Male Abortion [Archive]

khlib

25th November 2011, 21:16

What do you think about "male abortion"?

Melanie McCulley, a South Carolina attorney coined the term male abortion in 1998, suggesting that a father should be allowed to disclaim his obligations to an unborn child early in the pregnancy. Proponents hold that concept begins with the premise that when an unmarried woman becomes pregnant, she has the option of abortion, adoption, or parenthood; and argues, in the context of legally recognized gender equality, that in the earliest stages of pregnancy the putative (alleged) father should have the same human rights to relinquish all future parental rights and financial responsibility—leaving the informed mother with the same three options. McCulley states:
"When a female determines she is pregnant, she has the freedom to decide if she has the maturity level to undertake the responsibilities of motherhood, if she is financially able to support a child, if she is at a place in her career to take the time to have a child, or if she has other concerns precluding her from carrying the child to term. After weighing her options, the female may choose abortion. Once she aborts the fetus, the female's interests in and obligations to the child are terminated. In stark contrast, the unwed father has no options. His responsibilities to the child begin at conception and can only be terminated with the female's decision to abort the fetus or with the mother's decision to give the child up for adoption. Thus, he must rely on the decisions of the female to determine his future. The putative father does not have the luxury, after the fact of conception, to decide that he is not ready for fatherhood. Unlike the female, he has no escape route."
McCulley's male abortion concept aims to equalize the legal status of unwed men and unwed women by giving the unwed man by law the ability to 'abort' his rights in and obligations to the child. If a woman decides to keep the child the father may choose not to by severing all ties legally.
This same concept has been supported by a former president of the feminist organization National Organization for Women, attorney Karen DeCrow, who wrote that "if a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support...autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice."

TheGodlessUtopian

25th November 2011, 21:23

I don't really see the point...this happens everyday;I guess men should have the same rights as women for disregarding the fetus but it seems rather cruel to leave the responsibilities of child rearing to a single parent (...the ultimate downside to nuclear families).

Many different ways to look at this but ultimately since it is within the context of rising children outside of the community there can be no "good ending."

Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk

25th November 2011, 21:25

I think that ultimately, the woman has the decision over abortion as it is her body that's carrying the child or potential child.

In terms of fairness, the man should have the right to either take up responsibility over the child or not as that is where his say over the matter resides.

It isn't up to him whether the woman keeps it or not as it isn't his body, but it is up to him whether he takes care of the child or not. You can't take that decision away from the man any more than you can take the decision away from the women as to whether to abort it or not. But the point is that a man can't really have a say over what the woman chooses to do with her body any more than a woman can do so in reverse.

To me, it comes down to the individual in the situation and where they can make decisions - it doesn't strike me as right to say that one person can make a decision about what another individual does with their body, unless that person isn't of sound mind and needs some kind of professional guidence, which is a completely seperate matter. With that in mind, the woman in this scenario has the right to autonomy and self-determination when it comes to her pregnancy - the man who got her pregnant doesn't have a say in that process as he isn't carrying the child, he can only make decisions based on what the woman decides to do with the embryo she is carrying as she is carrying it.

Personal opinion anyway.

Imagine if a man was carrying a child, surely he'd reserve the right to terminate it if he so wished. Would a woman have any say over the man's right to his own autonomy and right to self-determination when it comes to his own body?

Patagonia

25th November 2011, 21:27

I think it makes sense, so why not?

rundontwalk

25th November 2011, 21:30

Bad idea.

If you're the father of a kid it's your responsibility to help take care of it. The law shouldn't be modified to allow you to just opt out of that.

The putative father does not have the luxury, after the fact of conception, to decide that he is not ready for fatherhood.
Don't have sex in the first place then.

Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk

25th November 2011, 21:34

rundontwalk

25th November 2011, 21:37

Why is that your responsobility? Why should it be your responsibility if you weren't intending for it to happen? What if the female lied about her own contraceptive methods, would it be your responsibility then?

You make your own responsibilities.
It's your responsibility because the kid is 50% you. And you'd still have an ethical responsibility to take care of your child no matter how the child came to be born imo.

Also, an unwanted side effect of this law would be to pressure women who may want to have the child to feel forced to have an abortion.

Bad idea all around.

Patagonia

25th November 2011, 21:38

Bad idea.

If you're the father of a kid it's your responsibility to help take care of it. The law shouldn't be modified to allow you to just opt out of that.

Says who? Who decides it's his unavoidable responsibility?

Don't have sex in the first place then.

I've heard that from the mouth of pro-life dudes before. Nice piece of advice.

rundontwalk

25th November 2011, 21:40

But the point is that a man can't really have a say over what the woman chooses to do with her body
This law would do just that. A man preemptively opting out of his ethical responsibilities would put undo pressure on a mother to have an abortion, & etc.

I've heard that from the mouth of pro-life dudes before. Nice piece of advice.
I'm pro-abortion rights, but I still think that's a bit of common sense advice. If you have vaginal sex, there's a possibility that a kid could result from it. To claim that you ''aren't ready to be a father'' is a bit of a misnomer, because clearly, from a biological standpoint, you are.

Sasha

25th November 2011, 21:47

depends/difficult, if it was a accident where the man took every precaution to prevent pregnancy he maybe should not be held responsible if the women decides to keep it.
also since in early stages it maybe not be a choice to become pregnant but it is a conscious choice to remain pregnant.
but anything past the so much weeks we are then quickly talking very grey/difficult areas if we are not discussing very rare situations like that women who inseminated herself with the semen she collected after giving this famous celebrity a blowjob and then sued him for alimony.

ВАЛТЕР

25th November 2011, 21:55

I feel that a man needs to take care of his child whether he wanted it or not. Either that or have an abortion.

Although yes, they woman has the option to abort, the woman isn't bringing a lif einto this world. If a man simply leaves the child, then he brought a life into this world which he is leaving.

So,

Male abortion = Abandoned child left with a single parent

Female abortion = No child whatsoever.

So I am against it for now, unless somebody can give me a good reason to support it.

Veovis

25th November 2011, 21:58

NewLeft

25th November 2011, 21:59

Don't gotta pay child care? Sweet! Go impregnate whoever I want with no consequences!:D

Patagonia

25th November 2011, 22:01

I'm pro-abortion rights, but I still think that's a bit of common sense advice. If you have vaginal sex, there's a possibility that a kid could result from it. To claim that you ''aren't ready to be a father'' is a bit of a misnomer, because clearly, from a biological standpoint, you are.

Well, most 13/14 year old girls "are ready to be mothers, from a biological standpoint". That doesn't mean that they are mentally ready, or that they have the means (emotional or financial) to ensure the kid at least a decent upbringing.

I don't see why having a penis suddenly makes you so responsible for the child to be that you are not allowed the same rights as the woman.

#FF0000

25th November 2011, 22:02

Yeah I can't see a way to have this without women being put at an overwhelming disadvantage.

Kamos

25th November 2011, 22:04

It's pretty clear to me that this is a good idea. If either parent doesn't want a child, they shouldn't have a child. Either that, or the other one who does should assume the responsibility. Why is it that forcing women to raise their children is not okay, but forcing men to do so is okay? Don't bring up the "sexism only goes one way" bullshit, that's just flat out not true.

Don't gotta pay child care? Sweet! Go impregnate whoever I want with no consequences!:D

As far as I know, that's rape, which does have consequences. Derp.:rolleyes:

#FF0000

25th November 2011, 22:04

I don't see why having a penis suddenly makes you so responsible for the child to be that you are not allowed the same rights as the woman.

Dudes don't have to actually carry the kid, tho. They just have to pay something for the kid if it's brought to term.

So it's like this

Couple gets pregnant. Woman doesn't want abortion. They both have to support the kid.

Or

Couple gets pregnant. Woman doesn't want abortion. Dude doesn't have to pay for child support. Woman has to take care of the kid alone.

Compare to "female abortion" in which nobody has to take care of a kid at all, because the pregnancy was terminated.

sorry bro I can't see this being anything but a sexist thing.

Kamos

25th November 2011, 22:09

Couple gets pregnant. Woman doesn't want abortion. Dude doesn't have to pay for child support. Woman has to take care of the kid alone.

If the woman doesn't want abortion, obviously she should be ready to raise the kid alone. The point of a relationship is that you plan out things together. You shouldn't be able to use the law to force your will upon the partner, no matter what.

Patagonia

25th November 2011, 22:10

#FF0000

25th November 2011, 22:11

If the woman doesn't want abortion, obviously she should be ready to raise the kid alone.

Because clearly it is that cut-and-dry for so many people. I mean it's not like we live in a society that shames the fuck out of women who do get abortions or anything.

OH WAIT.

#FF0000

25th November 2011, 22:14

I'm just gonna quote the comrade up there to answer you:

Which is dumb because all one has to do is give the woman some money to help take care of the kid. The dude doesn't have to actually do anything.

