Cosign CrosbyBird's #1600.

I guess I am puzzled why anyone would think that genetics means nothing and society should pick up the bill.

Aside. Joe Biden looks like a super villain behind Obama (and not in a good way).

Isn't this a strong argument for a strong safety net, and the spreading among many rather than one the cost of a woman's decision to have a child?

It could be. It just so happens that I think there is a significant responsibility component to unwanted children, both in the selection of a sexual partner and the proper use of birth control. The overwhelming majority of unwanted pregnancies are negligent, not merely accident. Birth control isn't perfect, of course, but used properly, it is very reliable; the failure rate is almost always user error.

I simply disagree. I think you're making the "genetic connection" as an excuse for the status quo. There's no logical necessity in maintaining it in a modernist society.

I don't care one bit about the status quo. I care about what is reasonable and practical.

Even if there is no moral component to one's genetic relations (which I'd question, but recognize as an assumption), I think it's practically certain that people would behave far less responsibly sexually with the knowledge that society foots the bill. And I think that would lead to more unintentional pregnancies, which would cost a whole lot of money for everyone.

The reality is that it's generally irresponsible (assuming you don't want to have and pay for a child) to have sex with someone that can't support a child on her own and yet would choose neither abortion or adoption. I wouldn't pick that sort of woman as a sexual partner. I don't think it is reasonable for the rest of society to subsidize people that don't take the issue seriously enough to explore that possibility. (If the alternative is for the child to do without, then I think we don't have a choice.)

@1604 is the best counter argument to date.

I wouldn't say no justification. There are moral and pragmatic reasons for holding biological parents responsible for the welfare of their offspring

While there's evidence of models that don't agree, I don't think that they are particularly good models for a civilized modern society. This whole thread is an ought discussion, and built into any such discussion is "given certain basic assumptions about right and wrong."

What are these reason and assumptions and bases? Just saying they exist but not specifying what they are and why they are what you think they are is nothing. Then answer why can’t they changed, since they sure as hell have changed wrt the mother and the fetus/child. Actually, they’ve changed, in a negative way, for the father. So why can’t the system be changed to comport w/ reality? Doing that is always, I would think, a good working assumption. Why is it written in stone as to his duties when we know they haven’t been wrt hers?

I don't think it has to be that way. I just think it should be that way.

What should be what way? And why?

My position: You can't leave a child without proper care in a modern, civilized nation; someone has to pay.

Of course, you can’t leave a child without proper care—in any community. What’s that got to do with the sperm-donor who doesn’t want to be a father? You need more to create an obligation than a yearning and a loss for coming up with anything better.

It's more reasonable to charge the genetic parents with that care than to spread the burden throughout society if possible. The woman's decision as to whether or not to bring the child to term doesn't have any effect on the child's claim to support from its genetic parents.

Rank assertion and nothing more. What you saw is belied by history. When did we decide to deify this child—a child a few weeks earlier she could have killed? In fact, isn’t he just a pawn here?

The physical, emotional, and cultural consequences of abortion or carrying a child to term fall so disproportionately upon the woman that it isn't unreasonable or unfair for her to have ultimate right to choose,

More naked assertions based on those assumptions you don’t want to go into, but even so, for the purposes of argument, I object to assuming this. First, she chose to do that. Second, the procedure to correct that, we are told by abortion advocates when pro-lifers would have her to undergo counseling or even just talking about the consequences with a doctor, in the first trimester is trivial. Third, even so, how do you know it is disproportionate to the father abdicating his fatherhood and all that entails, legally and psychologically? How do you know he takes it lightly? Why do you think he doesn’t suffer social condemnation?

Assumptions, assumptions, who’s got the home-field assumption wins? Every time.

What is the argument?

I don't care one bit about the status quo. I care about what is reasonable and practical.

Yet, since you defend the status quo, you must think is reasonable and practical, right?

How reasonable, how practical. Most reasonable, most practical? Why would you think that? Merely reasonable, and merely practical, doesn’t seem very demanding. Most anything can pass under that limbo stick.

