[–]Kingsidam 46 points47 points48 points 9 years ago (72 children) | Copy Link

Bestof appears to be a hardcore feminist SJW sub.

That thread is one of the most toxic things I've ever read. Overflowing with misandry, disinformation and worst of all -- lawyers (who profit off the divorce/custody racket).

As you say, all the reasonable comments have dozens of downvotes.

Never forget that the feminists trying to justify the family court system are enabling the mass abuse of children. Mothers are much more likely to abuse their children -- especially boys -- as are non-biological fathers compared to biological fathers.

Ironically, studies have shown that shared parenting not only benefits the children and the father, it also benefits the mother! Yet NOW, the largest feminist organization in the world, continues to oppose it. Why? Your guess is as good as mine. Seems like hurting men and destroying the family is a higher priority than helping women and children.

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 years ago (68 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kingsidam 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (67 children) | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (66 children) | Copy Link

[–]--Visionary-- 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (65 children) | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (64 children) | Copy Link

[–]--Visionary-- 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (63 children) | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (62 children) | Copy Link

[–]--Visionary-- 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (61 children) | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (60 children) | Copy Link

[–]--Visionary--6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]--Visionary--8 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]--Visionary--4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This isn't micromanagement. This is tax collecting.

Uh, you've clearly never worked anywhere near the IRS.

The vast, vast majority of taxes are simple. Documenting every bit of expenditure on your child that you drew on child support for, then having someone from the government oversee it? That's micromanagement.

Uh, 44 million households itemize every year. You make it sound like it's 2 people in a Dodge Durango somewhere.

Again, not micromanagement. Your assertions are flawed to the point of being silly.

Protip: italicizing does not a point make. We have zero problems determining precisely where a father is spending things as it pertains to his child support arrears. We have zero problems determining whether a random citizen can or cannot itemize a deduction for a random purchase made months ago based on a massive list pored over by a phalanx of IRS agents.

But it's simply impossible, after giving her the money, to have mothers show that a purchase that she made benefitted her child as it was supposed to do so. Obvi.

Give me a break.

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Friend, itemizing tax deductions once a year != documenting every thing you buy for your child with child support money THROUGHOUT the year. You are presenting an obviously false equivalence and it's not going to escape notice.

We have zero problems determining precisely where a father is spending things as it pertains to his child support arrears.

This is fudging at best and outright misportrayal at worst. Luckily, most fathers are willing and able to pay their child support bills, so the enforcement here is a fraction of what micromanaging every single payment that a mother makes with child support money. You should feel ashamed for trying to present them as equal.

We have zero problems determining whether a random citizen can or cannot itemize a deduction for a random purchase made months ago

Again: not true! We do this only for people who get audited and only for their itemizations, which is a tiny fraction of the work involved in micromanaging every single payment that a mother makes with child support money.

Again: silly non-points. Very bad arguments. Laughable.

[–]--Visionary--5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Friend, itemizing tax deductions once a year != documenting every thing you buy for your child with child support money THROUGHOUT the year. You are presenting an obviously false equivalence and it's not going to escape notice.

Thanks for the strawman, yo. Who's arguing it must be THROUGHOUT the year, friend? Oh wait, only you! Cool beans. Just to be clear, quite literally ever financially literate person does what you're arguing is impossible. It's called budgeting and accounting for your expenses in written form.

But I wonder how they deal with THROUGHOUT the year for taxes? Hmmm....weird how tax people found a solution for that (submit your taxes once a year, attesting that it's accurate under the threat of jail time) but it's totes impossible when a group of fabulous women are under the axe.

You should feel ashamed for trying to present them as equal.

Wait, which party is forced to pay at the point of a gun and jail time, sometimes being murdered in the process? I suppose we agree on something -- yeah, they're not equal.

Again: not true! We do this only for people who get audited and only for their itemizations, which is a tiny fraction of the work involved in micromanaging every single payment that a mother makes with child support money.

Again, you've never worked with the IRS. Even a "fraction" of 44 million (which, apparently, was a miniscule "fraction" to you to begin with) is millions of people being "micromanaged" come tax season. Let alone small business owners, for whom it's literally the law provide data for "micromanaged viewing" by the IRS.

Again: silly non-points. Very bad arguments. Laughable.

Protip again: Merely saying something is a bad argument does not make it so. Even if you say with dripping misandry.

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Who's arguing it must be THROUGHOUT the year, friend? Oh wait, only you! Cool beans.

Uhhh... basic logic argues this, friendo. Child support recipients would be required to collect records on all their child-related purchases, then those would need micromanagement oversight. That's a heavy burden, especially for the state.

it's totes impossible when a group of fabulous women are under the axe.

Child support is gender-neutral, sir! Although it's worth thinking about why women get it more often 🤔

Wait, which party is forced to pay at the point of a gun and jail time, sometimes being murdered in the process? I suppose we agree on something -- yeah, they're not equal.

Being forced to pay for the children you sired. Truly the civil rights issue of our time.

And you wonder why mens rights has a PR problem.

Again, you've never worked with the IRS. Even a "fraction" of 44 million (which, apparently, was a miniscule "fraction" to you to begin with) is millions of people being "micromanaged" come tax season. Let alone small business owners, for whom it's literally the law provide data for "micromanaged viewing" by the IRS.

I'm going to skip this, because you clearly have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Good luck with that.

Even if you say with dripping misandry.

JESUS TAKE THE WHEEL.

[–]--Visionary--3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Uhhh... basic logic argues this, friendo. Child support recipients would be required to collect records on all their child-related purchases, then those would need micromanagement oversight. That's a heavy burden, especially for the state.

Like, again, we do for vast swaths of the American populace and small business owners.

Child support is gender-neutral, sir! Although it's worth thinking about why women get it more often 🤔

I think this is how racist white southerners used to argue about racially neutral Jim Crow laws.

Being forced to pay for the children you sired. Truly the civil rights issue of our time.

I know, right? Debtor's prison and shooting mainly one gender of people based on court decreed payments are totally the hallmark of an egalitarian society.

And you wonder why mens rights has a PR problem.

Considering Men's rights has become wildly more popular in the last decade, I'm not certain what this precisely means.

I'm going to skip this

Obviously. 44 million americans and millions of small business owners routinely maintain financial records that you think are impossible to maintain. It's clear your understanding is a different one than basically most financially literate people.

JESUS TAKE THE WHEEL.

I'm not sure Jesus would be apathetic to men being shot and jailed for failing to pay child support, but that's just me.

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]--Visionary--3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]revengeofthedirty473 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]revengeofthedirty473 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]revengeofthedirty471 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]revengeofthedirty471 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]revengeofthedirty471 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]revengeofthedirty471 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Especially when one considers that women more often are deemed the primary caregivers or considers things like the tender years -- custody has always been in high rates among women.

This is specifically debunked by OP's post in ML. Your point is invalid. You are not arguing facts here, you're arguing emotionally.

Gee, I wonder if that's the case, who in turn is paying child support? Fathers.

Again, not logic. Feelings.

Options of women who don't want to be parents: Abortion. Adoption/Safe Haven.

We've gone over this about bodily autonomy and medical privacy already.

Options for men who don't want to be parents: Can you list them?

Adoption, safe haven, and paying child support. Same as women.

It obvious between our exchange that you more than likely have never dealt with the family courts system.

And please spare me this.

Arguments from emotion, like you're making, are not valid. I've repeatedly cited my sources, and you haven't. You're wrong. Your feelings do not count as facts.

