Where have I refused to address the rights of the child? What I haven't done is buy into your argument.

Wow, I think this is actual new ground in BBTF OT discussions, at least to this depth.

I think Sam/McCoy/DJS [SMD) _logic_ is unassailable BUT it makes a critical assumption of what the "Default state of implied consent" is.
Not necessarily a wrong assumption - but an assumption nonetheless.

As an analogy - consider marriage & divorce. This law varies by state but typically the ex-spouse with the higher income is obligated to send money to the other party. I am pretty sure that this is not written on the marriage license you sign in city hall.

So - under the SMD paradigm the implicit contract is:
- Should babby get made in our act(s), then we agree to terminate pregnancy or man is under no obligation for child support.

as comparison to the current:

- Should babby get made in our act(s), the woman gets choice of termination or permanent child support.

If you want a different contract, you should get it in writing. A pre-cop, so to speak. Now perhaps according to current state laws such a contract would be non-binding if the man tried to dodge his child support -- if so then I would agree that the law should change.

And should probably also change to explicitly state what the default implied sexbabby contract is.

I think Sam/McCoy/DJS [SMD) _logic_ is unassailable BUT it makes a critical assumption of what the "Default state of implied consent" is.
Not necessarily a wrong assumption - but an assumption nonetheless.


Every argument, on some level, requires some level of assumption!

I think what makes this argument particularly interesting is that this conversation really mixes up the "teams" somewhat, so we have new arguments.

The weirdest thing is that I don't talk politics *anywhere* other than these threads, really. Not on facebook, Twitter, chats, in writing. If someone asks me a particular question, I'll usually try to avoid it elsewhere.

Every argument, on some level, requires some level of assumption!

Yes, but where? What's justifiable to assume today may not be so tomorrow. You rely on assumptions always only provisionally and you do so as if they are always under challenge. For they are--or should be. Moreover, you can't assume all assumptions are equal. Placing that constraint on assumptions, and requiring others to do the same, is important if one is to stay honest in debate. It isn't a get out of jail card. Too many ratchet an assumption to an axiom rather than question the assumption.

#320 I don't see child support as punitive and frankly don't see any logic behind that view. I'll go further and say that you're arguing for punishing a decision to carry to term without a father. And that you're making the kid fell the weight of this.

Is it inequitable to deny the man any say (either way -- he also doesn't get to say that he's willing to take full custody and bear all costs and thus compel the woman to carry to term) in the decision to carry to term? Yeah. But once the decision has been made. you've got a kid and his interests count too.

Mother should have thought of that when she decided to have the kid without the father involved and not being able to afford to take care of the kid on her own.

Is anybody here advocating that poor people should have their kids taken away from them?

It's interesting to see so many people nostalgic for the early 70s. Not in law but in practice. The government did not expend many resources chasing down dads who didn't pay child support; it provided a lot of support to single moms from high levels of tax revenues. While dads men who impregnated women with resources were out of luck, since those women got good lawyers, lots of men lived practically in the regime suggested here. That has seemed impractical to me for many reasons, but if you could really get so many people with otherwise conservative-leaning views to come out strongly in favor of expanding AFDC on these grounds, maybe it would possible.

As an analogy - consider marriage & divorce. This law varies by state but typically the ex-spouse with the higher income is obligated to send money to the other party. I am pretty sure that this is not written on the marriage license you sign in city hall.

The problem here is the comparison of sex to marriage. Marriage is, as you note, a contract with social implications outside of the singular act of standing at the alter/JoP and saying "I do." Sex is not that sort of thing. Not any more. Sex is just a more intense form of dancing at this point. You don't sign a contract to dance, and you don't expect to divest yourself of 20% of your future earnings for a simple round of bounce and shake after the after-party.

Of note: none of this discussion is really relevant to traditionally operative courtship/marriage relationships. We're not talking about those. We're talking about the social rubric of sexual liberation.

Every argument, on some level, requires some level of assumption!

I disagree with this assumption. Show your work.

Final note for the morning: the banner ad on the top of this page right now reads "Dicks: Armed for Action."

Why don't sperm donors, who contribute their DNA to the making of a child, have the obligation to pay child support?

If the answer is that they can contract that obligation away as a condition to donating their sperm, the guy who donates his sperm through sexual intercourse should be able to do precisely the same thing. You could even have a standard pre-f$ck agreement, in which the woman consents to sexual intercourse and waives her right to child support should she take a pregnancy to term as a result thereof.

The only reason not to permit such a contract in this context, but allow it in sperm donation, is to punish the "sin" of the person who provides DNA by busting a nut inside the woman. That can't be right.

and you don't expect to divest yourself of 20% of your future earnings for a simple round of bounce and shake after the after-party.