Even if there is no moral component to one's genetic relations (which I'd question, but recognize as an assumption), I think it's practically certain that people would behave far less responsibly sexually with the knowledge that society foots the bill. And I think that would lead to more unintentional pregnancies, which would cost a whole lot of money for everyone.

Society is not footing a large part of the bill now? There was a time when it didn’t, and there was less illegitimacy, and as it increased its involvement, there became more. Is that what you mean by less responsible? Seems then you should be for less of that, not more, which is what you get when you subsidize the breaking up of marriages and families.

The moral component is one inflicted socially and through society’s institutions.

The reality is that it's generally irresponsible (assuming you don't want to have and pay for a child) to have sex with someone that can't support a child on her own and yet would choose neither abortion or adoption. I wouldn't pick that sort of woman as a sexual partner. I don't think it is reasonable for the rest of society to subsidize people that don't take the issue seriously enough to explore that possibility. (If the alternative is for the child to do without, then I think we don't have a choice.)

That’s cute. He’s to blame because he couldn’t divine that she wasn’t responsible; the blame isn’t on her for wanting to have sex when she isn’t responsible. That’s a beaut. Is that what’s reasonable in your estimation?

It could be. It just so happens that I think there is a significant responsibility component to unwanted children, both in the selection of a sexual partner and the proper use of birth control.

Does that work both ways—that selection of a s. partner and the p. use of bc? Indeed, why since its her body and her fetus and her choice to allow it to continue to term doesn’t she bear a responsibility commensurate with her autonomy? That’s the question.

Here's a practical suggestion, that should satisfy the concerns of all parties to the discussion: Month by month the state lends the woman the amount it would otherwise award in child support, and the woman repays it over time, probably most often after the child leaves home. The child's needs are looked after not one whit less than if the money is taken from the man, but here, the responsible party incurs the debt necessary to raising the child. The woman can always reject payment from the state, which in any case does not affect adversely her or the child's eligibility for social insurance programs.

It's a side issue, but we might also want to establish a 'not interested' registry where, without giving offense to the woman in question on a Saturday night, any man who is not interested in supporting a child enters his name. The registry is completely public and immunizes the man against support claims, and puts the onus for support entirely on the responsible party. It also avoids the sticky and unlikely business of the parties contracting in advance of every individual sexual encounter.

To refine the point, to negate surreptitious, last minute 'corrections' to the list ("Sweetheart, I'll be right back. I forgot something..."), we might decide that changes to be effective have to be made one week in advance.

Perhaps you'll next discover which one of those two sexes bears the entire brunt of gestation and childbirth, and we can then proceed from there.

Women have been given the freedom to negate and avoid this "brunt." Have you not noticed?

It's also hard not to notice that women intent on not getting pregnant rarely do so. First, they can abstain from sex, as men who are unwilling to have children are urged to do by some posters. Second, and more reasonably, she can insist the man use a condom. Combine with that The Pill and the chance in a given year she'll become unintentionally pregnant is around 2 in 10,000.

2 in 10,000.

So, fundamentally, the problem of raising a child by a man who does not want to have that child, and on insufficient funds, simply does not exist for responsible women who do not wish to become pregnant.

It's a side issue, but we might also want to establish a 'not interested' registry where, without giving offense to the woman in question on a Saturday night, any man who is not interested in supporting a child enters his name. The registry is completely public and immunizes the man against support claims, and puts the onus for support entirely on the responsible party. It also avoids the sticky and unlikely business of the parties contracting in advance of every individual sexual encounter.

If he's dead certain he doesn't want children, he can get a vasectomy. Which I would be happy to pay for as part of any health care plan of which I'm a member.

Besides, your plan doesn't sync up with what others are putting forth. In summary:

"I don't want kids. She's pregnant with a zygote fathered by me. I don't want the zygote to become a child. I'd abort it if I were her. Since she can abort if she wants to and I can't, any eventual child is entirely her responsibility."