Also that quote doesn't pertain to any of the points that I brought up -- namely that this affects women disproportionately to men. Like I said, if a woman brings a fetus to term, then there's a shared responsibility to pay for the kid. With this, it forces one person to take care of the kid on their own.

It isn't analogous to abortion at all, in any regard.

Tim Cornelis

25th November 2011, 22:22

It's a difficult issue. What I find quite ironic is that some here use the same arguments pro-lifers use (e.g. sarcastically saying "yeah, sex without consequences!").

On the one hand, I can imagine I wouldn't want the responsibility at the age of, say, 18 of being a father of a child whose mother I've had a one-night stand with. On the other hand, raising a child alone is very difficult financially or otherwise.

khlib

25th November 2011, 22:24

Which is dumb because all one has to do is give the woman some money to help take care of the kid. The dude doesn't have to actually do anything.

The woman doesn't have to do anything. She can have an abortion or give the child up for adoption. She is choosing to have to do something (raise the child) by choosing to keep the child. The man has no such choice.
People are so concerned about women having the choice when it comes to their bodies (which I am fully supportive of), but men should have the same choice over theirs. As leftists, I think we all realize that wage labor is selling our bodies, in a certain sense. Now that man is forced to perform wage labor in order to gain capital that goes to a child he did not want in the first place.

Imagine having casual sex with a woman only to have the condom break and find out she doesn't believe in the morning after pill or abortion. That one incident should not be so costly for men.

Ocean Seal

25th November 2011, 22:25

As another question, why when the child is born does it only go to the woman? Why can't the man keep the child once its born and have alimony the other way around, I would think, that would stop people from attempting to abuse the system and extract alimony.

ВАЛТЕР

25th November 2011, 22:27

The woman doesn't have to do anything. She can have an abortion or give the child up for adoption. She is choosing to have to do something (raise the child) by choosing to keep the child. The man has no such choice.
People are so concerned about women having the choice when it comes to their bodies (which I am fully supportive of), but men should have the same choice over theirs. As leftists, I think we all realize that wage labor is selling our bodies, in a certain sense. Now that man is forced to perform wage labor in order to gain capital that goes to a child he did not want in the first place.

Imagine having casual sex with a woman only to have the condom break and find out she doesn't believe in the morning after pill or abortion. That one incident should not be so costly for men.

Still though, even if she decides to put the child up for adoption, then the child suffers.

Imagine having casual sex with a woman only to have the condom break and find out she doesn't believe in the morning after pill or abortion. That one incident should not be so costly for menPack all my shit up, fly to Columbia and join the FARC. :cool:

Manic Impressive

25th November 2011, 22:49

Dudes don't have to actually carry the kid, tho. They just have to pay something for the kid if it's brought to term.

So it's like this

Couple gets pregnant. Woman doesn't want abortion. They both have to support the kid.

Or

Couple gets pregnant. Woman doesn't want abortion. Dude doesn't have to pay for child support. Woman has to take care of the kid alone.

Compare to "female abortion" in which nobody has to take care of a kid at all, because the pregnancy was terminated.

sorry bro I can't see this being anything but a sexist thing.
Or
Couple gets pregnant. Dude doesn't have to pay for child support. Woman can then make an informed decision taking into account all the information available to her.

Isn't that better than making a decision based on two incomes and then the bloke fucks off and leaves her on her own? If the woman had all the facts before making her decision then she may choose that she cannot support the child on her own.

Although I prefer the other alternative

Couple gets pregnant. Woman doesn't want abortion. Dude doesn't want the child. It doesn't matter because we've had a revolution and the woman can take whatever she needs for the child. :p

RedGrunt

25th November 2011, 22:58

Because clearly it is that cut-and-dry for so many people. I mean it's not like we live in a society that shames the fuck out of women who do get abortions or anything.

OH WAIT.

And men who leave their children aren't shamed? Obviously it's a lot worse in the woman's instance but I don't think anyone is denying that.

My only problem with allowing men to "abort" in the current circumstances is that it really is very difficult for a single parent to raise a child and support her and her child all on her own. In communism, I see no reason why a man would even have to have that right for his own autonomy as child-rearing would probably take a more social-form or in the least the parent would be supported enough to counteract the burdens that exist currently. Hell.. we can see related policies in capitalist countries today, such as state-hired nannies or whatever.

Kamos

25th November 2011, 23:02

Because clearly it is that cut-and-dry for so many people. I mean it's not like we live in a society that shames the fuck out of women who do get abortions or anything.

OH WAIT.

How is this relevant now? What you're doing is the equivalent of screaming "socialist revolution" as a way to fix every problem.

Which is dumb because all one has to do is give the woman some money to help take care of the kid. The dude doesn't have to actually do anything.

Oh, because a financial obligation for two decades is nothing. Surely we're all rich enough to afford child support?

Also that quote doesn't pertain to any of the points that I brought up -- namely that this affects women disproportionately to men.

Tough shit, women get pregnant. This is a biological difference, not a social one, there is fuck all that can be done about it. We'll just have to find the fairest solution to both sexes, unless your idea of solving the conflict is genetically modifying males to allow them to become pregnant.

xub3rn00dlex

25th November 2011, 23:14

Solution, modify Fe/males genetically to temporarily turn off their fertility. When tey're ready to bring a child up, flip the genetic switch back on.

S.Artesian

25th November 2011, 23:16

It's a tough issue. On one hand, if a woman becomes pregnant and decides she's not ready to be a mother, she can have an abortion (even though it's getting more difficult nowadays). On the other hand, if a man impregnates a woman and decides he's not ready to be a father and couldn't financially support a child, he's shit out of luck.

Personally, I think a man should be able to opt-out of paternal rights and responsibilities up to a certain point before the birth. That way, if the woman decides she can't or won't raise the child on her own, she can abort.

As an aside, this is one of the many reasons I thank the gods that I'm gay.

This is just a bit more than a bit bizarre. First, there can be no equality in this issue until such time as men can become pregnant. Until then, the discussion is foolish.

Legal obligations are not the same thing as rights to safe medical procedures. That's what the issue is for women-- a women's right, and need, to have access to a safe medical procedure. We should not fall into this legalistic, pseudo-egalitarian trap that says somehow a man is being oppressed when he is required to legally support a child he acknowledges, or has been established, is his offspring.

The reality is that men who want to avoid financial obligation to offspring have very few obstacles in their path, far fewer than women who seek a safe abortion from a medical provider.

S.Artesian

25th November 2011, 23:17

Solution, modify Fe/males genetically to temporarily turn off their fertility. When tey're ready to bring a child up, flip the genetic switch back on.

Yeah, that's already possible-- it's called a condom.

Decolonize The Left

25th November 2011, 23:27

Coggeh

25th November 2011, 23:30

This is just a bit more than a bit bizarre. First, there can be no equality in this issue until such time as men can become pregnant. Until then, the discussion is foolish.

Legal obligations are not the same thing as rights to safe medical procedures. That's what the issue is for women-- a women's right, and need, to have access to a safe medical procedure. We should not fall into this legalistic, pseudo-egalitarian trap that says somehow a man is being oppressed when he is required to legally support a child he acknowledges, or has been established, is his offspring.

This absolutely. When you get your spouse or girlfriend or any girl pregnant obligations come with that, sex isn't exactly a 1 person activity it comes with risks, which people need to realise and acknowledge: if the girl wants to keep the baby which is entirely her right not yours! and if you are the father of such even if you have no relationship other than a "one night stand" to the girl in question, you pay child support, help raise the child in a financial and/or if agreed, an emotional and social way.

That being said the real issue here is a fathers rights issue in that for example in Ireland custody of a child in a divorce or in the issue raised above despite all circumstances is always given to the mother, their have been cases where the mother was a heroin addict and still given the child over the father. It should be 50/50 after the birth in my opinion, and that cuts two ways , it could mean a father having to pay child support despite not wanting anything to do with the child and it can mean a father being given custody over the child if it suits the childs needs. And rightly so.

Coggeh

25th November 2011, 23:32

Manic Impressive

25th November 2011, 23:41

I think the underlying point here is that you really shouldn't be having sex with someone unless you and your partner have communicated clearly where you stand on issues such as protection/child-rearing/etc...

- August
I must try those chat up lines next time I'm on the pull. Actually this one time my friend set me up with another one of his friends and things were going really well. I was on an E and was babbling about all sorts of bull shit and the conversation got onto kids. I said I'd really like kids one day, my friend came and told me I was coming on too strong and when I got back from the bar she was kissing some other guy, sufficed to say I went home alone that night :(

Tim Finnegan

26th November 2011, 00:12

It's a difficult issue. What I find quite ironic is that some here use the same arguments pro-lifers use (e.g. sarcastically saying "yeah, sex without consequences!").
Then you have a defective sense of irony, because there is a profound difference between "no consequences" meaning "a dangerous, invasive and expensive medical procedure" and "no consequences" meaning "no consequences".