Whatever "right" is, the current legal situation is that you should assume this risk for a round of bounce and shake. As I say, it may or may not be right, but it IS. So, saying you shouldn't expect that divestiture is not supporting your argument. You have made good points that having to do so is a violation of your rights (not that I'm fully persuaded), but arguments about what you do and don't expect are irrelevant. You're arguing for changing the law. But the law as it stands says that every male who has vaginal intercourse should be aware of the risk that he will be legally liable for offspring should it result.

Sam, possibly joint decisions that may have long term physical, psychological, and/or financial consequences should be considered as contracts. It is like "dancing" -- dancing where if you have an equipment failure you end up in surgery or permanent "disability"

If I understand the issues--I probably don't!--a contract could be binding between a woman and a man, but not between the government and the man. If the woman made enough money to support the child, that's one case. But if the women receives government support for the child, then depending on the state, the state would go after the biological father. The woman cannot contract away the state's right to pursue the man for support if she relies upon the state.

So it's not solely an issue of punishment--though I don't doubt that's part of it.

Edited to add: This was in answer to 611.

States have also pursued sperm donors for that matter in some, usually, anomalous cases.

Furthermore, i think that the assymmetry (best typo ev ah) is due to the fact that, under current us social mores, the transaction (sexytime) is not quid pro quo. If it were, their would be a much more (hetero) ratio of male and female prostitutes.

Furthermore, i think that the assymmetry (best typo ev ah) is due to the fact that, under current us social mores, the transaction (sexytime) is not quid pro quo. If it were, their would be a much more (hetero) ratio of male and female prostitutes.

Well certainly not if you follow Vlad's suggestion of categorically denying woman vaginal intercourse, and making her service you in other ways.

You're arguing for changing the law. But the law as it stands says that every male who has vaginal intercourse should be aware of the risk that he will be legally liable for offspring should it result.

Oh sure. Absolutely. I am arguing ought, not is. The current system is unjust. It ought to be changed.

Sam, possibly joint decisions that may have long term physical, psychological, and/or financial consequences should be considered as contracts.

Sure. The extent of the implied consent contract of mutually agreed upon sex should be "if she gets pregnant, he has to help pay for termination, unless she opts to carry to term, at which point he either opts in (with some sort of legal visitation, custody, etc) or opts out (where he is not required to pay, in return for having no relationship with the child resulting from his unplanned DNA donation.)

a round of bounce and shake

The use if this term disqualifies the user from any type of sexual activity.

The woman cannot contract away the state's right to pursue the man for support if she relies upon the state.

The state has the right to pass universal, non-discriminatory tax policies to support children. The state does not have the right to target individuals to fund state-supported child services, just because that guy had sex with a future mom.

The use if this term disqualifies the user from any type of sexual activity.

I have your phone number and multiple internet accounts. I *will* send you video.

Well certainly not if you follow Vlad's suggestion of categorically denying woman vaginal intercourse, and making her service you in other ways.

Vlad does not avoid women, but he does deny them his essence.

Vlad does not avoid women, but he does deny them his essence.

Vlad is Sting?

The state has the right to pass universal, non-discriminatory tax policies to support children. The state does not have the right to target individuals to fund state-supported child services, just because that guy had sex with a future mom.

So the biological father isn't responsible but I am? How is that just?

Vaguely related, since this is an issue I feel strongly about, I've been thinking awhile about trying to hook up with a fathers' rights organization to do some pro bono work. Did you know that, as far as I can tell with 30 minutes of googling and emailing my firm's pro bono coordinator, no such group exists in NYC? I find that stunning and appalling.

So the biological father isn't responsible but I am? How is that just?

This is where you recall that when Dan and Ray run down the 'taxation is slavery' angle, I'm on the other side. If society wishes to impose a child services support system funded from the common treasury, you, me, Ray and Dan are all morally obliged to participate. That's what tax-funded systems do. I have to pay for your rehab, you have to pay for Ray's wars, and Ray has to pay for my unwanted children. Welcome to the tragedy of the commons, baby.

Outside of social support programs, it is unjust to ask someone with no agency in a decision to pay the costs of that decision for his entire life.

States have also pursued sperm donors for that matter in some, usually, anomalous cases.

Why is it always have to be Kansas?

Vaguely related, since this is an issue I feel strongly about, I've been thinking awhile about trying to hook up with a fathers' rights organization to do some pro bono work. Did you know that, as far as I can tell with 30 minutes of googling and emailing my firm's pro bono coordinator, no such group exists in NYC? I find that stunning and appalling.

I don't disagree with you. Men who WANT to be active fathers are disadvantaged if they don't have a good relationship with the mother of the children. That's a sympathetic position.

The pro-abortion, Roger Sterling as victim crowd make me ashamed of my own gender.

#626 I'll buy your argument as a package deal. That is to say that if the child's needs are adequately met by society (hah! slut shaming will make this a political impossibility) I'll accept that a man can opt out. It's an essential pre-condition though.

#626 I'll buy your argument as a package deal. That is to say that if the child's needs are adequately met by society (hah! slut shaming will make this a political impossibility) I'll accept that a man can opt out. It's an essential pre-condition though.