Now a woman can decide to get an abortion post-coital. She doesn't have to tell the man she is planning to get one should pregnancy occur. If we are trying to put the man to the same standard, his decision can be entirely post-coital. "Oh, you're pregnant because I didn't use a condom? Well, I want the zygote aborted. If you don't, I owe you nothing." Entirely consistent with the line of argument that has been made here.

Precisely. What should be "safe, legal and rare" are unplanned pregnancies being carried to term by mothers incapable of supporting the resultant children.

Just so. If women are serious about not having children without having the means to support them, then they won't have them.


Back of the envelope calculation:

160m females in the U.S.
50m of child bearing age.
45m are heterosexual.
36m are sexually active.
27m would prefer not to have children in a given year.

If all of those 27m take The Pill (or other, 99% effective contraception) and require the use of condoms, the number of unintentional pregnancies are around 2 per 10,000, or 200 per million, or 5,400 total among the 27m women who do not wish to become pregnant.

5,400 unwanted pregnancies, per year, total.



Did someone say something about somebody forcing someone to do something?

.

I gotta say, the loose alliance of Universal Pro-Choice has what has to be the most unlikely roster ever:

Me
Sam
Ray
Morty
Jack Carter
McCoy
Fancy Pants
SBB

Is there any reason to believe "Random hookup + pregnancy carried to term" is a significant component of men becoming destitute by child support/alimony? My vague impression is that's far more in the "household splits up, he had previously relied on her to run the household, since she doesn't, his household collapses, and he can't keep earning like he was, because he needed that support, because you can't work 80 hour weeks if you have to make your own meals, wash your own clothes, buy your own groceries, etc. But getting payment amounts corrected to a new income level is between difficult and impossible?

Also: What the hell? I suggest we should let unwanted infants be ripped apart by wild dogs and I don't make the universal pro-choice roster? How much more pro-choice can one be?

Is there any reason to believe "Random hookup + pregnancy carried to term" is a significant component of men becoming destitute by child support/alimony?

It's not merely destitution, but having your choice of whom you're going to have a family with taken away, or at least substantially hindered. In any case, why are you distinguishing "Random hookup + pregnancy carried to term" from "Men in relationships of varying lengths and varying seriousness and with no interest in a child + pregnancy carried to term"? I'm not following the aim of the distinction.

Most couples at any given time are agreed that that year (pick some reasonable time period) or in that relationship that they aren't trying to conceive. I recall very few friends ever in shrugging, "we don't use contraception and are leaving it entirely up to chance" mode.

This is one of those situations where solid facts would be incredibly useful. The simple fact that the vast majority of unwanted pregnancies are avoidable is crucial to know. Iirc there are 4m pregnancies each year in the US. What percentage of those are unplanned? If the number of inevitable pregnancies, assuming 36m sexually active women in their childbearing years, is only 7,200, that tells us a hell of a lot and should have a pronounced bearing on the discussion.

Jack,

Not being dishonest at all. I am not interested in male victimization narratives;...

Christ, robin, can you even fucking read? As Rickey implies, that's entirely in your head. It's a rights issue, not a victimization issue, and your continuing to insist that it's the latter is one of the reasons why I'll keep calling you dishonest.

Like I said, if you want to answer the question, answer it.

If you'd stop refering to some random question you think you asked at some point and actually ask it, that might help. You don't exactly have a lot of credibility, so you'll have to excuse my reluctance to dig through the thread and figure out what you think you mean, and when you think you meant it.

My assumption is that we're talking about child support in the context of children that were never wanted, but the system is (sensibly) designed for the far, far, far more common case of children that were wanted, but that the father wants to be free of now that's he's out of the picture. Outliers are usually going to result in cockups, and it's not clear here it happens more than a handful of times.

My position: You can't leave a child without proper care in a modern, civilized nation; someone has to pay. It's more reasonable to charge the genetic parents with that care than to spread the burden throughout society if possible.