Reconsider your wrong stances. You're wrong.

[–]revengeofthedirty471 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

None of the sources you cited refuted any of my claims. And that "debunking" was soundly picked apart in this very thread. You seem quite determined to talk pass people, which is why i just wanted to leave you to your very narrow views. There's plenty of evidence and experiences here in this sub to support my very benign, but true, claims.

You can run to the roof of your building and yell out that i'm wrong at the top of your lungs, but it doesn't change the reality of things. Quite the contrary, it paints you in the light of a child, which i assume you are, with very limited life experiences and critical thinking skills. You've yet to even list options for men who don't want to be parents. I assume you won't because that wouldn't suit your MO of talking pass people and not engaging certain points while engaging others that you can somehow construe to support whatever drivel comes out your head on this matter.

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bostonbob19871 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, men also receive bodily autonomy and medical privacy, which is the basis of abortion law.

No it's not. Go read the case law on abortion. It's about personal privacy and the right to make reproductive decisions for yourself.

O'Connor's opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in particular, demonstrates this point:

Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S., at 685 . Our cases recognize the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child. Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra, 405 U.S., at 453 (emphasis in original). Our precedents "have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter." Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944). These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.

There is no double standard.

Of course there is. If it is not a life at conception, and whether to carry a fetus to term is a choice a woman makes about her body, then there is absolutely no basis to hold an unwilling father financially responsible for the outcome of that choice.

Essentially, for men the fetus is a life at conception. For women, it is not. That is as clear a double standard as you can get. "My body, my choice - where are you going you have to help me pay for this" makes no logical sense.

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bostonbob19871 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Casey confirms what I wrote before.

What the fuck are you talking about? You just claimed that abortion rights exist because of medical privacy and bodily autonomy. The Casey decision says nothing about either of those things.

Which makes sense - because the cases that lead to Roe v. Wade had nothing to do with medical privacy either.

The Supreme Court recognizes this vague concept of reproductive freedom. I believe that one of the cases even uses the term "reproductive destiny" or something like that. "Women have the right to abortion because bodily autonomy and medical privacy" is nonsense.

Sandra Day O'Connor is a clever legal writer!

What do you mean by this?

One of the things about Sandra Day O'connor is that she is a strong advocate for abortion rights. Her reasons for that is because she has a strong view that women should be free to control their own lives. Prior to abortion, a pregnancy could completely sideline a woman's career or educational goals. Again - one of the abortion cases (it might even be Casey) goes into detail about this!

That situation still exists for men. An unplanned pregnancy could completely fuck up a man's life - and he has almost no say over any of it post-conception. You mock these men as deadbeats - but that's just insensitive.

I don't understand how you cannot see the double standard.

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bostonbob19871 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

How do you define a child's right to be raised in a safe environment with plenty of resources?

No such right exists - nor could it. "Plenty of resources" is a vague term.

Are you saying that poor couples are violating their children's rights?

Are you saying that we should just seek to maximize the amount of resources available to children, the rights of others be damned? If a father dies while his wife is pregnant, would you support a law imposing child support obligations on the deceased father's brother? Why or why not?

Do you oppose adoption? Adoption does not take any "resources" idea into account at all. A child put up for adoption may end up in foster care, bouncing from house to house. We don't view that as a violation of his/her rights. Should we?

What about mother's who choose to raise a child on their own without telling the biological father? Because the law allows for that. That's one of the odd things about this debate - legal paternal surrender already exists, it's just that only women can exercise it. There's no law that forces a mother to seek child support. There's no law that forces a mother to inform a father that he is a father.

Basically, it seems like your view is incredibly selective. Mothers are allowed to abdicate their financial responsibilities to their children unilaterally through adoption or safe havens. Couples are allowed to abdicate their financial responsibilities to their children through adoption or safe havens. A woman can unilaterally abdicate a father's financial responsibilities by simply not telling the father about the child.

The ONLY scenario that is illegal - is a father attempting to terminate his own financial obligations.

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bostonbob19871 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Alright man. So I know that this doesn't always sparkle with MRAs, but:

Laws aren't designed to be perfectly, symmetrically fair. They're designed to maximize prosocial outcomes.

Let me go through a couple of your examples.

Are you saying that poor couples are violating their children's rights?

We do indeed punish parents for neglect. Luckily, we have state programs and are generally a rich enough country that we don't need to do so often. And we balance that against bodily autonomy for poor people, who we won't make sterilization compulsory.

Are you saying that we should just seek to maximize the amount of resources available to children, the rights of others be damned?

The rights of the child are understandably privileged above those of those who sired him or her, but that does need to be balanced.

If a father dies while his wife is pregnant, would you support a law imposing child support obligations on the deceased father's brother? Why or why not?

Honestly, I don't know what you're trying to say here. The brother did not sire a child.

Do you oppose adoption? Adoption does not take any "resources" idea into account at all. A child put up for adoption may end up in foster care, bouncing from house to house. We don't view that as a violation of his/her rights. Should we?

This is part of the maximally prosocial outcomes thing I was talking about. We as a society decided that parents who don't believe that they can properly care for a child should be able to give that child to another family for adoption.

This is a choice we've made on behalf of the child, who would likely suffer more being raised by parents who didn't want him or her than if they are given to someone willing to care for them.

What about mother's who choose to raise a child on their own without telling the biological father? Because the law allows for that.

Most states have putative father registries and most states do indeed require mothers to name the father on their child's birth certificate. It is generally fathers themselves who don't want to be named.

Mothers are allowed to abdicate their financial responsibilities to their children unilaterally through adoption or safe havens.

Again, lets be clear: adoption and safe haven are gender-neutral. Fathers can use them just as well as mothers.

Couples are allowed to abdicate their financial responsibilities to their children through adoption or safe havens. A woman can unilaterally abdicate a father's financial responsibilities by simply not telling the father about the child.

I'm not sure what makes you believe otherwise, but states can and do go after fathers for child support. There are some thorny ethical and logistical issues regarding "requiring" a mother to seek support (if she had sex with fifty men, does she have to declare that to the state? Do they all have to take DNA tests? How do we regulate that - it's costly and time consuming and invasive.) but hey I'm not completely shut off to the idea, if it's workable.

The ONLY scenario that is illegal - is a father attempting to terminate his own financial obligations.

Because this is not pro-social. A child has two parents that sired him or her, and more money is good for that child.

[–]bostonbob19871 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I am going to try to keep this organized. But, I have two broad responses to the "pro social outcome" argument.

First, if a right exists, it does not matter if the law aims for a "pro social outcome." Take abortion as an example - there is an easy argument that preserving the sanctity of human life is a "pro social outcome." However, women have the right to an abortion, and therefore the intent of a law restricting abortion does not matter.

With legal paternal surrender, there are two potential rights arguments: The first is expanding on the logic in Roe v. Wade, Casey, and the cases that led up to Roe v. Wade and applying this concept of right to control your reproductive destiny to men. You have been very flippant about it - but an unplanned pregnancy can destroy a young man's life, just as it could a young woman's prior to Roe v. Wade.

The second rights argument for legal paternal surrender would be based on an equal protection idea. Now there's normally two ways a law can run afoul of equal protection - on its face, or in how it is applied. You keep pointing to the facial neutrality of many laws. But that's only half the story.

Using your logic on an issue like gay marriage, for example, I could say "banning gay marriage does not violate the Equal Protection Clause because the law is facially neutral. It is not just gay people who cannot marry members of the same sex, it is also straight people who cannot marry members of the same sex!"