How is this relevant now? What you're doing is the equivalent of screaming "socialist revolution" as a way to fix every problem.
You don't think the fact that we live in a patriarchal society in which not all women are free to exercise the bodily autonomy to which they are entitled is a relevant detail in cases like this? It seems to me that you are the one who is refusing to deal with the realities of the present, not #FF0000.

S.Artesian

26th November 2011, 00:22

The woman doesn't have to do anything. She can have an abortion or give the child up for adoption. She is choosing to have to do something (raise the child) by choosing to keep the child. The man has no such choice.
People are so concerned about women having the choice when it comes to their bodies (which I am fully supportive of), but men should have the same choice over theirs. As leftists, I think we all realize that wage labor is selling our bodies, in a certain sense. Now that man is forced to perform wage labor in order to gain capital that goes to a child he did not want in the first place.

Imagine having casual sex with a woman only to have the condom break and find out she doesn't believe in the morning after pill or abortion. That one incident should not be so costly for men.

I think we need to be a bit realistic about this. It's not like hordes of men are being shanghaied into wage-slavery by women becoming pregnant.

Men certainly can have "a choice" when it comes to their bodies-- they can have vasectomies. They can wear condoms [no, I don't see the point about creating an entire new social movement based on incidents that are truly 1 in a million].

And on the technical side, the man performing wage labor is not gaining capital-- capital is capital by virture of it being able to command the labor of others. The wage the man receives in this instance is the equivalent of the necessary labor time to sustain [theoretically] his reproduction as a worker.

Remember, this all started with a lawyer's suggestion-- i.e. a way for him/her to gain clients, to drum up business.

S.Artesian

26th November 2011, 00:34

If the woman doesn't want abortion, obviously she should be ready to raise the kid alone. The point of a relationship is that you plan out things together. You shouldn't be able to use the law to force your will upon the partner, no matter what.

Really? Then what do you think this lawyer is doing raising this issue now, in these circumstances when state after state in the US has made the process of obtaining an abortion almost impossible if not completely impossible?

The lawyer and the arguments supporting this lawyer's ambulance-chasing scheme are nothing but forcing a "will" upon the partner-- which is-- a) there is no universal, free, safe access to abortion for women 2) but the man can say "tough," put an ad in a newspaper saying "not responsible for any debts, obligations assumed by Jen X in bringing to term and maintaining the child that is the product of our sexual liason" and that's supposed to somehow be equivalent to a women's right -- a right conspicuous only in its absence--to an abortion?

Come on. The real issues are: safe, universal medical care; socially available and supported child care; sex education as part of regular school curriculum from elementary school on; access to contraception.

All this lawyer's trick is going to do is further impoverish single-women head of household families, which have been the fastest growing sector of the poor for some years.

Lynx

26th November 2011, 00:55

It depends on the jurisdiction, some will insist that the father provide support in lieu of social assistance or welfare.
Under socialism there wouldn't be such a fixation on who's going to pay what, and fathers who do not want to be in their children's lives would be left alone.

kahimikarie

26th November 2011, 01:20

MRA nonsense.

I get depressed by the amount of mra/sexism allowed on a supposedly leftist forum.

Decolonize The Left

26th November 2011, 01:36

Accidents happen.

I think you missed my point. My point was that accidents do happen, but if you discussed all the important shit in advance, it's an accident that's easily handled.

I must try those chat up lines next time I'm on the pull. Actually this one time my friend set me up with another one of his friends and things were going really well. I was on an E and was babbling about all sorts of bull shit and the conversation got onto kids. I said I'd really like kids one day, my friend came and told me I was coming on too strong and when I got back from the bar she was kissing some other guy, sufficed to say I went home alone that night :(

I wasn't saying that when you meet someone you're attracted to at a bar you're all "so how do you feel about if we had unprotected sex and you became pregnant as a result of this?" What I was saying is that there's always time to talk. And if there isn't time to talk (which is cool too), then you have protection on hand because you're responsible.

My overall point is that this whole thread is irrelevant if you're just responsible about your sex life.

- August

Veovis

26th November 2011, 01:40

Which is dumb because all one has to do is give the woman some money to help take care of the kid. The dude doesn't have to actually do anything.

"Some money?" Child support is a significant chunk of change, my friend. For example, I make $10 per hour and have over $650 a month in student loan payment. To me, there is no such thing as petty cash. If I had to support a child on top of all that, I'd be on the street.

S.Artesian

26th November 2011, 01:54

"Some money?" Child support is a significant chunk of change, my friend. For example, I make $10 per hour and have over $650 a month in student loan payment. To me, there is no such thing as petty cash. If I had to support a child on top of all that, I'd be on the street.

And exactly what do you think it is like for a woman? Let's be clear, in most cases, women don't willingly bring a pregnancy to term in spite of their partners' objections. They are compelled by current circumstances to bring the pregnancy to term.

Another thing-- what happens if a man "changes his mind"? Suppose a man says-- "yes honey, let's have this baby"-- and then changes his mind a week later? How is that supposed to be resolved? Do you really expect the legal process to act with any sort of efficiency or equity in this matter? I don't. But whatever the case, the woman will still be on her own regarding the child.

The point I would make to all men who think this lawyer's proposal offers anything like "justice" "fair treatment" etc. is... quit dreaming. You won't even be able to afford one hour of this lawyer's or any other lawyer's time. If you're making $10/hr, you aren't going to pay a lawyer $300/hr to handle this. You're going to walk, or run, away.

If this "option" of male "abortion" were ever legalized it would simply be another vector for rich males to seduce, impregnate, and abandon females. That's the reality of class society. This abstract hypothesizing does nothing but provide aid and comfort to one more attack on women.

Come on, you've got more sense than that. You know how fucked up bourgeois society is-- well, what do you think lawyers are if not the architects of the "legal superstructure" of this fucked-up bourgeois society?

Tim Cornelis

26th November 2011, 02:15

MRA nonsense.

I get depressed by the amount of mra/sexism allowed on a supposedly leftist forum.

How is it sexist?

Os Cangaceiros

26th November 2011, 05:47

Jennifer

26th November 2011, 06:09

If a woman aborts a fetus without the father's consent/approval/whatever...I think this is a bit deeper than just the legality of who makes what decision on the child. A couple in any kind of serious relationship that faced this issue, seriously needs to question the relationship all together.

This whole situation of abortion rights for men and child support and what not will ALWAYS be sticky simply because of the fact it takes two to tango. I feel that forcing a woman to keep a child, which takes a physical toll, is much worse than the emotional aspect of a father not being able to call the shots; pregnancy is kind of a big deal. You cannot force a person to have a child with you- that's a huge fucking responsibility. However, that exact statement could be used to argue the unfairness of mandatory child support...hmmm. Oh the circles we could run...

Edit; Child support: after the birth of a child, the father signs a document saying whether or not he consented to this pregnancy. If no, then you owe no child support. If yes, if you leave the family at any time after, while the child is still a minor, you pay up. This kind of sounds dumb. But hey.

PhoenixAsh

26th November 2011, 06:10

This is a very good plan. HOWEVER...it fails to completely understand the power dynamics in society where women are more often than not financially dependend on men....not to mention the fact that it fails to understand how (single)mother unfriendly society actually is.

We do not live in an equal society and as such the plan is something that can only be considered viable and a fair alternative when the problem of financial and social burden of parenthood is dissolved and a single mother is not a 24-7 obligatory mom but can have a social life as well.

The concepts of gender and sex equality can not be reached unless society changes radically.

Veovis

26th November 2011, 06:17

But what's the point of trying to get child support out of someone who has (practically) no money? Can't get blood out of a stone.

As far as I know, most government agencies look at gross income. If we use that metric, I make about $1600 every month. Now in reality what's left over after everything like taxes (about $100 a week), utilities, rent, and student loans are paid I'm not actually financially independent; in fact, my parents send me $200 a month. However, when a government agency looks at my gross income they think I'm rich.

Of course, this whole proposal hinges on a situation in which abortion is free and easily available to every woman who wants or needs one. This is obviously not reality at this time.

Once again, I thank the gods that I'm gay.

Yazman

26th November 2011, 07:47

Bad idea.

If you're the father of a kid it's your responsibility to help take care of it. The law shouldn't be modified to allow you to just opt out of that.

Don't have sex in the first place then.

But "Don't have sex in the first place" is the same argument used to justify banning and opposing abortion.

How can you logically hold this stance but support abortion (assuming you do)?

rundontwalk

26th November 2011, 08:12

But "Don't have sex in the first place" is the same argument used to justify banning and opposing abortion.