Not the first time your argument has seemed to me more in favor of spreading the burden than not. "Proper care" when it comes to, say, health, is something you seem to think is the job more of society than not. We don't leave much to chance when it comes to childrens' health, and we're getting better and better at covering children. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but iirc you have an expansive view of social insurance programs, for practical as well as moral reasons. "Proper care" also involves education, which is also supported through a tax structure that spreads the burden throughout society.

We do these things because we believe that children do better when the burden is dispersed. The industrialized Western democracies generally do a better job than the U.S. of spreading the burden; even so, the tendency of modern societies has been to swiftly move from a 'leave the unwanted infant for the wolves' to a powerful social insurance net. The U.S. is at more of an intermediate stage. The Scandinavian countries have moved much farther along towards guaranteed care of children without regard for parentage or circumstances or a mother's dubious choices.

When you talk about contemporary regard for the responsibility for children, you make it sound like the U.S. system is more an end state than it is an intermediate state. I believe it should be the latter, moving towards the former.

@1616: I doubt that's correct, that child support cases handled through the courts and state enforcement agencies have primarily to do with wanted children.

Brian--not entirely sure how we'd prove or disprove your assumption, but one place to start might be the interesting data on National Health Statistics, from the CDC, titled "Intended and Unintended Births in the United States: 1982–2010":

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr055.pdf

Abstract

Objectives—This report shows trends since 1982 in whether a woman wanted to get pregnant just before the pregnancy occurred. This is the most direct measure available of the extent to which women are able (or unable) to choose to have the number of births they want, when they want them. In this report, this is called the ‘‘standard measure of unintended pregnancy.’’

......................................

Results—About 37% of births in the United States were unintended at the time of conception.

That's 'unintended' by their mothers. I didn't see data for 'unintended' by their fathers.

My assumption is that we're talking about child support in the context of children that were never wanted, but the system is (sensibly) designed for the far, far, far more common case of children that were wanted, but that the father wants to be free of now that's he's out of the picture. Outliers are usually going to result in cockups, and it's not clear here it happens more than a handful of times.

Well, I am sure those that are getting screwed over, will rest easy, knowing that they are alone. So very, very alone.

Christ, robin, can you even ####### read? As Rickey implies, that's entirely in your head. It's a rights issue, not a victimization issue, and your continuing to insist that it's the latter is one of the reasons why I'll keep calling you dishonest.

1619. Fancy Pants Handle Posted: February 13, 2013 at 08:33 AM (#4368541)

Well, I am sure those that are getting screwed over, will rest easy, knowing that they are alone. So very, very alone.

I'm actually not sure why you're getting so bent out of shape over what robin said. You feel like people are being denied their rights. People who are denied their rights, people who are getting screwed over are victims, are they not? Even though I don't agree with you on this issue, I do feel that such people are victims.

I guess you probably feel even if accurate, the language shades the debate unfavorably?

As Rickey implies, that's entirely in your head. It's a rights issue, not a victimization issue

You can count me as still unmoved by the proposed right to opt out of providing emotional, practical, and economic support to one's child.

My assumption is that we're talking about child support in the context of children that were never wanted, but the system is (sensibly) designed for the far, far, far more common case of children that were wanted, but that the father wants to be free of now that's he's out of the picture. Outliers are usually going to result in cockups, and it's not clear here it happens more than a handful of times.

Well, I am sure those that are getting screwed over, will rest easy, knowing that they are alone. So very, very alone.

Yeah--it's not exactly a comfort now, is it?

The systematization, bureaucratization, and criminalization of child support was not designed for the cases of children whose married (the norm when the -izations began) parents split and whose fathers decided, oops, they suddenly no longer want their children. It's rare for married men with children to walk out on their children and vanish simply because the marriage dissolves.

In any case, "a handful of times"? On any given day, as we discussed a while back, 50,000 men are in jail for falling behind in support. Capitalism necessitates structural unemployment. That's why it's "structural". Therefore millions of people will necessarily be unemployed at any given time, meaning x people at that same time will necessarily fall behind in making their subsidy payments.

