope you're NOT denying this is a CHOICE while labeling yourself "pro-choice" -- the proof IS in the pudding... or wording), pursue Child Support (with the support of the courts, which WILL back her despite my admission that the pursuit itself could prove both expensive and quite possibly fruitless) or NOT pursue child support -- while on NO count does a man have ANY choice...
To keep or not to keep a child with regard to abortion, to pay or not to pay Child Support or face penalties if he fails to meet that obligation. The fact that the law prevents her from pursuing abortion long before her body's requirements and obligation have ended almost IS moot -- because she's made her CHOICE long before that and has accepted the consequences. Her ability to accept and make a decision has been established in the REAL (read PRACTICAL) timeline I've established -- in this case 22 weeks rather than the twelve stated in this thread, let alone the six-plus-two with which I've agreed to work before this.
Women are, it seems, simply
more important when it comes to any question of children or support or CHOICE.
Quote:
|
Is it not the reason? If the necessity of extending a man's options beyond the completion of his physiological function in creating a viable fetus isn't based on the duration of the female function, then why the time limitation at all? Why shouldn't a man have three months to decide, as someone his suggested -- or six months, or a year?
|
The duration involved was based on her ability to abort, not on the fact that she TAKES nine months and odd days to gestate a child. ARE there hindrances which are tied to that length of gestation? Absolutely. They are distinctly
abortive in nature. Are they high-priority factors? Again, absolutely.
Does this somehow NEGATE the notion of giving the man any option? If you believe so, then you're actually saying you believe his parental input STOPPED with ejaculation UNLESS the mother says so, and that he has NO right to the child without her permission.
It is, in effect, HER child, by that reasoning. Every aspect of his authority STOPPED dead in the water once he grunted and rolled off.
He's as constrained by biology as she; the difference is that her choices affect him while his have NO effect on her.
That's the thing you keep refusing to admit unless it's to apply the "tough luck" law on his part. You've said that you believe a man who does not want a child should be allowed to be released from his obligation (that is, the "legal abortion") as it would be in the best interests of the child, your only stipulations being that he be absolved of parental RIGHTS along with those obligations.
That is to say, that he never be granted visitation, the right to file for custody, contact of any sort, the right to pursue
knowledges of the child (schools, methods of rearing, etc) or anything else.
I even agreed with that, with the exception of the aforementioned "catch-all" which laid potential responsibility for arrears and damages at his feet.
Quote:
|
Okay. This comes back to my original question -- what is the option FOR, if it's not an abortion? Is it really the option not to procreate, or an option to procreate without financial consequences? How would you make sure that this option you have in mind isn't merely an opportunity to escape child support?
|
Did you not read YOUR proposal? OR see that I agreed with it, with the exception of that one clause, for which I stated my clear reasons? MUST I say it again?
Quote:
|
As to the rest: to the extent that fathers are separated from their children on purely procedural grounds (and I don't know how often this happens), this should definitely be addressed and remedied. I just don't believe the appropriate way to remedy it is to create ministerial prerequisites to women retaining custody or parental rights to their children.
|
YOU keep saying the thing about women retaining parental rights to their children, and I've yet to see adequate explanation as to HOW OR WHY you believe this would come about, only reassertion that it MIGHT. I'm not looking for explanation anymore; I "whatever-ed" this above as I can only ask so many times before I'm just filibustered right out of being even remotely interested. As for the notion of fathers separated from their children needing address and remedy, I couldn't agree more.
Quote:
|
That argument can be extended to anything. Anytime any one of us voluntarily engages in conduct that carries certain risks, it's fair to assume we CHOSE those risks, rather than have someone else impose them on us. Certainly, while the risky activity is still underway, we can withdraw, thereby reducing our risks. But once our role in bringing about the consequences is over – given that we CHOSE to engage in that activity in the first place – then we just have to just live with whatever results from it. And I mean all of us – right?
|
You say this as though it merits a point in your favor. I'm supposed to agree to the obvious (that we made our bed and now must lie in it) -- yet surely you see that in this case her choices affect him while his are not allowed to affect her with regard to birth or child-bearing.