With things like adoption and safe haven laws, their language is neutral - but how they apply is not. There is no practical way for a man to unilaterally use either of those laws. In contrast, it is incredibly easy for a woman to do so.

So, that is the "rights" argument.

The second broad argument I have against your "pro social outcomes" position is that I do not believe that the way the law is set up benefits positive social outcomes.

I think the most positive social outcome for a child is to be born into a family with two willing parents. Single motherhood is not good for children. The way the law is set up subsidizes and encourages single motherhood. The way the law is set up views fathers as nothing more than a wallet. But fatherhood is way more important than that to a child.

If you allow legal paternal surrender, you change the calculus a woman does before she decides to bring a child into the world. I think the net effect would be fewer single mothers, and more women waiting until they found a willing partner to have a child. This would be a positive social outcome.

So, those are my two broad arguments against your position. One, if a right exists, it does not matter if the law has good intentions. Two, I do not believe the law as it is set up benefits children, I think it encourages single motherhood which is bad for children.

Now, I am going to address what I view as some of the more important points you brought up. If I skip one you feel is important, feel free to tell me and I will respond.

Honestly, I don't know what you're trying to say here. The brother did not sire a child.

I am trying to get to the underlying reason why we hold mothers and fathers responsible for children, but not aunts, uncles, and grandparents. If we held aunts, uncles, and grandparents financially responsible - there would be more money for the child - a "pro social outcome." So, why don't we do it? Why does "siring" a child imply that you will be the ones, and only ones, to be financially held responsible for it?

The reason has to be that we hold the mother and father responsible because they are the ones whose actions directly led to a child being brought into the world. In other words, you choose to have sex, and you are responsible for the results of that choice.

Abortion changes this dynamic. A child does not exist because two people chose to have sex. Two people choosing to have sex creates a conception. It is not a life at conception. It only becomes a life if a woman chooses for it to do so. In this scenario, it makes no logical sense to hold an unwilling man responsible for a choice a woman made about her body.

Most states have putative father registries and most states do indeed require mothers to name the father on their child's birth certificate. It is generally fathers themselves who don't want to be named.

Putative father registries are bullshit. You have to register every single sexual partner you have with the state. And even then, all you get is notice of an adoption proceeding. The adoption can still go through over your objection.

We fuck over men who don't want to be fathers, and we also fuck over men who do want to be fathers. And nobody cares! It's fucking crazy to me.

states can and do go after fathers for child support.

Correct. Good point.

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

OK, I'm going to address something in the middle first. It's important.

If you want to address LPT, you really have to stop talking about abortion as being "unfair".

Abortion is 100% not part of the issue here. Abortion exists because of women's unique position as the gestators of children, and that, too, is unfair to them. Pretending like abortion is an "unfairness" that needs to be "righted" is a transparently bad argument, because anyone with two eyes can tell that biology is unfair.

You can and indeed need to argue for mens' right to abandon the children they've sired without talking about abortion.

Alright, to your points.

First, if a right exists, it does not matter if the law aims for a "pro social outcome." Take abortion as an example - there is an easy argument that preserving the sanctity of human life is a "pro social outcome." However, women have the right to an abortion, and therefore the intent of a law restricting abortion does not matter.

One, abandoning your living children is not a right. I don't know if that's what you're implying, but I wanted to make that clear.

Two, sure, that's an easy argument to make. We just prize bodily autonomy and medical privacy above abstract notions of a zygote's right to grow inside that woman, at least until about 20 weeks. It's one of the tradeoffs we make.

The first is expanding on the logic in Roe v. Wade, Casey, and the cases that led up to Roe v. Wade and applying this concept of right to control your reproductive destiny to men. You have been very flippant about it - but an unplanned pregnancy can destroy a young man's life, just as it could a young woman's prior to Roe v. Wade.

Back to abortion: this is an unfortunate set of biological facts that men have to deal with. It sucks, I admit. I'm a man myself, and I'd love to have the opportunity to take a mulligan on pregnancies! Unfortunately, nothing (like, no legal thought whatsoever, at all) affords men OR women the right to abandon a child they've sired outside of very narrow contexts like adoption and safe surrender, and even thoughts are FRAUGHT with complication.

To analogize, Roe gave women a razor scooter, and you're asking for a tank. They may both have wheels, but they are very different things.

With things like adoption and safe haven laws, their language is neutral - but how they apply is not. There is no practical way for a man to unilaterally use either of those laws. In contrast, it is incredibly easy for a woman to do so.

Unfortunately this is JUST FALSE. It so happens that more women are single parents than men (which is another complicating factor here that many LPT supporters ignore) which means they have more opportunities to use them.

HOWEVER, if any man is in an analogous situation as a woman, they have literally every single right afforded to them that women do. That's inarguable.

I think the most positive social outcome for a child is to be born into a family with two willing parents. Single motherhood is not good for children. The way the law is set up subsidizes and encourages single motherhood. The way the law is set up views fathers as nothing more than a wallet. But fatherhood is way more important than that to a child.

If you allow legal paternal surrender, you change the calculus a woman does before she decides to bring a child into the world. I think the net effect would be fewer single mothers, and more women waiting until they found a willing partner to have a child. This would be a positive social outcome.

This argument includes abortion. You can't use abortion here. Abortion is a right in America because of bodily autonomy and medical privacy, not because we want women to abandon their living children.

You really need to rethink your reliance on abortion as a rhetorical crutch. Because by the way, even assuming all these premises, abortion is still heavily curtailed. For your arguments that involve termination to make even a little sense, you need no-questions abortion clinics on every corner in America.

Why does "siring" a child imply that you will be the ones, and only ones, to be financially held responsible for it?

Because you made the decision to perform an act that has a chance of creating a child. Applying one person's potential consequences to another person is moral hazard.

Remember: "women can abort" is not an argument.

Putative father registries are bullshit. You have to register every single sexual partner you have with the state. And even then, all you get is notice of an adoption proceeding. The adoption can still go through over your objection.

Well, you said before "What about mother's who choose to raise a child on their own without telling the biological father? Because the law allows for that" and this is what they'd have to do to identify a father with the state, anyway. So you're kind of talking out of both sides of your mouth right now.

[–]bostonbob19871 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Pretending like abortion is an "unfairness" that needs to be "righted" is a transparently bad argument, because anyone with two eyes can tell that biology is unfair.

But when biological unfairness goes AGAINST women, the Federal Government typically steps in. For example, it is against the law to fire a woman for getting pregnant. "Suck it up, biology is unfair" did not win that argument.

Title IX requires colleges to provide equal athletic opportunities for women, despite the fact that women are biologically weaker in athletic activities. "Suck it up, biology is unfair" was the losing side of that argument as well.

But, you are sort of ignoring my broader point. I am not saying that abortion is unfair. I am saying that the existence of abortion fundamentally changes the paradigm that justified forcing an unwilling father to be financially responsible for children he sired.

Men's reproductive rights are still based on pre Roe v. Wade thinking. Nowhere is this more apparent than when this topic comes up, and you see a wall of "If you didn't want a baby, you should have kept it in your pants!" Even you did that in this very post.

One, abandoning your living children is not a right. I don't know if that's what you're implying, but I wanted to make that clear.

