Child support payments are enforced through an implied contract system.

This isn't really true. Child support payments are enforced through a statutory system. It's not about what two people agreed, it's about what society has decided their responsibilities are.

Does anyone know whether it's possible to contract away potential child-support responsibilities? I suspect it's not. But if it is, you guys could solve all your potential problems by carrying a few unsigned waivers in your wallet next to the condom.

Only vaguely related: the leading California case on the enforceability of prenuptial agreements comes courtesy of our unjustly villified home-run king.

Now that is odd. A man can't opt out because the taxpayer would have to foot the bill but a woman can kill her child because she doesn't like the look of her "baby bump".

So abortion is legal and okay because it saves the taxpayers money. Got it.

Because we all have bodily autonomy, but only pregnant woman have a right to an abortion based on that bodily autonomy. No one who isn't pregnant has such a right, for obvious reasons of biological fact. You want to institute a non-biological parallel to abortion, for men, in the interests of "fairness." I think that is a terrible idea, because your non-biological parallel to abortion involves a living child whose demands on his or her parents should not be abrogated just to make you feel better about the abortion unfairness.

I can't believe you can't see what's plainly before you. The child that would have eventuated has had that right to exist "abrogated." That right to abrogate is much more extreme as to that entity she carries than his right to merely repudiate fatherhood.

This isn't really true. Child support payments are enforced through a statutory system. It's not about what two people agreed, it's about what society has decided their responsibilities are.

Yes, exactly, but what has been decided can be re-decided and modified. Just as it was wrt the woman and her fetus.

Does anyone know whether it's possible to contract away potential child-support responsibilities? I suspect it's not. But if it is, you guys could solve all your potential problems by carrying a few unsigned waivers in your wallet next to the condom.

Or, as I have said, envision a brave new world where they go on a date dragging a notary with them.

So how about this. The source of the angst seems to be the woman has an "opt out" through a medical procedure (that would be abortion Morty), and there is a timeline for this opt out. So what if we grant the man a similar opt out through a medical procedure with the same timeline?

A man who declares he does not want to be a parent gets a vasectomy with time to allow the woman to get an abortion once she know he is serious. If this happens he clearly does not want a child, has skin in the game, and has zero child support obligations going forward. Basically get a vasectomy and you are free and clear from that point onward.

Society picks up the child support tab for the guy (unless he gets a reversal of course). A vasectomy is pretty minor surgery, is very effective (1 in 2000 failure rate according to the always reliable Wikipedia). Put another way - "A 2005 systematic review of 28 studies described a total of 183 failures or recanalizations from approximately 43,642 vasectomy patients (0.4%), and 20 studies in the same review described 60 pregnancies after 92,184 vasectomies (0.07%)"

So while I am not convinced it really supports the child and so makes me unhappy I suppose all compromise results in some unhappiness and I am curious, would the men's rights crowd go along with it?

The source of the angst seems to be the woman has an "opt out" through a medical procedure (that would be abortion Morty)

No, that is not the source of my angst. Keep foraging--it's only been said hundreds of times by many here what it actually is we object to.

If you're going to engage in caricature, it needs to funny.

it's only been said hundreds of times by many here what it actually is we object to.

Um dude, it has been said many times that people object that woman get an opt out and men don't and that this critical decision happens after sex (rendering the original sex act moot or something I guess). I can't quote all the times it has been said because there is not room on this digital page! Are you even reading the same thread?

In fact spending two seconds on this very page I found

If the woman can opt out at any time before the deadline why shouldn't a man be able to do so as well?

Honestly Morty.

Vasectomies (on average) involve a permanent reduction in male fertility (even when it's possible to reverse them) on a different order of magnitude than that caused (on average) by an abortion.

I am not passing judgment on how that might relate to your suggestion. I am just making you aware of a medical fact of which you may not be already aware.

I am not passing judgment on how that might relate to your suggestion. I am just making you aware of a medical fact of which you may not be already aware.

Yeah I looked it up. I was trying to come up with something analogous and related on the male side and it was as close as I could get (I still like both my insurance and YRs modest proposal better, I admit).

Still it is reversible to an extent and from the horror stories some might think it worth it. Plus the technology is always improving and I thought there was some in vitro stuff that could be done with harvesting the sperm directly if a man really wanted a child after (I could be wrong, I did not read that much about it).

EDIT: And it means the man has some skin in the game, which I admit annoys me about the she has to have an abortion to opt out, and the male just shrugs and says no thanks.