How can you logically hold this stance but support abortion (assuming you do)?
Eh, that was mostly just a coy statement on my part. But, I mean, it is built on some small grain of truth. If you aren't ready to be a father you should seriously consider performing the only act that could make that happen.

However, I do support abortion rights mainly because you can't force someone to completely alter their lives just because they failed to think through the all the possible consequences during the heat of the moment, or because a condom broke, or what have you.

#FF0000

26th November 2011, 10:47

#FF0000

26th November 2011, 10:51

How is this relevant now?

Because we live in a patriarchal society? Men and women are not equal, with women being the ones losing out?

What you're doing is the equivalent of screaming "socialist revolution" as a way to fix every problem.

Uhhhhh well yeah the main problem is the fact that raising a kid is so expensive that single individuals must jump through unbelievable hoops just to get by.

Oh, because a financial obligation for two decades is nothing. Surely we're all rich enough to afford child support?

What about the woman?

Tough shit, women get pregnant. This is a biological difference, not a social one, there is fuck all that can be done about it. We'll just have to find the fairest solution to both sexes, unless your idea of solving the conflict is genetically modifying males to allow them to become pregnant.

Uh, the fairest possible solution is to have men pay child support, though. The two options are either both parties pay and share some stake in it, or that the woman is left to tend to absolutely everything. Why do you not see what is sexist about this?

Tim Finnegan

26th November 2011, 11:01

But "Don't have sex in the first place" is the same argument used to justify banning and opposing abortion.

How can you logically hold this stance but support abortion (assuming you do)?
Because abortion and refusing to pay child support are, whatever the rhetorical gymnastics of this tedious laywer chappie, not even remotely the same thing?

Meridian

26th November 2011, 11:19

Because we live in a patriarchal society?
Where do you live? By "we" do you mean you and your neighbors, or are you strictly speaking aphoristically here?

Men and women are not equal, with women being the ones losing out?
Huge generalizations are easier to disprove. We can say with some confidence that the working class is losing out to the capitalist class, through the fact that the categories we are speaking about necessarily have that relation. Generalized, it's a logical statement, not an empirical one. When used specifically we would have to talk simply about the degree with which the working class is losing out. I don't think it is that clear when dealing with 'women' and 'men', although it can seem appropriate to reach for such huge generalizations in order to make some politically biting point. We always have to be, at least, skeptical whenever someone makes a statement like "all x are y". Some can just be outright dismissed.

eyedrop

26th November 2011, 13:11

Then you have a defective sense of irony, because there is a profound difference between "no consequences" meaning "a dangerous, invasive and expensive medical procedure" and "no consequences" meaning "no consequences".

Can we stop perpetuating this right wing myth made up to get women to abstain from abortions? An abortion is neither dangerous, invasive nor expensive where most of us live, it is at least not universally dangerous, invasive or expensive. (There is of course a hard psychological part) If you are somewhat early, which almost all abortions are, they give you a pill and checks you out the next morning.

Kotze

26th November 2011, 13:37

It's a difficult issue. What I find quite ironic is that some here use the same arguments pro-lifers use (e.g. sarcastically saying "yeah, sex without consequences!").
Then you have a defective sense of irony, because there is a profound difference between "no consequences" meaning "a dangerous, invasive and expensive medical procedure" and "no consequences" meaning "no consequences".Dangerous procedure — are you talking about giving birth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion) :P
Abortion, when performed in the developed world in accordance with local law, is among the safest procedures in medicine.[1][43] In the US, the risk of maternal death from abortion in 1999 was 0.567 per 100,000 procedures, making abortion approximately 12.5 times safer than childbirth (7.06 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births).[44] The risk of abortion-related mortality increases with increasing gestational age, but remains lower than that of childbirth through at least 21 weeks' gestation.[45][46]

Os Cangaceiros

26th November 2011, 13:44

On the subject of child support:

It's not always the man who pays child support...Britney Spears pays child support to, uh, that guy she had sex with, for example.

No, but seriously, most of the time being a single parent is a lot of work. Most of the time that task falls on the mother, and if you're put in that position by someone else, it's probably fair that they contribute in some way? There's probably no real satisfying solution to these questions as long as the current family structure persists, tbh.

eyedrop

26th November 2011, 13:46

I actually did the bother to research some about abortion and I found that it wasn't quite that physically easy as I thought.

Before the 9th week a medical abortion is usual and consists of at least 2 visits, cramps and bleeding. I am finding some conflicting information though, in Norway it is usually done over by coming in taking mifepriston and coming in 2 days later and taking prostaglandines which starts "birthcramps" and is usually over in 8 hours.

6 weeks and up a surgical can be done and that is quite invasive but generally less painful.

S.Artesian

26th November 2011, 14:31

Telling people "don't have sex" is a non-option. That's telling people not to be..uhh... people.

Kamos

26th November 2011, 14:36

Because we live in a patriarchal society? Men and women are not equal, with women being the ones losing out?

Doesn't mean both parties should lose out. We should improve women's rights, not decrease men's rights.

Uhhhhh well yeah the main problem is the fact that raising a kid is so expensive that single individuals must jump through unbelievable hoops just to get by.

This is an innate problem of capitalism. Besides, if your husband doesn't support you in raising the child, you should find one who does. Even if men are required to pay child support, they'll just find ways to pay as little as possible. Richer people can do this easier. Over here in Hungary, many men who work 8 hours a day and get decent income register themselves as part-time entrepreneurs because this allows them to pay very little child support. This doesn't help the woman and really helps men of average to big income. (And this is probably the situation everywhere else, too.)

What about the woman?

The woman doesn't pay child support, and can choose to opt out before the kid gets born. This is the point of the article in the original post. Women are able to get an abortion in many countries now, while men may still have no way out.

Uh, the fairest possible solution is to have men pay child support, though. The two options are either both parties pay and share some stake in it, or that the woman is left to tend to absolutely everything. Why do you not see what is sexist about this?

Because, as I said, there is a third option. Abortion. The posters above have confirmed that a properly performed abortion is rather safe, and it solves the problem.

Sometimes, it seems to me that people just think "Sexism! All power to the women!" while failing to think through the issue. We're trying to advocate gender equality here, not female supremacism.

eyedrop

26th November 2011, 15:02

I also see some problems in that the "viability" of being a single parent should be tied up to the wealth of your ex-partner. That is basically giving a big middle finger to poor single parents.

What should happen in an ideal world is that it should be easier to be a single parent no matter what your ex-partner earns and that must come before any talk of removing alimony has any relevance. Just removing alimony, in certain cases as the right wing lawyer suggests, would be a catastrophe now.

Would for example a reform such as increasing child support by a flat 500 € and decreasing alimony by a flat 500 € (or 250 €) lead to any bad things, except weaken the nuclear family which we don't support anyway? Wouldn't that just be an improvement for everyone and weaken the financial incentive to stay in unwanted relationships.

S.Artesian

26th November 2011, 15:03

So tell me, in those countries were women have open, and basically free access to abortion, what are the requirements of men if the woman brings the pregnancy to term?

I know in the US, where access to abortion is severely restricted, the requirements are quite easily avoided. And don't forget this issue was brought up by a lawyer in the US.

So please identify the countries where women have widespread access to abortion and tell us what the obligations of the male are regarding a child.

EDIT:
The woman doesn't pay child support, and can choose to opt out before the kid gets born. This is the point of the article in the original post. Women are able to get an abortion in many countries now, while men may still have no way out.

Excuse me, women pay child support their whole lives, with their whole lives. Do you have the slightest idea as to how much time, effort, and money women put into raising children? Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

Look, we're taking the long way around in this discussion. Men don't want to father children? Done. Use condoms. All the time. Get a vasectomy. There's no need to enact a law that in essence allows a man to impregnate a woman and then walk away from the situation. Condoms are cheaper and less invasive, traumatic, painful than abortions.

Bottom line; We don't need laws that increase the burdens on women. You find that unfair? You find that restrictive of your "rights"? See above. Use condoms.

PhoenixAsh

26th November 2011, 17:10

All this talk of free and available abortion as a safe medical procedure...

It is very nice and all.

But the fact remains that it is not a cut and dry decision. It is not a below the line bean counting consideration.

I do not care if it is a safe procedure or not...for many women this is a difficult decision which can hold psychological implications. A lot of people may not see a feutus or embryo as something which has any importance but the fact remains that for many women it is important and it does hold weight and it is considered a living part of them.

It can NEVER be an argument that since abortion is freely and safely accessible for women that this SHOULD be considered an option or else she has to suffer the consequences of her action in terms of financial and social sacrifice.

THAT is in fact the other side of the pro-life coin and it is a subjegating sentiment in its own right.

To ask them or require them to remove that part of them is like saying to poor people: well...you can always sell a kidney and since you don't you choose to be poor so...there...no benefits for you.