Legal paternal surrender would occur prior to the child existing. There is no child to abandon at that point. It's the same reason abortion is not murder, and the same reason why most jurisdictions give women criminal and civil immunity for fetal alcohol syndrome and other harm done to the child prior to birth. The logic is, you can't harm someone that does not technically exist.

And the use of the word "abandon" implies an obligation already exists. My position is that such an obligation should exist only if a man chooses for it to exist. It's an opt in idea. If he never opts in, then he never has an obligation. You can't abandon something you never had.

The man in such a scenario did the responsible thing - he said "I don't want a baby, I am not ready to be a father" and he opted out. The woman is the one who did the irresponsible thing by choosing to bring a child into the world without a willing partner. You brought up the concept of moral hazard - child support punishes a man for the irresponsible choices a woman made about her body!

This argument includes abortion. You can't use abortion here. Abortion is a right in America because of bodily autonomy and medical privacy, not because we want women to abandon their living children.

I cited you the case law that shows that a right to abortion is MUCH broader than "medical privacy" and "bodily autonomy." It is about reproductive freedom.

In fact, one of the things I am VERY excited to watch play out is artificial wombs. As soon as those things become viable, red states are going to start passing "all abortions get put into an artificial womb to gestate" laws. I am extremely interested in how the law will develop to account for that scenario.

For your arguments that involve termination to make even a little sense, you need no-questions abortion clinics on every corner in America.

Even without the existence of abortion, my argument would still likely work because adoption and safe haven laws would still exist.

However, I fundamentally reject your argument that abortion is irrelevant to a discussion of reproductive rights and responsibilities.

Because you made the decision to perform an act that has a chance of creating a child. Applying one person's potential consequences to another person is moral hazard.

This is one of the most popular arguments against abortion.

Why do you view 9 months of pregnancy as an unwarranted infringement on liberty based on the decision to have sex, but 18 - 26 years of financial obligation as not an unwarranted infringement on liberty for that same decision?

Well, you said before "What about mother's who choose to raise a child on their own without telling the biological father? Because the law allows for that" and this is what they'd have to do to identify a father with the state, anyway. So you're kind of talking out of both sides of your mouth right now.

No. I am saying that if the law really did put the child's interests above all others, then the same types of unreasonable restrictions and infringements on liberty the law places on men would also be placed on women. But they aren't. So clearly the law does NOT put the child's interests above all others. The mother's interests come first.

You take the position that the law places the child's interests above all others - yet I can not think of a single instance where a child's interests are put before the mother's (in terms of support, birth, things of that nature). Can you? Can you describe any scenario where a mother will be forced into an obligation for a child without her CHOOSING to be a mother?

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But when biological unfairness goes AGAINST women, the Federal Government typically steps in. For example, it is against the law to fire a woman for getting pregnant. "Suck it up, biology is unfair" did not win that argument.

Title IX requires colleges to provide equal athletic opportunities for women, despite the fact that women are biologically weaker in athletic activities. "Suck it up, biology is unfair" was the losing side of that argument as well.

This is not a reasonable argument from several angles, but to keep it simple, I will stick to one:

These things are not equal. Asserting a positive right to abandon a living child at a federal level doesn't even scrape the boots of Title IX or job protections. What you wrote is false equivalence at the highest scale.

And yes, the courts and lawmakers take that scale into account. "Fair" is only "fair" if these things are equal. They are not.

But, you are sort of ignoring my broader point. I am not saying that abortion is unfair. I am saying that the existence of abortion fundamentally changes the paradigm that justified forcing an unwilling father to be financially responsible for children he sired.

It doesn't. This is not true, and it is how you make your most fundamental mistake when arguing for this.

Abortion opened up a medical procedure for women to take advantage of because they gestate fetuses. It speaks in no way of parents' responsibilities after a child exists.

Legal paternal surrender would occur prior to the child existing.

This is a very bad argument. This is very specifically the type of argument that Casey and Roe avoid. A live child is different from a fetus, and live children have different rights from fetuses. This is a feature of our legal system, not a bug.

I'm ignoring everything after that, because you're applying a very bad standard that our legal system rejects on purpose. There is no right to positively reject one's living children.

I cited you the case law that shows that a right to abortion is MUCH broader than "medical privacy" and "bodily autonomy." It is about reproductive freedom.

No, you cited dicta. Dicta is the weakest part of case law and doesn't hold on appeal.

Even without the existence of abortion, my argument would still likely work because adoption and safe haven laws would still exist.

No, it wouldn't. We talked about this already.

Why do you view 9 months of pregnancy as an unwarranted infringement on liberty based on the decision to have sex, but 18 - 26 years of financial obligation as not an unwarranted infringement on liberty for that same decision?

One is based on bodily autonomy and medical privacy. The other is not.

Outside of esoteric reddit subreddits, every lawmaker realizes that the effect of increasing the number of single mothers by legalizing LPT is not pro-social, and that's why it's bad.

Can you describe any scenario where a mother will be forced into an obligation for a child without her CHOOSING to be a mother?

Sure. Mother gives birth and then splits. Father raises child with child support from mother. That's simple.

[–]bostonbob19871 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm ignoring everything after that, because you're applying a very bad standard that our legal system rejects on purpose. There is no right to positively reject one's living children.

Our legal system does not reject that logic. It was used to deny damages to future generations (in some of the environmental cases), it has been used to deny children born with fetal alcohol syndrome the ability to sue their mother, and it is absolutely a part of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

No, you cited dicta. Dicta is not case law. Dicta doesn't hold on appeal.

I am an attorney. However, I don't quite understand the sentences "Dicta is not case law" and "Dicta doesn't hold on appeal." And I have no idea how it even applies to this conversation.

One is based on bodily autonomy and medical privacy. The other is not.

So, bodily autonomy and medical privacy are just substantially more important than other types of autonomy?

What about the fact that the infringement on that autonomy is for a much shorter duration (9 months vs. 18 years)?

every lawmaker realizes that the effect of increasing the number of single mothers by legalizing LPT is not pro-social, and that's why it's bad.

Mothers who receive child support are still considered single mothers.

Also, how would reducing the subsidies provided to single mothers INCREASE the number of single mothers? The laws of economics do not apply to pregnant women? Not only do they not apply, they go backwards?

Sure. Mother gives birth and then splits. Father raises child with child support from mother.

In this scenario, the mother chose to carry the child to term, chose not to take advantage of safe haven laws, and chose not to put the child up for adoption.

So, she made three separate choices to be a mother, and then split.

However, even in this scenario, courts are less likely to award child support to a single father, award less in child support to single fathers, women have a higher rate of default on child support payments, but are punished much less severely.

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bostonbob19872 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Which points do you feel I ignored? I try to stay organized and attack your main points.

If you feel that I have ignored any of your main points, feel free to point out how and I will be happy to address them.

I assure you that I am not trying to dodge anything.

No legislature (be it state or federal) or high court will ever rule in favor of mens' right to abandon their living children.

I know that. Society is very uncomfortable with men deviating from their traditional gender role, and society typically has very little sympathy for men.

You can win hearts and minds by arguing for abortion by describing a scared and alone 16 year old girl.

If you point out that there is also a 16 year old boy in that scenario, who is also scared and alone, and that 16 year old boy has absolutely no control over his future, and is completely beholden to the choices that 16 year old girl makes, people respond with "Good! That bastard should have kept it in his pants!"

I don't know how to change that. But I am very much aware of it.

From a liberal perspective, you're significantly increasing the burden on mothers who are raising children without a father in the household.

Yes. I am holding women accountable for their own bad choices, which necessarily would increase the burden on women making those terrible choices.