Man. If only there was a pill one could take to disrupt fertilization. Hopefully they'll develop one soon. Perhaps you'll be able to take it the next day. Maybe even the morning after having sex. One day, gentlemen, one day.

I think that if a male birth control magic bullet that would not have permanent adverse effect on male fertility and potency (something like a dream combination BC/Viagra), males would pounce on them. And there would swiftly follow a radical change in the relationship of the sexes, personally, legally, and socially, just as there was with the original pill for women. I also think it's coming, and I hope to see it (although if I'm alive I'll probably be too old to personally take advantage).

A man who declares he does not want to be a parent gets a vasectomy

See, suggestions like this, are why people are accusing you of being puritanical, and interested in punishing men for the audacity of engaging in consensual, casual sex. There is no actual purpose served by demanding a vasectomy. It's all so he has "skin in the game". The woman has to suffer, therefore the man has to suffer. That's what this is all about.

Get this, we are talking mostly about teenagers and guys in their early twenties here. Many of them will actually want to start a family at some point in their life. They just don't want to start one with a hook-up, they went home with from the club one night.

Get this, we are talking mostly about teenagers and guys in their early twenties here. Many of them will actually want to start a family at some point in their life. They just don't want to start one with a hook-up, they went home with from the club one night.

Well at that age they probably masturbate furiously. All they need to do is save up a few gallons and bank their jugs of baby batter at a storage clinic for future insemination. Clinics would spring up nationwide, endorsed by popular celebrities such as Snoop Dogg or, uh, the guy from "Jersey Shore" who looks like Sonic the Hedgehog. The free market would make long-term semen banking affordable and practical, freeing up a generation of men to avoid the perils of scheming harpies intent on enslaving their wages through bio-theft.

Count me as entirely confused as to which parts of Puritan ethics Sam wants to keep and which he wants to jettison. Apparently the marriage contract remains sacred and binds a man to caring for a child, regardless of whether it was intended or whether he wanted it, and only if the marriage can be voided in time may the man abrogate his responsibilities. That is not at all the direction I expected him to take.

By having agreed to a marriage/coupling arrangement, the two have in some ways become one. Of course, I also think a married man has more rights to deny his wife have an abortion than a random sexual partner would for an unmarried woman.

Because we all have bodily autonomy, but only pregnant woman have a right to an abortion based on that bodily autonomy. No one who isn't pregnant has such a right, for obvious reasons of biological fact. You want to institute a non-biological parallel to abortion, for men, in the interests of "fairness." I think that is a terrible idea, because your non-biological parallel to abortion involves a living child whose demands on his or her parents should not be abrogated just to make you feel better about the abortion unfairness.

OK, but this cuts both ways. The primary driving force behind disparate pay/promotions between men and women is that women generally are forced, by dint of their baby-incubating role, to take time out of the workforce in their 20's and 30's. Most learned discussion I've seen on this topic notes this as something that we should create systems to rectify; that an accident of nature (that only women can be pregnant) shouldn't be allowed to dictate an unfair result (that women don't have as much professional success, on average, as men). But if women should benefit from the perquisites of the biological accident of pregnancy (in the abortion/child support arena), they should reap the consequences as well (in the professional arena). If we're going to strive to make the world fairer than the biological default (which I think is a good idea, a state of nature being nasty and brutish and all), then the fact that women are naturally pregnant should be merely a obstacle to overcome to instutiting a just and equal set of responsibilities and privileges when it comes to procreation decision-making.

And, to steal a line from Sam, I think we've clearly moved past the time when we as a society view marriage as being all about baby-making.

Agreed. My wife and I have been together as a couple 22 years. We've been legally wed for 18 of those years. The closest we've come to baby-making is adopting a dog when I turned 40 (which is far more care intensive than the cats, by the way.)

We have always made our decisions to not have children together, as a couple. That's what marriage is, regardless of state or ceremony. The agreement that you and the other person involved are going to act as a single unit, not as two individuals. As such, if *we* decided to have a child, *I* would not have the option to back out again later without her consent, because it's a decision *we* made, not a decision *I* made. If a man or woman attempts to abrogate decisions made in tandem by the married couple, then they are essentially withdrawing from the marriage contract in all practical purposes.

Another problem that I have with the rights discussions is that guys toss the word around like it's Thor's Hammer, but I don't see many guys discussing distinctions among legal and natrual rights, among possible other kinds. An infant or a kid may lack legal rights in the contractual sense, but I think it is pretty clear that what might be called natural rights of the kid or baby factor heavily in everyone's thinking here.