If you're following, that means the system is set up in such a way as to make certain that y% of those people who are necessarily, systemically, structurally unemployed will be imprisoned for the sin of bad luck. The bulk of the people in prison for falling behind in their subsidy payments had no choice. Those were the people who drew the short straw, who were inevitably going to lose their jobs, because some people must. We might as well be jailing all lefthanders with brown hair and blue eyes who stand 6'-2, for all the sense the current system makes.

In short, we've created a system that compels mass incarceration. It's not a 'cockup', at least not in the sense you seem to mean it, as an occasional error of some kind occurring only at the margins. The burden also falls most heavily on men of color, in rough correspondance with their unemployment rate.

-----------------------

@1620: no idea why you're collaging something robin wrote wrt things I posted (at least, I'm assuming--he's rarely very clear) with what FPH wrote, as admirable a fellow as he doubtless is.

I can only repeat, this is a rights issue. If people want to twist that in order to claim the main purpose is something else, I'll object, to a point.

I spent a bit of time looking, and the only bit of data I found was that in 1986 in Wisconsin, 75% of people receiving child support payments had been married to the other parent. No idea about court ordered versus "amicably agreed", and obviously limit in time and space. It's not much to go on, but I don't want to spend hours searching.

I also don't know what to do with 37% "unplanned". I was unplanned, but if my parents divorced when I was eleven, I don't think it would've been right for my dad to slap me on the back and say "Good luck", and subsequently be devoid of responsibility.

@1620: no idea why you're collaging something robin wrote wrt things I posted (at least, I'm assuming--he's rarely very clear) with what FPH wrote, as admirable a fellow as he doubtless is

Well, I was thinking as you were referring to the overall debate, you would have recognized others carrying the water do see the men that you find are losing their rights as victims... of losing their rights.

My point was it's not dishonest to frame the debate as a victimization issue, because even if you don't see the men as victims, plenty of others do.

The chasm between "unplanned" and "unwanted" seems pretty vast.

I also don't know what to do with 37% "unplanned". I was unplanned, but if my parents divorced when I was eleven, I don't think it would've been right for my dad to slap me on the back and say "Good luck", and subsequently be devoid of responsibility.

You know what? I'll bet if you read all one thousand six hundred and twenty five posts in this thread you won't find even a hint of a whiff of a shard of someone suggesting that a child born to married parents--assuming no deception was involved--shouldn't be supported by both, divorced or not.

No offense, but I admit to being baffled at how anyone could have missed the crux of the argument. It's as if Rickey was still puzzling over when the anti-rights lot felt a man's responsibility began.

@1624: I wasn't referring to 'the overall debate', I was addressing robin addressing me. This seems like a remarkably unproductive conversation to have, especially with a third party. Let's... talk about something else.

You can count me as still unmoved by the proposed right to opt out of providing emotional, practical, and economic support to one's child.

Then why does the mother get such a right, essentially unfettered?

She doesn't. Once there's a child, which is not a part of anyone else's body, both parents have necessary obligations to that child.

During pregnancy, there are no different rights, just different bodily situations. A pregnant woman has a right to bodily autonomy which allows her to end a pregnancy. This right is peculiar to the physical reality of pregnancy, where the potential child (fetus or embryo) is at once a part of the pregnant woman's body. The right only attends because it's her body.

EDIT: Rewrote for clarity. (hopefully).

On any given day, as we discussed a while back, 50,000 men are in jail for falling behind in support.

There's obviously a large problem with the difficulty in adjusting payment levels when one's income changes. This has pretty obvious fixes, too, and I assume it's only unaddressed because "deadbeat dads" rank below even "the destitute" as a group capable of exerting political pressure. I can't imagine any significant number of people have a problem with the idea of making it easy to (or automatic to) adjust support payments when your income changes (there's no actual benefit to trying to get support payments out of the unemployed anyhow - you can't get blood from a stone).

No offense, but I admit to being baffled at how anyone could have missed the crux of the argument.