I find it funny that you are the one that brought up moral hazard, while simultaneously arguing that men should subsidize women's poor choices.

I am always dumbfounded by people who take your position completely ignoring the role women's choices play in this scenario.

If a woman gets pregnant out of wedlock, chooses to carry that child to term against the wishes of the father, and chooses to try to raise the child on her own without the financial means to do so (instead of putting it up for adoption) that's not on me - that's on her.

From a conservative perspective, you're both encouraging sex out of wedlock and you're discouraging personal responsibility for the sex you've had.

...to the same extent that abortion, adoption, and safe havens do.

From a theoretical, ethical, and practical perspective, what you propose is a social impossibility.

I really don't see how it is any different from safe havens or adoption.

I mean, quite literally, the only difference between a situation where a baby is dropped off at a safe haven or put up for adoption, is the mother is refusing to sign off on it.

You keep skipping a step. You jump from "Men exercising Legal Paternal Surrender results in children being raised by single mothers!" No. It doesn't. Legal paternal surrender only results in children being raised by single mothers if the mother in the situation chooses not to have an abortion, chooses not to put the child up for adoption, and chooses not to utilize a safe haven. Why do you keep ignoring all of those choices the women in these scenarios are making?

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bostonbob19871 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]revengeofthedirty471 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bostonbob19871 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Alright, I was having a bad night here. You skipped some of my logic, but that's OK. Let's see if I can be more clear.

Yes. I am holding women accountable for their own bad choices, which necessarily would increase the burden on women making those terrible choices.

I find it funny that you are the one that brought up moral hazard, while simultaneously arguing that men should subsidize women's poor choices.

I am always dumbfounded by people who take your position completely ignoring the role women's choices play in this scenario.

If a woman gets pregnant out of wedlock, chooses to carry that child to term against the wishes of the father, and chooses to try to raise the child on her own without the financial means to do so (instead of putting it up for adoption) that's not on me - that's on her.

One and a half things here. The half: giving women this ultimatum isn't reasonable. Once conception occurs, there is a burden that could be life or health threatening: abortion or pregnancy. Both have a nonzero risk of death or complications, hence no-one can impose the choice or coerce it.

If a male can say "either you abort or you pay the whole child support alone" you are imposing a health related decision, as well as unfair for a born child product of consented sex between two adults.

Body right trumps pregnancy integrity. Child rights trumps financial freedom. As simple as that. Use condoms, don't cum into people you don't trust and be a responsible adult, like when you drive, look for jobs, choose a career, drink, invest or have sex.

Two:

chooses to try to raise the child on her own without the financial means to do so (instead of putting it up for adoption) that's not on me - that's on her.

No, that disproportionately lands on the child. Child support is for the child.

I really don't see how it is any different from safe havens or adoption.

I explained this already. Safe havens and adoption are imperfect solutions. Legal paternal surrender, and the withdrawal of parental support to a child that results, is not pro-social.

The most prosocial scenario is a child raised by two parents. The second-best scenario is being raised by one parent with the financial support of the other. Safe haven and adoption rank far below those. That's why this is a political impossibility.

[–]bostonbob19871 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's not an ultimatum. It is simply informing the mother that the father has no interest in being a father, and chooses to relinquish all rights and responsibilities. The mother is then free to make her own choice. She can choose to abort. She can choose to carry the baby to term and put it up for adoption. She can choose to carry the baby to term and raise it herself.

There is no coercion. Refusing to pay for the consequences of another person's choice is not coercing them.

I do believe that if a father chooses LPS and the mother chooses abortion, she should be able to recoup half the cost of the procedure. That seems logical.

Child support is for the child.

I find this line of reasoning unpersuasive because the ONLY scenario it seems to show up in is when the father does not want the child but the mother does.

Basically, make a graph of all the possibilities of the two parents wanting the child / not wanting the child. There are four such scenarios: both parents want, neither parent wants, father wants mother doesn't, mother wants father doesn't.

In three out of those four scenarios, we allow the "right" of the child to support to be trumped by the parents' choices. That is a very weak right.

You call abortion and safe haven laws "imperfect solutions" - imperfect solutions to what problem? Why do we look for "imperfect solutions" in three of the above scenarios but not the fourth?

The most prosocial scenario is a child raised by two parents.

And legal paternal surrender, by reducing the benefits afforded to being a single mother, makes the most pro social solution more likely - not less likely.

You brought up the concept of moral hazard. Legal paternal surrender reduces moral hazard.

The second best scenario is being raised by one parent with the financial support of the other.

If it's about the rights of the child - why not expand that to financial support from aunts, uncles, and grandparents?

You stated earlier it is because it should be limited to those who "sired" the child. Why? If it's about the child - why not expand it beyond that?

That's why this is a political impossibility.

I agree that it is a political impossibility. But not for the same reasons as you.

Society has always been very geared towards having men financially support women and children. A lot of our laws were built around making sure that men financially support women and children.

Legal paternal surrender runs directly up against the full force of traditionalism. People just have a very visceral reaction to men not wanting to pay for women and children. You can get the most liberal, feminist-friendly person to sound like a right wing conservative if you suggest that men should have a choice. They will say "They made their choice when they chose to have sex!" Which is hilarious. You get called a misogynist if you say that about women and abortion.

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's not an ultimatum. It is simply informing the mother that the father has no interest in being a father, and chooses to relinquish all rights and responsibilities. The mother is then free to make her own choice. She can choose to abort. She can choose to carry the baby to term and put it up for adoption. She can choose to carry the baby to term and raise it herself.

There is no coercion. Refusing to pay for the consequences of another person's choice is not coercing them.

You write this, but it's not true. You're ignoring that pregnant women are themselves agents who will consider whether or not a child they bring to term will be properly provided for by both its sires.

Whether you like it or not, this changes a pregnant woman's calculus. That's coercion. You might believe that's an acceptable coercive framework, but don't pretend like it's not.

I do believe that if a father chooses LPS and the mother chooses abortion, she should be able to recoup half the cost of the procedure. That seems logical.

Well, you'll have a huge uptick in women who "just thought they were getting fat" and "missing their periods". Then you'll get a bunch of lawsuits because men don't think their right to paternal surrender was respected because the fetus was past abortion term by the time they were informed.

This is all evidence of why your idea is bad.

There are four such scenarios: both parents want,

Sweet. No argument.

neither parent wants,

Sometimes sweet. If this is caught during the time in which a woman can have an abortion, then this is fixable. If not, this isn't just a handwave away.

This is the problem with your rhetoric. You treat women like they're just pregnancy machines with simple inputs and outputs. There is no morality, no ethics, no difficult decisions, no legal restrictions. It's just zygote -> fetus -> pregnancy -> baby.

For many many reasons, women aren't machines to be project managed.

father wants mother doesn't,

This runs up against bodily autonomy, which is far above financial autonomy or any other right on earth, as it should be. But we already know this, so it's probably not worth fighting about.

mother wants father doesn't.

This is the only situation in which there is a child. Not a zygote, not a fetus, a child. So when you write "In three out of those four scenarios, we allow the "right" of the child to support to be trumped by the parents' choices. That is a very weak right." you're ignoring the existence of real, actual children. Not zygotes. Not fetuses.

You call abortion and safe haven laws "imperfect solutions" - imperfect solutions to what problem? Why do we look for "imperfect solutions" in three of the above scenarios but not the fourth?