Well, I believe I'm on record from previous conversations, much to Dan's chagrin, of questioning the existence of "natural rights" outside of legal rights. But I may be an outlier there.

RE: "the guy should get a vasectomy," again, when RISUG becomes as universally available as the morning after pill, this becomes a better argument. Current vasectomy tech is almost universally permanent, which means it's not a decision made to "not have a child with this chick at the bar," so much as a decision "never to have a child at all, with anyone I might meet along the way." RISUG changes that calculus in that it is easily reversible.

But if women should benefit from the perquisites of the biological accident of pregnancy (in the abortion/child support arena), they should reap the consequences as well (in the professional arena).

What benefits are you talking about?

On a tangential topic to the discussion at hand (that we seem to be having in circles, talking past each other a bit at this point:)

The failure of the US to embrace European style parental leave for the father, giving both mother and father months of personal time off from work to care for and bond with their newborn, gives the lie to how much Americans really care about the care of the child.

The only thing that matters is how much green is in the father's wallet.

What benefits are you talking about?

The ability to choose, in her sole discretion, whether or not to carry a child to term, and to compel support from the man.

See, suggestions like this, are why people are accusing you of being puritanical, and interested in punishing men for the audacity of engaging in consensual, casual sex. There is no actual purpose served by demanding a vasectomy. It's all so he has "skin in the game". The woman has to suffer, therefore the man has to suffer. That's what this is all about.

Sure because it was a suggestion I threw out there to see how people responded and never presented as something I fully endorsed (unlike my insurance scheme). But yeah other than throwing stuff out there and not putting any moral judgements (aside from distaste at the cavalier attitude some men take towards the woman having an abortion), this like totally makes me a puritan.

Do you know what puritans believe? And this aligns to that how?

The ability to choose, in her sole discretion, whether or not to carry a child to term, and to compel support from the man.

She is not compelling support from the man. Support is compelled from both parties.

The failure of the US to embrace European style parental leave for the father, giving both mother and father months of personal time off from work to care for and bond with their newborn, gives the lie to how much Americans really care about the care of the child.

Well I support both expanded parental leave and your pie-in-the-sky safety net (way back in the thread). Americans are not a monolith. You can't assign everything you don't like to the side you happen to be arguing with at the moment.

She is not compelling support from the man. Support is compelled from both parties.

But if she is choosing to take the child to term, she's not being compelled - well, she can't change her mind after she brings the child to term, but she has a decision at the start. And that is all the difference in the world.

Been on vacation for a week. Come back to see the topic of the Schilling thread about gay players has morphed into an abortion discussion. I have just looked at bits and pieces of the last 1500 posts and probably won't read the entire thread in detail. I am pro-life and I realize that, Snapper excepted, most of you aren't, and I'm not posting to add anything new to the discussion. I just wanted to say that the fact that abortion can be discussed, with different opinions, and people considering each others comments, without devloving into a war of insults, with the discussion continuing for 1500 posts, is a great thing, and a perfect example of why I enjoy reading the non-baseball discussions on this site. That is all.

Americans are not a monolith. You can't assign everything you don't like to the side you happen to be arguing with at the moment.

Americans don't have a policy set where parental leave is required. Thus it's a problem for Americans.

She is not compelling support from the man. Support is compelled from both parties.

Can't she just give twice as much support and let the poor lad be?

Do you know what puritans believe? And this aligns to that how?

In the context of this discussion, the relevant beliefs would be punishment for adultery and fornication outside of marriage, ranging from public humiliation, to whippings, and up to death.

1973:

Sorry, but FPH characterized you exactly. And now, as you admit, we can add trolling to your pile (something I would never have thought you prone to). Solemn proclamations of heartfelt sympathize for men and then to come out with this #### shows you're just shedding crocodile tears. As someone here made clear, if you could you have men selling body parts to support women's choice and children's rights. It's Zombie system, anyway, let's just cut out the pretense, eh? One dire day you and they will need those guys and wonder why they feel no allegiance to you, her, it, and this system and society.

She is not compelling support from the man. Support is compelled from both parties.

No. Her choice to carry to term negates right there any claim to compulsion. That same choice, contrary to the impregnator's wishes, compels him to pay support. She volunteered. He didn't. Why not just set up milking machines, then compound that outrage by charging a fee to those forcibly milked?

As someone here made clear, if you could you have men selling body parts to support women's choice and children's rights.

Hang on now hippie, don't bury honest attempts at free market solutions under your disingenuous trolling. A man should be allowed to sell "body parts" to service any sort of debt or obligation, whether it's the care of his own children, a college education, or the note on his low rider. Nobody should have to be out of pocket just because some do-gooders think they're too special to remove a kidney to benefit a dying man.