I'm not missing it, I'm rejecting it, because I think given what we're actually discussing, it's a dishonest framing device. It's not relevant to the topic of child support payments, because it's not why they occur.

To add to #1572, if I'm doing the math correctly it looks like ~3% of non-custodial parents don't (and an unclear number of those can't) meet their legal support obligations. Nothing like what McCoy is claiming, but frankly far too high.

And I don't think anyone here is anti-men's rights. Some of us think a man's responsibility to his offspring goes hand in hand with his rights and some of us think the Child's rights outwiegh the man's rights (and some both), but other than snarky and annoyed posts (aka Suck it up Buttercup) I have heard no one suggest men don't have rights or that those right's are wrong or bad.

That is why I do still have sympathy on this issue. Of course in the broad scheme of things it is pretty good to be male, so my sympathy is a bit muted. Still men clearly and unambiguously have rights, but as these things go rights basically never stand alone unalloyed and unfettered, in the real world there are competeing rights, responsibilities, and everything else that foes into a functioning society including both people trying to take advantage of the system and people unfairly penalized by the system (both of both genders, btw).

At the risk of changing the subject when it's looking so close to that crucial breakthrough, but what do we think of the resolution of the Dorner affair?

#1582 The Economist had a very interesting story about jurisdictional shopping for divorce filing a few years back. To boil down a well researched article to its fundamental point: it pays to shop around.

During pregnancy, there are no different rights, just different bodily situations. A pregnant woman has a right to bodily autonomy which allows her to end a pregnancy. This right is peculiar to the physical reality of pregnancy, where the potential child (fetus or embryo) is at once a part of the pregnant woman's body. The right only attends because it's her body.

That "right" really doesn't survive examination though. The fetus in her body isn't only "hers" in any property sense, since its material is made up of products of the man's body and hers -- not to mention that the man is on call to pay money to support it. There exists a joint or cooperative ownership over the fetus, not a single one, in any serious sense.

Nor is the fact that the material happens to be temporarily resident in her body dispositive, anymore than it would be if she'd taken the man's World Series ring and swallowed it. Like the fetus, the ring is temporaily resident in her body, yet no one could seriously suggest that she has sole domninion over its disposition.

If she doesn't "own" the fetus, and temporary residence in her body can't be dispositive, there is no valid, identifiable source of the professed "right." It's, at most, a construct.

I can't imagine any significant number of people have a problem with the idea of making it easy to (or automatic to) adjust support payments when your income changes (there's no actual benefit to trying to get support payments out of the unemployed anyhow - you can't get blood from a stone).

Right now the system is gamed heavily by all sides and in many cases it is fairly easy to hide income. So in principle I am not against tweaks to the system I think there does need to be safeguards and checks in place, because you know some bad apples will try to screw the system (and their children). It is depressing but true that in many cases we legislate around the bad apples, and I am OK with revisting that stuff and making sure in our zeal to help the child there is as little unfair punishment of the men. But I admit I still care more about kids than fathers (sorry guys).

You can count me as still unmoved by the proposed right to opt out of providing emotional, practical, and economic support to one's child.

Then why does the mother get such a right, essentially unfettered?

She doesn't. Once there's a child, which is not a part of anyone else's body, both parents have necessary obligations to that child.

During pregnancy, there are no different rights, just different bodily situations. A pregnant woman has a right to bodily autonomy which allows her to end a pregnancy. This right is peculiar to the physical reality of pregnancy, where the potential child (fetus or embryo) is at once a part of the pregnant woman's body. The right only attends because it's her body.

In but a few dozen words, Matt frames the issue perfectly from start to finish.

Nothing like what McCoy is claiming, but frankly far too high.

According to the stats provided in this very thread over half of all unpaid child support is from fathers who cannot afford to make the payment.

In but a few dozen words, Matt frames the issue perfectly from start to finish.

Well, not to finish which as we've all said numerous times now IS. THE. POINT.

Nor is the fact that the [fetus] happens to be temporarily resident in her body dispositive, anymore than it would be if she'd taken the man's World Series ring and swallowed it.