Because we want to raise innocent children (who had no way to impact the situation before their birth) in a way that gives them the best opportunity to succeed.

Child support from the man who sired them helps achieve that.

And legal paternal surrender, by reducing the benefits afforded to being a single mother, makes the most pro social solution more likely - not less likely.

No, this is mental gymnastics. More money for the child is good, full stop. What you're writing is very very wrong.

You brought up the concept of moral hazard. Legal paternal surrender reduces moral hazard.

Again, not right. Literally wrong.

If it's about the rights of the child - why not expand that to financial support from aunts, uncles, and grandparents?

These family members bear no responsibility for the existence of a child. The man who sired him/her does. This is very simple.

They will say "They made their choice when they chose to have sex!" Which is hilarious. You get called a misogynist if you say that about women and abortion.

I picked a quote from your last point to respond to: again, body right trumps pregnancy integrity. Child rights trumps financial freedom. These aren't traditionalism, these are just the very basis of humanity.

[–]bostonbob19871 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"Changing the calculus" is not coercion.

As far as your "Women will lie to men, therefore your idea is bad" argument - those problems are easy to get around. Tie the right to legal paternal surrender to the notice of pregnancy/child. Guy has three months from learning of a pregnancy or child to exercise the right. Whether a particular man received notice would be an issue of fact, easily handled by our court system.

This is the only situation in which there is a child. Not a zygote, not a fetus, a child. So when you write "In three out of those four scenarios, we allow the "right" of the child to support to be trumped by the parents' choices. That is a very weak right." you're ignoring the existence of real, actual children. Not zygotes. Not fetuses.

My examples were meant to talk about adoption and safe havens - not abortion.

A man and woman, together, can terminate their financial obligations to a child via adoption or safe haven.

A woman, alone, can terminate her (and the father's) financial obligation unilaterally via adoption or safe haven. There is a slim chance she will not be able to use adoption if the father signed a putative father registry - but even then she can almost always terminate her own financial obligations (oftentimes, if a father is able to block an adoption, they will reach an agreement that the mother will not be responsible for child support in exchange for her not seeking custody - technically not enforceable by a Court, but very much enforceable between the parties).

A man, alone, is the only one who can't terminate his financial obligation.

Child support from the man who sired them helps achieve that.

So would child support from aunts, uncles, and grandparents...would you support a law that assessed child support against those relations to the child? Why not?

body right trumps pregnancy integrity.

Right - but when a woman chooses to have sex, she already made a choice about her body, right?

Child rights trumps financial freedom.

Again - why doesn't this idea hold for adoption and safe haven laws? Why don't we assess child support payments to women and couples who place children up for adoption or use safe havens?

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"Changing the calculus" is not coercion.

This is just not true as a general proposition. You can slice and dice what types of coercion we should be OK with as a society, but it's always going to be coercive. It's baked into the concept of childrearing; you're just wildly wrong about this.

As far as your "Women will lie to men, therefore your idea is bad" argument - those problems are easy to get around. Tie the right to legal paternal surrender to the notice of pregnancy/child. Guy has three months from learning of a pregnancy or child to exercise the right. Whether a particular man received notice would be an issue of fact, easily handled by our court system.

Well, OK, woman doesn't notice she's pregnant until past abortion period. You're saying that a man has the option to opt out until after that?

You're really digging your idea a hole, here.

My examples were meant to talk about adoption and safe havens - not abortion.

Exactly. That's the problem. We heavily incentivize not those things because they are subideal for the (innocent, non-agent) child.

Disincentivizing those things is the right thing to do, and 90%-plus of society agrees, because the child is innocent in this situation.

You are arguing both that a man refusing to pay for a child coerces the woman, and that it will not impact her decision-making process. Choose one. You can't argue both and remain consistent.

False. You keep skipping over the idea that a child exists. That's the problem: you are hung up on gestation and have no interest in child-existence. You are intentionally existing in a logical nether-realm.

Right - but when a woman chooses to have sex, she already made a choice about her body, right?

No! That's the magic part. It sucks for men. Really, it sucks. Sucks sucks sucks.

The idea that women gestate sucks for us men. Sucks. It's shitty. Terrible.

Have you seen the IUD-holding infant that was in the news today? Look at that shit, then tell me that a woman "just made her choice".

Again - why doesn't this idea hold for adoption and safe haven laws? Why don't we assess child support payments to women and couples who place children up for adoption or use safe havens?

I already explained this. Quit bringing it up and just hit the "Parent" link on reddit.

[–]bostonbob19871 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This is just not true as a general proposition. You can slice and dice what types of coercion we should be OK with as a society, but it's always going to be coercive. It's baked into the concept of childrearing; you're just wildly wrong about this.

I don't understand what you mean.

Would me telling a woman that I do not want to be a father also be coercion?

I don't understand what definition of coercion you are using.

Well, OK, woman doesn't notice she's pregnant until past abortion period. You're saying that a man has the option to opt out until after that?

I am saying that a man should not be forced into being financially responsible for a child against his will. That's my main point. The particulars of how that right is exercised, etc. can easily be worked out.

You keep skipping over the idea that a child exists. That's the problem: you are hung up on gestation and have no interest in child-existence.

I am not skipping over that fact. I just recognize that a child exists BECAUSE A WOMAN CHOSE FOR IT TO EXIST. If she makes that choice unilaterally without the input from the father, and explicitly against the father's wishes, then the father should not be held financially responsible.

It's that simple.

You keep arguing that a child has a right to support from its parents. I counter by pointing out that if that were true, we would seek child support payments from parents who put their children up for adoption or drop children off at a safe haven - but we don't, therefore no such right exists.

And then we hit an impasse.

I just don't understand why in a scenario where I don't want to be a father, whether or not I am on the hook for 18 years of child support payments depends entirely on whether the mother agrees to put the child up for adoption.

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Would me telling a woman that I do not want to be a father also be coercion?

Coercion is using force or threats. A threat of withdrawing the funds necessary to raise a healthy child is coercion.

The particulars of how that right is exercised, etc. can easily be worked out.

No, see, this is bullshit handwaving. The details are extremely important here, and when I press you on them, you back out by saying "the particulars can be worked out". No, it doesn't work that way.

I am not skipping over that fact. I just recognize that a child exists BECAUSE A WOMAN CHOSE FOR IT TO EXIST. If she makes that choice unilaterally without the input from the father, and explicitly against the father's wishes, then the father should not be held financially responsible.

I will repeat all this again.

You frame inaction as action. A woman not making it to an abortion clinic is not a positive choice to have a child.

Further, this is a deeply pointless conversation to have until abortion is easy to access for every single fertile woman. EVERY SINGLE ONE.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/maps-of-access-to-abortion-by-state/

If you want to see this come to fruition, your best shot is to start campaigning for an abortion clinic inside every Starbucks.

Again: no matter what a woman "chooses" (and I use your phrasing there only to keep this conversation going), if there is a child that you sired, it needs support. It absolutely does not matter what the woman did or did not do.

The innocent child's right to financial support are more important than your right not to pay child support.

You keep arguing that a child has a right to support from its parents. I counter by pointing out that if that were true, we would seek child support payments from parents who put their children up for adoption or drop children off at a safe haven - but we don't, therefore no such right exists.

I will repeat what I wrote before in the hope that it sinks in.

We allow for adoption and safe havens because, all other things equal, we want to maximize prosocial outcomes. We as a society decided that parents who don't believe that they can properly care for a child should be able to give that child to another family for adoption. This is a choice we've made on behalf of the child, who would likely suffer more being raised by parents who didn't want him or her than if they are given to someone willing to care for them.