Can't she just give twice as much support and let the poor lad be?

Well, she should support the baby, yes, since it's her baby, that was allowed to come into existence totally and only through her will, yes, she should do that. And if that means she has to pay twice what she would force a man to pay, that comes with the territory of making choices. So, ts. Then she could make a soup with the afterbirth to feed the rest of you zombies.

Well, she can support the baby, yes, since it's her baby,

Since she owns it why can't she just sell it?

Morty, I agree that would be a fair contract. But just because its more fair to the man, doesnt mean any given woman has to sign it. Obviously, a woman who was personally opposed to abortion might not think it fair. The default contract (in most US states) is less fair to the man. However, it cant be said that any man would be *surprised* that he has to pay child support for a kid he'd rather been aborted. He should have held out his penis for a better deal.

But for some reason, women under the default contract dont seem to have any trouble finding sex partners. Why is that, do you suppose?

Well, we can never get beyond the mindset that somehow wants to hold him to an outworn paradigm while allowing her (and it) access to all the benefits and perquisites of a new one, which can only be if we assume that one sex act is dispositive as an indenture that is to last 20 years or so.

To hold that all his rights are neutered and all responsibilities imposed on him are set irrevocably for him at the time of the sex act is is atavistic, antediluvian, and hypocritically self-serving to one sex and one new class that comes into being only through that sex's subsequent supervening free act. It barely escapes irrationalism. For her, though, we've evolved in our attitude as to her duties and burdens of responsibility. For him, though, it's like he's still at that tribal campfire picking and eating insects he speared from the air. Got it.

It's as if we would insist on keeping certain aspects of Jim Crow; otherewise some really nice and deserving plantation owners might become indigent. And there are some baby plantation heirs--think of them.

In the context of this discussion, the relevant beliefs would be punishment for adultery and fornication outside of marriage, ranging from public humiliation, to whippings, and up to death.

And as soon as I advocate any of that, or you manage to link any of that to secular humanism (which Sam did long ago) get back to me.

Morty (1981) - Color me shocked you are still unable to read and comprehend. What part of "So while I am not convinced it really supports the child and so makes me unhappy I suppose all compromise results in some unhappiness and I am curious, would the men's rights crowd go along with it?" Suggests this is what I think ideal and this is what I am agitating for? It was something to throw out and see how folks reacted (just like I said it was), it is not a suggestion that reflects my true inner beliefs.

By the way do you still think this thread has nothing to do with the extra option woman get versus men (which is what you claimed earlier and then dropped)? Your 1956 is a treasure.

Well, we can never get beyond the mindset that somehow wants to hold him to an outworn paradigm while allowing her (and it) access to all the benefits and perquisites of a new one, which can only be if we assume that one sex act is dispositive as an indenture that is to last 20 years or so.

Morty you are so florid and over the top it is hard to take seriously sometimes. A single act can impact someone throughout there life. A single drive in a car, a single signature on a document, a single pull of a trigger. Sex should be different in your world, should be free of consequences (for the man). I get that, but that does not make it right.

No. Her choice to carry to term negates right there any claim to compulsion. That same choice, contrary to the impregnator's wishes, compels him to pay support. She volunteered. He didn't. Why not just set up milking machines, then compound that outrage by charging a fee to those forcibly milked?

You wish it negated it, but here in the US it doesn't. I don't know that it does anywhere in the world.

Again, with your hokey-pokey. Sometimes lit's law you argue. When that's inconvenient, you go to what's right and moral. Do you realize how expediently unprincipled this looks?

It's cognitive dissonance and a conveniently divided (or dueling) paradigms. And you can't even acknowledge how unjust and illogical this is as a matter of principle.

What part of "So while I am not convinced it really supports the child and so makes me unhappy I suppose all compromise results in some unhappiness and I am curious, would the men's rights crowd go along with it?"

Words. Mere empty words. You're patting on the back while picking pockets

Since she owns it why can't she just sell it?

Why can she? We're back to property analogues? I own my house. Can I sell it for any cause, to be put to just any use, to anyone? Are there restrictions to any kind of ownership of any kind of property? (Again, if we're going to moot your property analogues.)

The problem with the attempts at humor and satire, ala Swift, is that the situation as to the man is at present Swiftian. It's telling that you can't see that. In fact, it's Swiftian.

Morty you are so florid and over the top it is hard to take seriously sometimes. A single act can impact someone throughout there life. A single drive in a car, a single signature on a document, a single pull of a trigger. Sex should be different in your world, should be free of consequences (for the man). I get that, but that does not make it right.