No disrespect to the work and talent that goes into climbing baseball's highest peak, but I think we've pretty much hit rock bottom when a fetus is being compared to a World Series ring.

That "right" really doesn't survive examination though. The fetus in her body isn't only "hers" in any property sense, since its material is made up of products of the man's body and hers -- not to mention that the man is on call to pay money to support it. There exists a joint or cooperative ownership over the fetus, not a single one, in any serious sense.

Nor is the fact that the material happens to be temporarily resident in her body dispositive, anymore than it would be if she'd taken the man's World Series ring and swallowed it. Like the fetus, the ring is temporaily resident in her body, yet no one could seriously suggest that she has sole domninion over its disposition.

If she doesn't "own" the fetus, and temporary residence in her body can't be dispositive, there is no valid, identifiable source of the professed "right."

This is an aside from the men's rights/child support issue. It is a valid discussion (despite me thinking you nearly 100% wrong, not everything is property rights in my world), but ancillary to the current one.

In but a few dozen words, Matt frames the issue perfectly from start to finish.

Including the part in which he said that there are "no different rights" and then a few words later says that a pregnant woman has a right the co-creator of the pregnancy doesn't have?

In but a few dozen words, Matt frames the issue perfectly from start to finish.

Agreed. Though I would suggest perfectly is not completely, since there is always room for YR's modest proposal.

There exists a joint or cooperative ownership over the fetus, not a single one, in any serious sense.

I asked this before, but I didn't see an answer.

Are you arguing that in the case where a man wants the child, but the woman does not, he has the right to make the woman carry the child to term?

According to the stats provided in this very thread over half of all unpaid child support is from fathers who cannot afford to make the payment.

Mmmm hmmm. And what percentage of these men have two kidneys, skin suitable for graft explants, or a liver with remarkable powers of regeneration?

Are you arguing that in the case where a man wants the child, but the woman does not, he has the right to make the woman carry the child to term?

If a woman has the right to make decisions for the man I don't see why a man shouldn't have the right to make decisions for the woman.

Mmmm hmmm. And what percentage of these men have two kidneys, skin suitable for graft explants, or a liver with remarkable powers of regeneration?

I don't know. Probably the same amount as there are women and children that fit those criterias as well.

In but a few dozen words, Matt frames the issue perfectly from start to finish.

Including the part in which he said that there are "no different rights" and then a few words later says that a pregnant woman has a right the co-creator of the pregnancy doesn't have?

But that right stems solely from the fact that once there's conception, the man's physical connection to that World Series ring is nonexistent for the following nine months. That's an entirely different issue from that of child support, which is a joint responsibility.

That "right" really doesn't survive examination though. The fetus in her body isn't only "hers" in any property sense, since its material is made up of products of the man's body and hers -- not to mention that the man is on call to pay money to support it. There exists a joint or cooperative ownership over the fetus, not a single one, in any serious sense.

Nor is the fact that the material happens to be temporarily resident in her body dispositive, anymore than it would be if she'd taken the man's World Series ring and swallowed it. Like the fetus, the ring is temporaily resident in her body, yet no one could seriously suggest that she has sole domninion over its disposition.

If she doesn't "own" the fetus, and temporary residence in her body can't be dispositive, there is no valid, identifiable source of the professed "right."

See, here I thought YR was as per usual going too far over the top too quickly. But apparently Sugar Bear agrees with Yankee Redneck's Swiftian logic that the structures of property ownership obtain even in the case of the relationships of parents and pregnant folks to a fetus or child. So, carry on YR, you were right and I was wrong.

Mmmm hmmm. And what percentage of these men have two kidneys, skin suitable for graft explants, or a liver with remarkable powers of regeneration?

I don't know. Probably the same amount as there are women and children that fit those criterias as well.

So you're saying that in a proper free market these low-status males would be sitting on tens of thousands of dollars of surplus organ value which would rectify their inability to support their own children. Well I think I see a path to salvation for these benighted souls who wish only to support their children but are currently victims of circumstance.