The fact of the matter is that we do not live in a fair and equal society. Society is very much skeuwed toward heterosexual men. For women child rearing is a huge social and financial burden. The ONLY option a woman has in some countries to decide her faith when it comes to children is the step of abortion. And that step is not light, it is not as easy in reality as it sounds on paper and you, I, have no idea about the psychological factors involved in such a decision....not to mention the fact that eventhough it IS considered safe...things still go wrong, there are still medical complications and there are still errors made.

Men have every option to cower out of the equation. They can opt to pay childsupport or they can simply and easilly dodge the childsupport requirements. And even if they do pay childsupport, in many countries this means they STILL get to make decisions about the upbringing, they still can involve themselves in the womans life, and they still get every opportunity to use the childsupport as a sword of Damocles over her head.
Never the less...for a financial compensation a man gets all the benefits of having a kid and none of the huge responsibilities of 24-7 care for the next 18 years.

To put this plan into effect in the current situation would be a disaster for womens rights and the situation of women in society. It would make childbearing and abortion a purely financial choice and would be subjegating women in a sort of neo-liberal, own responsibility, "freedom".

This can only work when society is not based on a monetary and profit based value system. When childbringing is considered a part of society and based in deep foundations of mutual solidarity and aid.

As long as women have to suffer the consequences of childbrionging and have to carry the social burden alone without aid...this plan is shite.

PhoenixAsh

26th November 2011, 17:17

And to elaborate on the above....

I have argued this exact same plan in the past in many abortion discussions. But as a stand alone it can not work. Abortion in and off itself is not freedom. The freedom can olnly come from financial and social independence when women can freely chose to either abort or keep without having to become a 24-7 poverty striken, socially isolated care unit. And that requires a huge change in society first..

Hence I argued in the past that the fight for abortion is too limited in scope. And yes, rights of men when it comes to children should be included in that struggle. It is a package deal. Either we implement it in one go or, if we have to do it in a step by step procedure....we have to simply put the rights of women first untill we reach a stage where we can say that there is social and financial independence and aid and an environment where women truely have a free choice what happens with and within their own body.

Sasha

26th November 2011, 17:22

PhoenixAsh

26th November 2011, 17:48

but say:
a couple of 18 year olds have accident after a broken condom (as happened to me), the boy offers to go along for the morning after pill (as i did the few times it happened to me), girl doesnt want to deal with it for some reason and decides to take her chances (as happened to me once), girl turns out pregnant (didn't happen to me luckily).
is it then really the boys fault if society bullies/guilt trip the girl in not having a early term abortion?
sorry, if society does that to that girl its their responsibility to take care of that kid, not of that 18 year old boy who did everything within reason to prevent becoming a dad.
does the fact that the resulting kid has part of his DNA suddenly makes him responsible for the clusterfuck society and the girl created between them? sorry but there are grey situations here that should be recognized in legislation.

True. There are grey areas which unfortunately are not easilly captured within the confines of blanket laws. And giving men, within the current situation, the same early/first term rights as women (which I take to mean that under the radleft concept of abortion till moment of birth....also holds the same implication for men) would go far beyond these grey areas.

I would have no problem with men not having to be financially responsible in the case of accidental pregnancies where other options such as birth control (morning after pill) have been purposefully neglected to avoid actual inpregnation.

But they can not be captured within blanket laws.

#FF0000

26th November 2011, 19:01

Doesn't mean both parties should lose out. We should improve women's rights, not decrease men's rights.

But this thing is effecting women way more than it is men. No one is decreasing men's rights here. This solution would be absolutely disastrous for a lot of women.

The woman doesn't pay child support, and can choose to opt out before the kid gets born. This is the point of the article in the original post. Women are able to get an abortion in many countries now, while men may still have no way out.

Jesus.

It isn't always as easy as just getting an abortion. If you're poor, you might not have access to a clinic. If you live in a rural area, you might not have access to a clinic. In certain places there's a boatload of social pressure on you to not have an abortion. And if one does have the abortion, there's the shaming that goes on.

Sometimes, it seems to me that people just think "Sexism! All power to the women!" while failing to think through the issue. We're trying to advocate gender equality here, not female supremacism.

But I have thought through this issue, and like I explained, it's a horrible solution to the problem at hand because women lose out no matter what.

PhoenixAsh

26th November 2011, 23:36

In the current situation they are losing out. That doesn't mean men should always be forced to pay child support. But it does mean current society is not ready for blanket laws which protect men in general. Psycho mentioned something which should be considered...but not as a generalised rule applicable to all men. Rather I say in the current situation there is a shared responsibility to prevent pregnancy and if a guy did everything reasonably asked of him to prevent pregnancy and the girl/woman flat out refused...that should be taken into consideration. But blanket laws in today patriarchical society favor men absolutely.

Yazman

27th November 2011, 15:20

Telling people "don't have sex" is a non-option. That's telling people not to be..uhh... people.

Exactly! It's such a naive and intellectually dishonest thing to say. It isn't even remotely a good argument.

Anarchist1

30th November 2011, 09:07

I agree completely with men having an "abortion" option, altough off course they should have no say over whatever or not a women has an abortion. Men and women should have the same options, and as women through abortion have the option to not have a child even through they are pregnant, so too should men not necesarily have to help raise the child even through they impregnated a women, they should be able to sign a contract to end all they parental rights and responsibilities. This will give men and women the same options and will mean men wont have to fear impregnating a women when they have sex, just like women dont have to fear being impregnated when having sex, as they can just have an abortion. If a women is for some reason uncormfortable with an abortion she should have the same option as the man, and when the child is born it is adopted.

I dont see how anyone who is't sexist towards males could be against this.

Anarchist1

30th November 2011, 09:18

Zealot

30th November 2011, 11:12

Get a vasectomy? :lol:

If I was advocating that for women I'd get kicked out within seconds. This is such a touchy topic that I'm not even going to bother.

Anarchist1

30th November 2011, 13:47

MRA nonsense.

I get depressed by the amount of mra/sexism allowed on a supposedly leftist forum.
Talking about mens issues is sexist?

S.Artesian

30th November 2011, 14:20

Quite different procedures, vasectomy and tubal ligation. Vasectomies are much less prone to complications, are far less invasive.

The issue is men somehow being compelled to provide child support even though they do not want the responsibility. That is completely different then women being forced to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth, or a woman being compelled or advised to have a tubal ligation if she doesn't want to be compelled to carry a pregnancy to term.

And the difference is that the actions being proposed by the "male aborters" imposes hardships, and increases hardships on an entire section of the population, women, when there is edit: no demonstrable hardship imposed on all men by the requirement to pay child support.

And if the distinctions are too difficult for you to comprehend then just use a condom.

Kenco Smooth

30th November 2011, 14:34

Bandito

30th November 2011, 14:41

Why is this even being discussed?

People seriously need to get out of someone else' uterus.

Sasha

30th November 2011, 15:16

Apart from the fact that a male (or female, for that matter) 'opt-out' option after birth is likely to make life much harder for the other parent and the child, I think a massive risk of giving this option is that it gives a man quite some leverage over the woman's decision whether or not to terminate the child. If a man can simply say "I will neither be there to help you raise this child nor will I assist financially" then it places a seriously unbalanced burden on the woman if she has to decide to terminate or not. I'm not convinced that giving that power to men wouldn't somewhat undermine a woman's right to bodily autonomy, given the pressure put on her to abort a child she may not wish to.

True, although if I was a women I rather have the full info before I make my decision then having a dude who promises to take care of me and my kid and who fucks off by the times push comes to shove.
Don't forget how many women are pressured in NOT having a abortion by dipshits like that.
Also I would think I rather would like to have a legally binding paper that says that the dick that knocked me up has no right to get involved with how I raise my kid. I have way too many more than capable single mums (and one dad) in my surrounding who don't get financial support from their good for nothing ex-partners but who still constantly suffer under (the threat of) court battles and stalking.

leemadison11

1st December 2011, 11:18

Just because its her body and that the fetus is inside her makes her the rightful decision maker of either having a baby or not. I guess the law isn't that wrong, but the social norms and morality which disgrace a man for not approving it and signing divorce papers is not right on the part of society.

How about man unwilling to have his sperm grow into a fetus in her body. There should be some copyright or intellectual rights if one wants to file man abortion.

blah

1st December 2011, 11:37

I agree with it. Why not? Equality all the way. Its not like the mother cannot abort after the father decides he does not want the child.

Hiero

1st December 2011, 12:34

Why is this even being discussed?

People seriously need to get out of someone else' uterus.

Ha excactly. This is a strange thread that has some underlying misogyny.

No one should have the right to tell another person what to do with their body. Guys, get it through your head, their are some risk being human and engaging in the first part of reproduction, the risks are...getting someone pregnantnt.

blah

1st December 2011, 14:24

Excuse me, women pay child support their whole lives, with their whole lives.