I go along with the first part of that. What you don't get is the idea of a supervening event that renders the initial event moot. If you are going to insist on getting your way on mere but-for causation, there's nothing that you can't do--there are no restrictions on what you can inflict and oppress. You've basically abandoned all rational system.

EDIT: And I am over the top sometimes, as you, YR, and everyone just about can be. It is to make you think out of the box.

In the context of this discussion, the relevant beliefs would be punishment for adultery and fornication outside of marriage, ranging from public humiliation, to whippings, and up to death.

And as soon as I advocate any of that

There is no other reason to even suggest forcing a man to undergo a vasectomy after conceiving the fetus, than as a punishment.

Adoption is a process of transferring responsibilities, done with the consent of the birth parents and the adoptive parents. There is no process of transfer in your proposal, just a unilateral walk-out.

I want to go back to this, cause it's really where the pro-support argument falls apart.

Transferring responsibilities is in fact possible.
Single people can in fact take on the responsibilities of 2 people, so there is nothing magical about the number two.

Flowing from that there is no reason why a woman exercising her choice, to carry the fetus to term, against the express wishes of the man, cannot be deemed to have transferred those responsibilities to herself.

Her choice, her rights, her responsibilities. This has been the crux of the pro-rights side the whole time. The only coherent argument against that, has been that those rights are non-transferable, and are innate rights of the child. The fact that they are transferable completely nullifies the only coherent argument the pro-supporters have brought to the table.

A lot of the problems here are that the goal was achieved to make all sex acts the same (no shaming for shacking up or hookups.) In some ways that has been worse for certain men. For men that are fans of the hookup, in the past you could say that there was no realistic expectation of family, since the two of you weren't married. Now, excepting bigamy, families are self-defined. Heck, you can even do bigamy, you just can't have multiple legal marriages. You can do informal bigamy.

So everything normally is worked out between the man and the woman. Woman gets pregnant, she gets an abortion, you want that, you're out free and clear. Woman gets pregnant, she has the baby, but she doesn't want you in her life and doesn't ask for support, you're essentially out free and clear. Woman gets pregnant, she has the baby, you want out, she disagrees... you head to court.

Without a "hard" structure of marriage as a realistic thing anymore, the aggrieved father of the child is expecting some judge to wade Solomon-like through all of these cases and decide - "Hey buddy, I feel I know you like I know my own brother. Why, you only had sex with her three times and didn't like it very much. $200 should about cover that one!" The courts are going to implement one size fits all solutions. They are not going to look at all of these different cases, and assume that one guy really is a father and the other one isn't, when none of them have ever bothered to sign any contracts (usually, in rare cases I suppose there's some sort of pre-nup.) Given the current societal structure, I think the courts are doing the right thing. The courts didn't change the societal expectations of sexual relationships or marriage.

Without a "hard" structure of marriage as a realistic thing anymore, the aggrieved father of the child is expecting some judge to wade Solomon-like through all of these cases and decide - "Hey buddy, I feel I know you like I know my own brother. Why, you only had sex with her three times and didn't like it very much. $200 should about cover that one!" The courts are going to implement one size fits all solutions. They are not going to look at all of these different cases, and assume that one guy really is a father and the other one isn't, when none of them have ever bothered to sign any contracts (usually, in rare cases I suppose there's some sort of pre-nup.) Given the current societal structure, I think the courts are doing the right thing.

Why shouldn't a judge do exactly what you think is so ridiculous? How is that any different from the role of a fact-finder in any usual trial?

Why shouldn't a judge do exactly what you think is so ridiculous? How is that any different from the role of a fact-finder in any usual trial?

Good lord, a thousand times, *this.* The problem with our legal system today is that judges don't do this and attempt to apply cookie cutter outcomes to every issue or crime. This is the fundamental problem with drug sentencing laws in America. Judges shouldn't think of fact finding and tailoring rulings to the local cases and individuals in their courtrooms as some kind of hardship.

Yes, especially since most family courts are run more like administrative agencies that actual courts. The evidentiary protocols can be loosey-goosey and the judge is much more active and is given great deference, as he is designated officially as more the agent acting on behalf of the child than a mere judge deciding between two adversaries.

@1999: and successful appeals of the judge's support award are routinely sent back to that judge's for his/her "reconsideration". Think about that for a second. The judge issuing an award is encouraged by a higher judge within that court (it's not a distinct appellate court) to rethink the award. Amazing.

Flip this.