This is the part we keep coming back to, despite that I've already agreed to 99 percent of your proposed "male abortion" technique. Why are we back here again?
Quote:
|
While I acknowledge that there is problematic issue here – subject to the caveats that I’ve discussed – I disagree with your argument that parenthood represents only choices for women and only obligations for men. The idea that carrying a pregnancy to term does not result in obligations or adverse consequences for women is just flat-out wrong.
|
I have never, ever, EVER suggested such a thing. That you read it in my words means either I'm utterly failing to express myself clearly or you're not reading the stuff I'm writing, OR that you're seeing what you wish since I know you're more than capable of comprehension.
The WHOLE point there with regard to choice-vs-obligation is that she can CHOOSE, and thereafter live with the consequences and inherent responsibilities and obligations, while in the current system
he has no choice at all in the matter, whether to keep or abort a child, whether to avoid supporting a child he does not want or face severe consequences.
Again -- how often must it be said?
Quote:
|
For one thing, women, like men, have a legal obligation to support their children. Having a child and being the custodial parent means having to provide visitation, likely share legal custody and possibly lose primary custody(*) – and the father can invoke his rights at any time during the next 18 years. Sharing legal custody and providing visitation means having one’s geographic mobility severely restricted. And men have choices, namely the choice to use custody and visitation as bargaining chips in reducing or eliminating child support, or even making a buck. One of my colleagues brokered a deal a few years ago where a married couple paid the biological father – who never paid child support and never took any interest in the child – $100K to sign away his parental rights, so as to lay these issues permanently to rest. This too, happens. And I am not aware of any law that allows a woman to carry a child to term, have someone else raise that child, bear no financial responsibility whatsoever, and still be mommy.
|
WHEN have I suggested such a thing as an initial counter-point to the point which you're arguing here?
Quote:
|
This issue has come up numerous times on CD, and I am increasingly puzzled by the universal reluctance of proponents of the “opt-out” law to add provisions to it that would ensure that this is a true and irrevocable surrender of fatherhood, rather than a piecemeal opting-out of child support while retaining the option to be father. The more I encounter this reluctance, the more the "opt-out" looks like freedom from financial responsibility only for those who don’t want it, but leaving many of the benefits of fatherhood intact. And that is not an equivalent of women’s choice to terminate a pregnancy in any way, shape or form.
|
Is this what you see being proposed? WHERE? No, strike that; I won't be looking, so never mind the "where". I'll just state that it's NOT what I've been seeing and accept that I'm wrong, you win.
Quote:
|
Another issue, of course, that’s constantly in the background, is that against the manifest necessity to create legal safeguards against malicious, venal and dishonest conduct by women we have the notion that any safeguards against such conduct by men would be superfluous, unduly burdensome and insulting to men; that men can just be trusted never to act underhandedly or take advantage of laws to the detriment of women or children they’ve fathered, except in extremely rare cases. Why? Are men the more “trustworthy” sex?
|
How is it you can so clearly perceive this in the background (and I'm not denying that it's there, it IS there and is constantly preached on these forums, and I've even argued against it) but NOT see the background "male villainy and underhanded character" also so prevalent, to which I referred earlier?
================================================== =======
Quote:
|
(*)The horror stories often say that so-and-so is paying child support “for a child he’s never seen”, the situation deliberately phrased in a way to create the impression -- not necessarily true -- that the man is paying child support but is legally barred from being involved in the child’s life. But it’s just that – an impression. Collecting child support always raises the very realistic possibility that the father will sue for visitation and shared custody, and likely get those things. And since most men -- I'm sure you will agree -- will want those things, this is a possibility that every woman who chooses to keep the child must take into account.
|
This, at least, is a damned fine point and one I've stated myself. I've simply no idea why this horror story weighs less or is more deserving of disdain than the extreme cases you've cited yourself as worthy of consideration. I haven't even ARGUED against those citations being worthy of consideration; I just think that it might be nice to PROPOSE something ere we REMOVE it for fear one of those cases might slip thru.
Here ends my tale. If others elect to carry this thread on, so be it.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