Not if they get an abortion. Men do not have such option. That is not egalitarian and right.

Look, we're taking the long way around in this discussion. Men don't want to father children? Done. Use condoms. All the time. Get a vasectomy. There's no need to enact a law that in essence allows a man to impregnate a woman and then walk away from the situation. Condoms are cheaper and less invasive, traumatic, painful than abortions.

I will paraphrase you:
Look, we're taking the long way around in this discussion. Women don't want to have children? Done. Use condoms. All the time. Get a tubal ligation. There's no need to enact a law that in essence allows a woman to conceive a child and then walk away from the situation. Condoms are cheaper and less invasive, traumatic, painful than abortions.

The point is, your arguments fail because abortion would have to be criminalised by the same logic.

I have not read any good agument why this is not a good idea yet. The fact that woman has a right to opt out of all child responsibilities some time after conception but man cannot do so is sexist and not egalitarian, no matter how you look at it. And the solution in the OPs post neatly fixes this problem.

Tim Finnegan

1st December 2011, 14:32

Not if they get an abortion. Men do not have such option. That is not egalitarian and right.
And thank god that all women are totally free, in both the positive and negative sense of the word, to receive publicly-funded abortions, or we might have to think about this for more than three seconds.

PhoenixAsh

1st December 2011, 16:40

Not if they get an abortion. Men do not have such option. That is not egalitarian and right.

I will paraphrase you:
Look, we're taking the long way around in this discussion. Women don't want to have children? Done. Use condoms. All the time. Get a tubal ligation. There's no need to enact a law that in essence allows a woman to conceive a child and then walk away from the situation. Condoms are cheaper and less invasive, traumatic, painful than abortions.

The point is, your arguments fail because abortion would have to be criminalised by the same logic.

I have not read any good agument why this is not a good idea yet. The fact that woman has a right to opt out of all child responsibilities some time after conception but man cannot do so is sexist and not egalitarian, no matter how you look at it. And the solution in the OPs post neatly fixes this problem.

Wauw...what an incredibly sexist and ignorant post.

We do not live in a situation where men and women are on equal footing. The situation is already heavilly balanced in favor of men. To adopt this policy in the current situation would make women more dependend on men and their wishes than they already are and would give them even less controll over their own bodies.

If you do not think that is a good argument against implementation of this plan in the current social-economic situation then I seriously suggest you brush up on your feminism.

blah

1st December 2011, 16:59

Wauw...what an incredibly sexist and ignorant post.

We do not live in a situation where men and women are on equal footing. The situation is already heavilly balanced in favor of men. To adopt this policy in the current situation would make women more dependend on men and their wishes than they already are and would give them even less controll over their own bodies.

If you do not think that is a good argument against implementation of this plan in the current social-economic situation then I seriously suggest you brush up on your feminism.

How exactly the proposition in the OPs post gives women less control over their bodies? It does not restrict abortion in any way.

Some level of statistical economic ineqality does not justify gross discrimination of men by laws (inequal rights before the state), especially when not all women are poor (and not all men are rich).

I suggest you brush up on your egalitarianism.

Tim Finnegan

1st December 2011, 17:25

How exactly the proposition in the OPs post gives women less control over their bodies? It does not restrict abortion in any way.

Some level of statistical economic ineqality does not justify gross discrimination of men by laws (inequal rights before the state), especially when not all women are poor (and not all men are rich).

I suggest you brush up on your egalitarianism.
Given that you've just made an argument based on a negative conception of freedom and a demand for equality before the law, i.e. bourgeois state, I suggest that you brush up on your communism. :rolleyes:

PhoenixAsh

1st December 2011, 18:52

How exactly the proposition in the OPs post gives women less control over their bodies? It does not restrict abortion in any way.

Because it forces women to take extra financial reasons into account. It forces them to have an abortion.

Some level of statistical economic ineqality does not justify gross discrimination of men by laws (inequal rights before the state), especially when not all women are poor (and not all men are rich).

We are talking about a major level of social inequality for women and not just "some level of statistical inequality". The fact that you do not seem to get that astounds me.

Besides that...you seem to have no fucking clue what it means to be a single mom for 90% of the women and how this can deeply affect them.

The fact of wether or not a women should consider an abortion is her decision and is not one which should be pressured by outside factors. Your inconsiderate defence of this law on the basis of egalitarianism, I will come back to that, boils down to the fact that financial considerations are by law an instrument men have to enforce control over a womans body and the choices she can make.

I suggest you brush up on your egalitarianism.

I am fully aware of egalitarianism and as I have already explained to you ad nauseum we do NOT live in an egalitarian society when it comes to the man-woman relationship. The equation far outweights and favors men at the expense of women as it is and this would further unbalance it.

You do not argue for egalitarianism...you are only arguing in favor of further inbalance and further legal recourse to exert control....which is not an egalitarian position at all. So heed your own advice.

PhoenixAsh

1st December 2011, 19:05

Here is what being a single mom/parent entails:

For the first year the kid will keep you up at night several times. This is already hard when you have a normal family situation...but yeah...try doing this alone. You can not work because the kid needs constant supervision and care. And you are tired all the time. You have the costs of nappies, food, healthcare etc. for the kid. And you need a job....because even in Holland a single mom gets fuck all financial support.

So if you are lucky enough to have a job...you also need a very, very considerate boss. Now this is already rare in Holland where parental support is regulated by law for the employer....but I am guessing that in the US society is less considerate.

But hey...lets say you are one of the lucky few. You have to pay for nannies and daycare. Which puts a serious dent in your salary. Because daycare is fucking expensive. And that is with a two income house!

So if you want to work you are constantly dependend on others for aid and help. Not to mention the fact that you can forget about a carreer...this is exceedingly rare. Not to mention the fact that you will be called away from work a lot. So you have no or very little income. And a kid is expensive....napppies, milk bottles, food, healthcare, education, daycare, nannies all cost a shitload of cash.

So yeah...when you are a 24/7 caregiver....giving men the "same rights" option to bail out no strings attached forces your hand as a woman.

So FUCK your same rights option. As long as men are not required by law to become 24/7 caregivers when she considers to have the child but doesn't want that....then there is no egalitarianism.

Apoi_Viitor

1st December 2011, 19:27

I suspect blah is a sock of that same sexist that gets banned once a week.

Nothing Human Is Alien

1st December 2011, 19:58

"Child support" is absurd on its face. If a man and a woman have a child, and get married, the man can literally lay on the couch all day every day and not contribute a dollar or a minute of time on the child and nothing will happen. If the man and woman break up, and the man lives somewhere other than the child and mother, he is legally required to contribute financially. In many places if he won't or can't do this, he will be thrown in jail -- from where he definitely can't contribute, even if he wanted to.

I won't even get into all the obstacles (socially and concrete) there are to women being able to make the choice over whether or not to end a pregnancy. It goes without saying that it should be entirely their choice.

And the child is pulled back and forth in all this, with the entirety of society constantly reminding him that "normally" the mother and father and child live together happily -- yeah right.

Things are fucked for the mother, the father and the child. It's degradation all around.

I think the bourgeoisie concocted this shit under the pressures of the break down of the bourgeois family, as they tried to move away from any kind of state financial support for individuals. It can't be a coincidence that hardcore child support enforcement arose around the same time welfare and other assistance was being slashed.

Capitalism desperately needs to be overthrown, production needs to be reorganized to satisfy the needs of everyone, housework needs to be socialized, biological-parental "ownership" of children needs to be abolished, and birth control up-to-and-including abortion should be available on demand and free of charge.

That will make the whole argument moot.

RedAnarchist

1st December 2011, 20:36

I suspect blah is a sock of that same sexist that gets banned once a week.

No, but he is a sockpuppet of Maslo, who was banned for racism a month ago, so I've banned him.

piet11111

1st December 2011, 22:13

The way i see it currently the woman has a choice either keep the child or not.
The man has no choice and if the woman decides to keep the baby he has the legal obligation to pay child support no matter if he wanted the child or not.

Clearly denying the man his freedom of choice is wrong but forcing the woman to abort out of purely financial reasons is wrong too.

Nobody wins here but that the right of choice is automatically always denied to the man makes me lean towards supporting this proposition.

I would like limitations though so that a man can not decide to run away after say 8 months of pregnancy.
But this would then lead to issues of proving that the man actually knows that the woman is pregnant well before giving birth so that he has a realistic chance of opting out of child support.

Clearly the creation of a fair system to both sexes will require a lot of thought but the denial of the right of men to opt out is something i oppose.

manic expression

1st December 2011, 22:55

So yeah...when you are a 24/7 caregiver....giving men the "same rights" option to bail out no strings attached forces your hand as a woman.
Why should a man be forced into a relationship he doesn't want to be in?