I will further AGAIN note that adoption and safe havens are gender neutral.

I just don't understand why in a scenario where I don't want to be a father, whether or not I am on the hook for 18 years of child support payments depends entirely on whether the mother agrees to put the child up for adoption.

Because you sired a child, children are expensive, and the innocent child's right to support trumps your right not to pay child support.

[–]bostonbob19871 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Coercion is using force or threats. A threat of withdrawing the funds necessary to raise a healthy child is coercion.

But a threat of withdrawing the presence of a fatherly figure necessary to raise a healthy child is not?

The details are extremely important here, and when I press you on them, you back out by saying "the particulars can be worked out". No, it doesn't work that way.

Well, the details are quite easy.

There are two really easy ways to do it. Either you tie the running of a particular period to notice of a pregnancy or child, or you go with an "opt in" system where unless a father chooses to opt in, he has no responsibilities. The opt in can also have a time limit based on when the father receives notice.

You frame inaction as action. A woman not making it to an abortion clinic is not a positive choice to have a child.

A woman not making it to an abortion clinic, and then choosing not to put the child up for adoption, is a positive choice to have and be responsible for a child.

Like I keep trying to tell you - even without abortion, it is very easy for a woman to unilaterally terminate her obligations to the child. There is no practical way to force a woman to be financially responsible for a child unless she affirmatively chooses so. I think the same should be true for men.

We as a society decided that parents who don't believe that they can properly care for a child should be able to give that child to another family for adoption. This is a choice we've made on behalf of the child, who would likely suffer more being raised by parents who didn't want him or her than if they are given to someone willing to care for them

And why aren't parents who put their children up for adoption charged with child support?

Would't that be more pro social? A lot of kids put up for adoption end up being supported by the state.

I will further AGAIN note that adoption and safe havens are gender neutral.

First, no they are not. Most adoption statutes treat men and women very differently on their face. If a man put a child up for adoption without the mother's knowledge or consent, then he would likely be guilty of kidnapping. A mother can put a child up for adoption without the father's knowledge or consent so long as the father did not sign up for a putative father registry. And even if he did, all he would get is notice of the adoption proceedings and a chance to object - the adoption could still go through over his objection.

Generally, courts will require a father objecting to an adoption to show that he provided financial support to the mother during her pregnancy.

So, that's the first point - these laws are not gender neutral.

The second point is that even if a law is gender neutral on its face, it can still be discriminatory in practice.

Because you sired a child, children are expensive, and the innocent child's right to support trumps your right not to pay child support.

Here is the thing about me - I very strongly support legal paternal surrender. Personally, I would never in a million years exercise it. Why? Because I believe it is very important for a child to have a father, and I would never let a child of mine go without a father figure if I can help it.

But here's the fucked up part - the law fucks guys like me over too. There is nothing stopping a woman who ended up pregnant by me, from hiding that pregnancy from me and from choosing to try and raise that child on her own.

If I find out about that kid 10 years after it's born and try desperately to get involved with the child's life, the law will do absolutely nothing to punish the mother for what she has done. Moreover, I will have pretty much no chance whatsoever of winning any sort of custody. The mother has been taking care of that kid for 10 years, the law is not going to help me.

All the law will do, is assess back child support against me (for a kid I didn't even know about at the time!) and start putting liens on my property and taking away my driver's license and all that shit.

So, I get very frustrated when people like you insist there is some sort of "rights of the child" idea that trumps all others. We let mothers run roughshod over the rights of the child. We already have "legal paternal surrender," it's just that it can only be exercised by women.

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But a threat of withdrawing the presence of a fatherly figure necessary to raise a healthy child is not?

I don't know what you mean by this, but it doesn't really matter. Your idea has so many holes that debating the definition of "coercion" isn't really productive.

Like I keep trying to tell you - even without abortion, it is very easy for a woman to unilaterally terminate her obligations to the child. There is no practical way to force a woman to be financially responsible for a child unless she affirmatively chooses so. I think the same should be true for men.

Are you talking about women who choose to have an abortion? If so, those things are not equivalent. If not, the law is gender neutral. This is not a good point.

Either you tie the running of a particular period to notice of a pregnancy or child, or you go with an "opt in" system where unless a father chooses to opt in, he has no responsibilities. The opt in can also have a time limit based on when the father receives notice.

So you're ignoring my "what if it's past the abortion cutoff" question and just stating this outright. OK.

And why aren't parents who put their children up for adoption charged with child support?

Because we as a society recognize that nine months of pregnancy and a lot of pain upon delivery weed out all but the most desperate girls and women from putting their kid up for adoption.

Honestly, this question strikes me as painfully naïve.

First, no... gender neutral.

I need longitudinal studies on this. Citations. Lots of them. This is hyperbole and you need to back it up.

There is nothing stopping a woman who ended up pregnant by me, from hiding that pregnancy from me and from choosing to try and raise that child on her own.

This is an unfortunate result of basic biology, you're right. This is why we have the putative fathers' registry. If you wanted to strengthen that, by all means, I support you in trying to do so.

I would like to point out that you've repeatedly ignored the two biggest problems with your logic.

1: abortion rights are by no means universal

2: you are alright with the innocent child getting the short end of the stick in this deal

[–]bostonbob19871 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So you're ignoring my "what if it's past the abortion cutoff" question and just stating this outright. OK.

The answer to your question is - yes, even if it is past the abortion cutoff.

Any other rule would simply incentivize keeping pregnancies secret until the time period runs out.

I don't quite understand your angle on this point.

Because we as a society recognize that nine months of pregnancy and a lot of pain upon delivery weed out all but the most desperate girls and women from putting their kid up for adoption.

What? I don't understand what you mean. Why does "desperation" matter?

I thought it was all about the "rights" of the child - now you are factoring in the "desperation" of the mother?

I need longitudinal studies on this. Citations. Lots of them. This is hyperbole and you need to back it up.

Longitudinal studies on statutory language? What the fuck does that even mean?

And what point are you objecting to that you want me to support?

Generally, states require men to prove paternity, whereas maternity is just sort of assumed as a default.

Here's a good overview, with quotes from relevant statutory language:

https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/putative.pdf

So, a mother can put a child up for adoption if a father has not taken the steps to prove paternity (which typically includes providing financial support to the mother). There is no way for a father to put a child up for adoption without the mother's consent. Therefore the law is clearly not gender neutral on its face.

abortion rights are by no means universal

My position does not require them to be. Like I keep saying, a woman has the ability to unilaterally terminate hers (and the father's) financial obligations to a child without the use of abortion.

you are alright with the innocent child getting the short end of the stick in this deal

I am "alright" with it to the same extent I am "alright" with all of the other scenarios where the kid gets the short end of the stick.

For example, a child born via an anonymous sperm donor is getting "the short end of the stick" by being denied a father. Yet we allow it. I would not support a law banning the practice. Even though it leads to certain children getting "the short end of the stick" in some ways, it would be a violation of reproductive freedom to ban the practice.

However, I think in the long run my idea leads to fewer children getting the short end of the stick because it removes an incentive women have for choosing to be a parent unilaterally. I think it incentivizes waiting for a willing partner, which I think is the more "pro social" policy.

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't quite understand your angle on this point.

Well, you'd be stranding a bunch of pregnant ladies (and their resulting alive children) in quite a pickle, there. That's generally not considered a prosocial outcome.