My opinion is that a man who impregnates a woman makes no more a commitment to raising a child as the woman who is impregnated.

PhoenixAsh

1st December 2011, 23:09

Why should a man be forced into a relationship he doesn't want to be in?

Why should a woman be the automatically be the one? See that is the problem....a lot of clammoring about male rights and all....but forgetting completely the fact that women are required by law to provide for the children and that custody is something a man can automatically enforce on a woman but not the other way around.

My opinion is that a man who impregnates a woman makes no more a commitment to raising a child as the woman who is impregnated.

You have to elaborate because I do not get your meaning.

manic expression

1st December 2011, 23:20

Why should a woman be the automatically be the one? See that is the problem....a lot of clammoring about male rights and all....but forgetting completely the fact that women are required by law to provide for the children and that custody is something a man can automatically enforce on a woman but not the other way around.
She shouldn't "automatically be the one"...that's why I support the right to abortion.

You have to elaborate because I do not get your meaning.
If a woman becoming pregnant confers no commitment to raising a child (thus the right to abortion), then why should a man's partner becoming pregnant confer that same commitment to him?

PhoenixAsh

1st December 2011, 23:25

She shouldn't "automatically be the one"...that's why I support the right to abortion.

Right...so also post natal? Because that is when a man has the automatic right to leave.

If a woman becoming pregnant confers no commitment to raising a child (thus the right to abortion), then why should a man's partner becoming pregnant confer that same commitment to him?

Because he can opt out simply by going away.

manic expression

1st December 2011, 23:42

Right...so also post natal? Because that is when a man has the automatic right to leave.
Women can and do put their children up for adoption.

Because he can opt out simply by going away.
I'm asking why he shouldn't be able to. I personally think having a two-parent household for a child is a good thing (father-mother, mother-mother, father-father, whatever), but I don't think forcing the father to pay child support or be in a household he doesn't want to be in magically makes a bad situation a good one.

S.Artesian

2nd December 2011, 01:22

This is the point where further discussion is simply a waste of time. Let's sum up: a lawyer in South Carolina wants to drum up business and so hits on this twist of ideas, making the privileged seem disadvantaged, the protected seem violated.

That this scam can only increase the burden on those already suffering the most under capitalism's relentless reproduction of poverty is obscured by the sophistry produced around "equality" and "rights."

And guess what? not known for particularly clear thinking, so-called leftists line up behind this latest effort at scamming the public. Brilliant. Leftists wind up endorsing an appeal for courts in capitalism to allow one party to walk away, while the other party, if she walks, carries the issue with her.

Now before the howling starts, remember, those of us opposed to this bourgeois money-making scam did not initiate the thread by calling for the police, the government, the courts to hunt down absent fathers, and impress them in labor gangs, splitting the take with mothers. Nope, what we said is that 1) the exploitation of men by forcing them to assume this responsibility in the present society is practically non-existent. Men walk away all the time with no penalty. 2) the solution is social-- where women have access to safe, free reproductive healthcare, where sexual education begins when children are young and continues through maturity, and where support for children is a responsibility of all, not simply the mother.

khlib

2nd December 2011, 01:44

As a woman, I see a lot of positive aspects to this law. If I became pregnant, I think it would be nice to know where my partner officially stood before making my decision about what to do. I went to Catholic school (where we did not learn about condoms and were taught that abortion was a mortal sin), and I have seen so many of my friends become pregnant over the past few years with boyfriends that have said they were committed to helping raise the child, but then bailing a few months after the birth. It seems that their boyfriends made empty promises because they knew they would be stuck paying child support regardless. If my partner was not fully committed, I'd like to know ahead of time (as much as that is possible) because, as people have already noted, raising a child takes much more than money.

Nothing Human Is Alien

2nd December 2011, 03:05

Men walk away all the time with no penalty.

You mean like rich guys who go live in the Bahamas or something? Or people who live in areas where there is no child support program (and usually no welfare program either)?

I don't know anyone with a child who doesn't / didn't pay child support. Not saying there aren't....

I only know about the U.S. and a handful of other countries.. but here in the states there is something like half a trillion dollars involved in child support each year (payments, court courts, lawyers fees, wages, etc.).

In a lot of places, the custodial parent can only claim benefits (cash, food stamps, help with rent and heating bills, etc.) if they go after the non-custodial parent in court for child support. If they don't do this, they won't get any support.

The state wants to take the money from the non-custodial parent instead of out of its own coffers. The whole institution is organized around this... for example, the government of New York or Pennsylvania gets $2 from the federal government for every $1 it collects from a non-custodial parent.

So what happens a lot of times is that the custodial parent isn't even involved in the case. It's all automatic. When it goes to court, the welfare agency will send someone to argue "on their behalf" (really to argue on behalf of the state, which is trying to bring in the money). In some cases the custodial parents are still in a relationship.

In a lot of cases, none of the child support actually goes to the child at all -- it goes to the state government to defer the costs of whatever benefits are being given to the custodial parent.

And the enforcement is increasingly tough. They jail people all the time, take away drivers licenses, take away professional licenses (needed for work -- like commercial drivers licenses, safety licenses, operating licenses, etc.), force people into shitty minimum wage jobs... not just people who purposely dodge payments either, but also people who can't find jobs, people who lose jobs, people who get pay cuts, etc.

The Bradley Amendment of 1998 "requires that the payment amounts be maintained without regard for the physical capability of the person owing child support (the obligor) to promptly document changed circumstances or regard for his awareness of the need to make the notification."

When they do studies on this stuff the numbers always tend to show what's really going on... the biggest debtors are usually rich people who have the means to get around paying or refuse to pay out of principle; the majority of people required to pay child support are behind on payments -- only around half of the total ordered child support in the country is able to be collected; a big chunk of those who don't pay / are behind don't have the means to make the payments, with something like 25% being in extreme poverty.

I don't think the majority of poor and working non-custodial parents in the states today "walk away without penalty." I don't even think a significant minority do.

S.Artesian

2nd December 2011, 03:12

I know, literally, a dozen women who raised their children without a penny of financial contribution from the fathers. None of these men were wealthy.

Men cross state lines at will to avoid paying the child support, including non-wealthy men. That was the direct experience of 7 of the women I know who went through this.

Again, nobody on this side of the discussion is advocating judicial, legislative, federal or state action to punish men who don't pay child support. The question is do we need a lawyer's scam to make conditions worse under the guise of "equality."

Here's some stats from 2007

http://singleparents.about.com/od/statebystateresources/p/child_support_statistics.htm

not a pretty picture.

EDIT: Does anyone here really think men are being oppressed, exploited, discriminated against when they a judgement or agreement requiring child support is made? I find that mind boggling. This whole notion about "male abortion" is a lawyer's trick and should simply be ignored.

∞

2nd December 2011, 03:22

Because a guy carries a baby that feeds on his food and stretches out his vagina to the size of a baby's head. :glare:

Nothing Human Is Alien

2nd December 2011, 04:11

I know, literally, a dozen women who raised their children without a penny of financial contribution from the fathers. None of these men were wealthy.You're a lot older than me though. Are you talking about people in the 60's, 70's and maybe early 80's?

Like I said, enforcement came with the massive cuts in welfare. They started to lay the legal foundations in the mid-70's under Johnson, but it really came in full effect with "welfare-to-work" Clinton.

You can literally follow the trail of legislation along with the changes (cuts) in benefits.

Men cross state lines at will to avoid paying the child support, including non-wealthy men. That was the direct experience of 7 of the women I know who went through this.This is what I mean. You can't really do that any more.

"The [Bradley] amendment was intended to correct a perceived imbalance between the power of the obligee (usually the mother) and the obligor (usually the father) during subsequent child support disputes. It had been alleged that a significant number of men were running up large child support debts and then finding a sympathetic judge, often in another state, to erase them." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Amendment

The system has been largely standardized, with federal involvement (it's now a federal crime not to repay child support -- on top of the state crimes).

Not long ago, you could hold driver's licenses in multiple states at once. That loophole has been sewn up too.

EDIT: Does anyone here really think men are being oppressed, exploited, discriminated against when they a judgement or agreement requiring child support is made? I find that mind boggling. This whole notion about "male abortion" is a lawyer's trick and should simply be ignored.You can look at it in the abstract or as part of a bigger picture.

I'm not really interested in having some weird "reverse sexism" argument or whatever. Obviously that would be bullshit. But I can point to examples of people I know whose lives have literally been ruined by the domestic relations -- e.g. a person I know had a good paying job and was ordered to pay something like 1800 a month in child support... they then had their pay cut in half, but the court would not modify the order, so they were paying something like 70% of their income

Of course countless women are fucked over by the situation, taking the bulk of the shit as they usually do in this society. And a lot of children too. Nothing like having your parents fighting it out in court, bad mouthing each other, etc.

But it's tied in with the capitalist system, the austerity cuts, the huge rise in precarious work and imprisonment rates, etc. So I think we need to look at it as such.

I think when the state puts a huge number of non-custodial (not always male, btw) people into courts, prisons, and forced low-wage employment to make money it's pretty significant.

pastradamus

2nd December 2011, 04:17

It boils down to the female, always.

She is the one carrying the baby, its her body, its her choice.
As for the legality of it. If a father does not want to raise a child then that's his issue, not her's. He does not have the right to tell her what to do with her body.

If she give's birth then that, again is her choice.

To put a long story short, Im going to use a quote from "Boyz n the Hood";

Any fool with a dick can make a baby, but only a real man can raise his children.

∞

2nd December 2011, 04:18

^ That was perfect. That quote is exceptionally simple, yet so perfect.

pastradamus

2nd December 2011, 04:24

but I don't think forcing the father to pay child support or be in a household he doesn't want to be in magically makes a bad situation a good one.

A good point.

Its to do with capitalism, I hate just saying that but it is.

The child needs love and the mother may just want money. Love is not a commodity, it is a not a purchasing tool, it is not a weapon. A father-son / daughter relationship should not be measured in terms of finance it should be measured in terms of affection and general care for that human being in order to ensure he/she lives a full life of comfort. Its time these judges begin to support children and not capital and totally dismiss the whole gender-orientated argument of which they've been advocating in favor of the mother these past few years.

Its time to support the child, no matter what.

pastradamus

2nd December 2011, 04:26

^ That was perfect. That quote is exceptionally simple, yet so perfect.

I love that one. Im glad you liked it!:)

xub3rn00dlex

2nd December 2011, 04:32

So from what I understand, it's alright if the male discusses with the female about possibly keeping the baby, but ultimately it is up to the female correct?

pastradamus

2nd December 2011, 04:36

So from what I understand, it's alright if the male discusses with the female about possibly keeping the baby, but ultimately it is up to the female correct?

Well in my opinion at least. I feel that most good females will at least take their partners opinion into account but obviously I cant speak for all.

xub3rn00dlex

2nd December 2011, 04:39

Well in my opinion at least. I feel that most good females will at least take their partners opinion into account but obviously I cant speak for all.

Yeah I guess they would talk it out, I've talked it out before. I don't think the guys opinion matters at all in the end, since it is the females choice 100%, but if they're serious about a relationship it never hurts to listen. I'd feel bad for a guy who wanted a kid but his partner didn't, but nothing he can do there.

S.Artesian

2nd December 2011, 05:32

You're a lot older than me though. Are you talking about people in the 60's, 70's and maybe early 80's?

Yes, in the main. Not all, but 8 or 9.

But it's tied in with the capitalist system, the austerity cuts, the huge rise in precarious work and imprisonment rates, etc. So I think we need to look at it as such.

I think when the state puts a huge number of non-custodial (not always male, btw) people into courts, prisons, and forced low-wage employment to make money it's pretty significant.

I agree, but how many of those are based on the supposed scenario where the man told the woman, "I don't want to have this child" and the women went forward anyway? I don't think that is what is going one. That seems to be the point that is being missed here.

And I think the law will make a bad situation worse.

Does anyone really think we need a law in this society where a man can say "Oh, I told her not to have that baby" and use that as release from obligations of child support? To me that's just nuts, and ignores what clearly is happening in the US-- where women do not have access to proper reproductive health care; and the number of instances when a women is forced by the departure of the male well after the child is born to raise the child alone.

PhoenixAsh

2nd December 2011, 05:44

The numbers for Holland are much worse. 70% of men try to dodge childsupport for some reason or another. What usually happens is arbitration by LBIO which is poised to create new terms which are more acceptable for the ex husband/father. Because in some cases the problem is income reduction for the man. But in most cases it is simply refusal. 20% refuse to pay even after arbitration.

This initial number amounts to 12.000 cases a year.

Offcourse I am basing myself on numbers from 2007.

Now...THESE are ONLY the cases in which a judge made a decision about the heigth of the support in the first place. When you and your partner made a seperation agreement then it is your own responsibility to get the cash and you need to hire a lawyer. MOST of these cases do not even make it to court since mothers rarely can afford a lawyer and fathers are able to exploit the court system for years and years.

So that is the sad reality.

Ah....also in 2007 the avarage time childsupport was back and owed was 4 years!. This is over the entire group including those who pay monthly childsupport without problems.

Nothing Human Is Alien

2nd December 2011, 20:55

That was perfect. That quote is exceptionally simple, yet so perfect.... if you're a defender of the bourgeois family.

For communists the old Igbo proverb "It takes a village to raise a child" would be much more appropriate.

S.Artesian

2nd December 2011, 21:18

I agree with that. It truly does take a village, a whole social order to raise children, and half that social order, with half that responsibility is male.

LuÃs Henrique

2nd December 2011, 21:37

What do you think about "male abortion"?
Melanie McCulley, a South Carolina attorney coined the term male abortion in 1998, suggesting that a father should be allowed to disclaim his obligations to an unborn child early in the pregnancy. Proponents hold that concept begins with the premise that when an unmarried woman becomes pregnant, she has the option of abortion, adoption, or parenthood; and argues, in the context of legally recognized gender equality, that in the earliest stages of pregnancy the putative (alleged) father should have the same human rights to relinquish all future parental rights and financial responsibility—leaving the informed mother with the same three options. McCulley states:
"When a female determines she is pregnant, she has the freedom to decide if she has the maturity level to undertake the responsibilities of motherhood, if she is financially able to support a child, if she is at a place in her career to take the time to have a child, or if she has other concerns precluding her from carrying the child to term. After weighing her options, the female may choose abortion. Once she aborts the fetus, the female's interests in and obligations to the child are terminated. In stark contrast, the unwed father has no options. His responsibilities to the child begin at conception and can only be terminated with the female's decision to abort the fetus or with the mother's decision to give the child up for adoption. Thus, he must rely on the decisions of the female to determine his future. The putative father does not have the luxury, after the fact of conception, to decide that he is not ready for fatherhood. Unlike the female, he has no escape route."
McCulley's male abortion concept aims to equalize the legal status of unwed men and unwed women by giving the unwed man by law the ability to 'abort' his rights in and obligations to the child. If a woman decides to keep the child the father may choose not to by severing all ties legally.
This same concept has been supported by a former president of the feminist organization National Organization for Women, attorney Karen DeCrow, who wrote that "if a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support...autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice."

The problem is in these phrases: "in the context of legally recognized gender equality"; "autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice". Unhappily, those are a fictions; in reality what we have is widespread gender inequality. Giving a male the option to disclaim any responsibilities towards fetuses generated by themselves would evidently result in denying the woman's ability to choose on whether she wants to carry the pregnancy on or not.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

2nd December 2011, 21:44

What I find quite ironic is that some here use the same arguments pro-lifers use (e.g. sarcastically saying "yeah, sex without consequences!").

Sex has, or may have, consequences. At least in "objective reality", that is. Women always have to deal with such consequences, be them an unwanted child or an abortion. So should men - wich unhappily isn't yet true for the most part.

Luís Henrique

Nothing Human Is Alien

2nd December 2011, 22:31

Outside of the OP... I don't think militants should join the state in "hunting down dads" or whatever (as is usual for Revleft, some people here are actually taking that position). The "politics of the possible" sucks because everything that exists is rotten and must change.

If we're raising demands, they should be something like "social responsibility for all children -- society must provide their wants and needs."

Even in a "dream world" within capitalism where every dad paid full support, there would still be huge inequalities (materially and of opportunity) with the 30% or whatever of the low-income dads' being a hell of a lot less than the 30% of the rich dads' income. The mothers and fathers would still be pit against each other, with the children in the middle. The working class and poor moms still wouldn't have enough time, money, tools, etc. to raise children to their full capacity. Class divisions ya know...

The only real benefit would be to the state, which wouldn't have to pay as much out as welfare, food stamps, etc.

manic expression

3rd December 2011, 16:30

Sex has, or may have, consequences. At least in "objective reality", that is. Women always have to deal with such consequences, be them an unwanted child or an abortion. So should men - wich unhappily isn't yet true for the most part.
I find that entirely untrue. Men do have to deal with the consequences of pregnancy, wanted or unwanted, one way or another. Yes, the man has the option of just trying to walk away, but women do as well...and rest assured they do walk away from children, an ugly truth of parenthood in capitalist society.

So I think this "men can walk away but women can't" line is a very naive misconception IMO.

The only real benefit would be to the state, which wouldn't have to pay as much out as welfare, food stamps, etc.
Exactly. I've always felt that "child support" is just a patronizing way for the bourgeois state to force its own responsibility upon working-class people.