What? I don't understand what you mean. Why does "desperation" matter?

Because we as a society decided that placing undue burdens on desperate women who just endured nine months of pregnancy who then still gave their infant child up for adoption is a bad thing.

Generally, states require men to prove paternity, whereas maternity is just sort of assumed as a default.

This is because women... birth children. They are obviously the mother.

I really can't tell if this is sarcastic or...? Also, your citation doesn't really indicate what you wrote at all. I don't know why you linked it.

My position does not require them to be. Like I keep saying, a woman has the ability to unilaterally terminate hers (and the father's) financial obligations to a child without the use of abortion.

So strengthen putative father registries. Give men more investment in their children.

However, I think in the long run my idea leads to fewer children getting the short end of the stick because it removes an incentive women have for choosing to be a parent unilaterally. I think it incentivizes waiting for a willing partner, which I think is the more "pro social" policy.

Holy hell, thank god you are not in charge of public policy in this country, because buh god.

As far as I can tell, you are the person who's most articulately described LPT's major points, and I come away further convinced that your idea is literally the worst idea to come out of western society since leeches and bloodletting.

I appreciate the opportunity to sharpen my rhetorical knives. Please take the last word. After you post whatever you'd like, I'll thank you for your time.

[–]bostonbob19871 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Badgerz92 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aeternalis_ 21 points22 points23 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]deaftoexcuses 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Badgerz92 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aeternalis_ 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SodaPalooza 21 points22 points23 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Doobie_34959 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Chewiemuse 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Meyright 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_unseen_one 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]DevilishRogue[S] 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]the_unseen_one 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Badgerz92 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]iSonikz 21 points22 points23 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]This_is_my_phone_tho 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DevilishRogue[S] 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]iSonikz 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Badgerz92 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cdn_herbivore_man 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DevilishRogue[S] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Badgerz92 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This is why I can't support menslib. It's not just that the mods think this way and completely disregard arguments like why feminists have opposed these laws (NOW has said it's because fathers who want custody are abusive), or that fathers don't seek custody because it's extremely expensive and time-consuming for men, or that abusive and drug addicted parents fall outside the presumption for joint custody, or that fathers who are abused can't leave the marriage without giving up their children.

More than that, it's the fact that nobody is even allowed to bring those arguments up. At least /r/mensrights allows different opinions. I've disagreed with mods here about many issues. Sometimes I'll get downvoted, but never had a comment deleted and certainly not banned. But if you disagree with a mod on menslib, you're comment will be deleted and they'll probably ban you too. The sub is just a circle-jerk where everybody can talk about how feminism is great and MRAs are the true sexists because we want fathers to be as involved with their children as mothers.

[–]DevilishRogue[S] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Juan_Golt 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HotDealsInTexas 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]HotDealsInTexas 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cuteman 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kingsidam 31 points32 points33 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]HeForeverBleeds 20 points21 points22 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]--Visionary-- 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]HasAnArchmageFetish points 9 years ago* [recovered] (9 children) | Copy Link

You'd think a subreddit that touts itself on solutions based approach to men's issues would have even the slightest bit of activism. But no its all about role models and toxic masculinity.

[–]Dewey_Darl 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Badgerz92 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]sneakpeekbot 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dewey_Darl -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Badgerz92 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]--Visionary-- 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dewey_Darl 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]--Visionary-- 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm simply stating facts and letting the reader come to their own conclusions.

Yeah, implicitly juxtaposing upvotes with activism is the hallmark of just stating facts. Next time post a photo of a cute puppy and see how much more "activism" you can claim.

I'm also comfortable letting the reader come to their own conclusion about your apparent outrage at the fact that we're promoting an organization that helps gay men.

Sure broski. If only you'd help the swaths of other men that don't fit identity bingo politics of feminists, that'd be cool too. Oh wait. You'd be unable to juxtapose the words "toxic" with "man" with the regularity it deserves, which, apparently, is the most pressing liberation issue facing men according to your theocracy. My bad. Must work well on men contemplating things like suicide.

Please, please keep going.

Certainly. We're thankfully in a place which doesn't have some ludicrous notion that men are in some constant state of "toxicity" and, most importantly, where you can't ban hammer those you disagree with. Oops.

[–]Badgerz92 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Badgerz92 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cant_Ban_All_MRAs 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

LOL. Poor /u/terminal-psychosis got hammered down to -70 for calling this out for what it was - an exercise in feminist hand-waving devoid of relevant sources.

Still, it all good from where I'm sitting. /r/MensLib has already garnered subscriptions from most of the active feminist posters on Reddit. The only way it can grow now is to pull in moderates who would never participate here in /r/MensRights. The day will soon come the misandrists will be outnumbered in their own subreddit. The moderates will chafe at the inadequacies of standard feminist boilerplate and their little dictator, /u/ciceros_assassin, won't be able to ban/delete fast enough.

/r/MensRights is already the largest subreddit focused on gender issues. I wish /r/MenLib the very best in growing the second biggest (or even more!), so that literally everyone will be talking about the very real problems that men face.

About fucking time!

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Terminal-Psychosis 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]_Aether__ 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Celda 43 points44 points45 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Simple, it's a lie. He claimed that fathers get custody more often than not, if they ask for it.

For instance, here's one study from 2002 https://wakespace.lib.wfu.edu/bitstream/handle/10339/26167/Back%20to%20the%20Future%20%20An%20Empirical%20Study%20of%20Child%20Custody%20Outcomes%20%20(SSRN).pdf

Of the custody
resolution events awarding physical custody either to mother or
father or jointly, the mother received primary physical custody in
71.9% of the cases (235/327). The father received primary physical
custody in 12.8% of the cases (42/327).

But that's just because fathers just don't ask for or want custody right?

If the plaintiff was the mother and sought primary physical custody, she got it in 81.5% of the cases (145/178). If the plaintiff was the father and sought physical custody, he received it in 33.7% of the cases
(29/86).

Wait nope - men who seek custody are heavily discriminated against.

And keep in mind - that is only the biased subset of fathers who are rich enough and motivated enough to fight for custody, knowing that family court is heavily biased against fathers.

[–]_Aether__ 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Thank you for the response and the source, although I'm not sure what he said was a lie.

The study he linked http://amptoons.com/blog/files/Massachusetts_Gender_Bias_Study.htm says:

We began our investigation of child custody aware of a common perception that there is a bias in favor of women in these decisions. Our research contradicted this perception. Although mothers more frequently get primary physical custody of children following divorce, this practice does not reflect bias but rather the agreement of the parties and the fact that, in most families, mothers have been the primary [*748] caretakers of children. Fathers who actively seek custody obtain either primary or joint physical custody over 70% of the time. Reports indicate, however, that in some cases perceptions of gender bias may discourage fathers from seeking custody and stereotypes about fathers may sometimes affect case outcomes. In general, our evidence suggests that the courts hold higher standards for mothers than fathers in custody determinations.

[–]Celda 22 points23 points24 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kingsidam 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Halafax 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Stephen_Morgan 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DevilishRogue[S] 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Shockingly biased and poorly informed post by family lawyer from r/MensLib gets posted to r/BestOf and the comments are the most ignorant and hypocritical imaginable with the few sane voices heavily downvoted

Comments

Adoption, safe haven, and paying child support. Same as women.

1: abortion rights are by no means universal

2: you are alright with the innocent child getting the short end of the stick in this deal