The difficult part of this is that it's hard to sustain politically. Right or wrong, more people get upset about paying for other people's kids than about the possibility of getting stuck paying for an unwanted child. Whether this is because men are careful or foolish, I'll leave to others to decide. But states only got serious about hunting down deadbeat dads after federal welfare reimbursements got squeezed, and they got squeezed because welfare moms are political poison, so even if you set up the system you probably couldn't sustain it.

Right or wrong, more people get upset about paying for other people's kids than about the possibility of getting stuck paying for an unwanted child.

But they wouldn't have to pay for as many if the woman couldn't take a pregnancy to term on someone else's dime.(*) That's the real problem.

(*) The woman gets to have sex, have an orgasm if done properly, and then have a kid paid for by someone else. Pretty good deal, right?

But they wouldn't have to pay for as many if the woman couldn't take a pregnancy to term on someone else's dime.(*) That's the real problem.

Wasn't the perception in the 70s that women were allegedly having all these extra kids to get those sweet welfare benefits? I doubt the group of women having kids for financial gain is very high in either group, myself.

Ironic that there have now been several hundred posts of one aspect of sexuality that gay men need not really worry about.

This is Item #1 in the Recruitment Brochure of course...

This is Item #1 in the Recruitment Brochure of course...

Given this thread, if I wasn't married I'd probably sign up for the list.

The difficult part of this is that it's hard to sustain politically. Right or wrong, more people get upset about paying for other people's kids than about the possibility of getting stuck paying for an unwanted child. Whether this is because men are careful or foolish, I'll leave to others to decide. But states only got serious about hunting down deadbeat dads after federal welfare reimbursements got squeezed, and they got squeezed because welfare moms are political poison, so even if you set up the system you probably couldn't sustain it.

It's also fair to speculate whether the people here stumping for this change actually care whether the kid is taken care of by society or not. In fact, prior behavior indicates they'd be the first in line for cutting the benefits and sending the kids to the poorhouse. It's the woman's problem, right? They already don't give a #### about their own progeny, why would they care about anyone else's?

Wasn't the perception in the 70s that women were allegedly having all these extra kids to get those sweet welfare benefits? I doubt the group of women having kids for financial gain is very high in either group, myself.

Empirical question.

The bigger problem is, as others have noted, that it distorts the incentives during the 3-4 month window in which the woman can choose whether or not to take the pregnancy to term.

I'll buy your argument as a package deal. That is to say that if the child's needs are adequately met by society (hah! slut shaming will make this a political impossibility) I'll accept that a man can opt out. It's an essential pre-condition though.

There are many real world problem to address before you have a just system, including revanchist and reactionary elements who will scream about the forward progress of history altogether. That's not an argument against just policy; it's an argument against reactionaries.

Wasn't the perception in the 70s that women were allegedly having all these extra kids to get those sweet welfare benefits? I doubt the group of women having kids for financial gain is very high in either group, myself.

While I find SBB's phrasing intentionally insulting - and I'm not above that occasionally myself, no - he has a valid point beneath the finger poke. If you change the assumptions of support and responsibility to mirror the modern assumptions of sex and sexual freedom for women, then you change the incentives for having children out of wedlock. (Note: the best of all possible worlds would be the movement to my position on the issues of parental responsibility coupled with publicly available (i.e. no-cost to the user) birth control and morning after pills. There's no reason we should hang on to the outmoded idea of procreative choice as requiring a trip to the abortion clinic when modern women across western civilization have access to abortifcants over the counter.)

The pro-abortion, Roger Sterling as victim crowd make me ashamed of my own gender.

And that's your right. Many women didn't support women's suffrage, either.

It's also fair to speculate whether the people here stumping for this change actually care whether the kid is taken care of by society or not. In fact, prior behavior indicates they'd be the first in line for cutting the benefits and sending the kids to the poorhouse. It's the woman's problem, right? They already don't give a #### about their own progeny, why would they care about anyone else's?

Well, personally I would oppose cutting benefits for single parents. But I can only speak for myself, although I think Sam is also firmly in that camp.

I also never said that I wouldn't support my 'progeny' in such a situation. Only that I think that it is not right to force men to do so, in a situation where they have no rights, or choice. The person with the rights and the choice should bear the responsibility.

The person with the rights and the choice should bear the responsibility.

Correct. Choosing who and what gender to have sex with, choosing not to have sex with someone, forming a marital contract, the right of women and men to choose abortion, all of these rights go together for the same reasoning and tied under the same bundle. Untie the bow and try and take one out and the rest fall out, too. It's not about pro- or anti- men or women, it's about uniting free choices, rights, and responsibilities.

We can argue about the other stuff (benefits, etc), but this is a basic issue. It's about sexual freedom and the Puritans who seek to oppress it.

It's also fair to speculate whether the people here stumping for this change actually care whether the kid is taken care of by society or not. In fact, prior behavior indicates they'd be the first in line for cutting the benefits and sending the kids to the poorhouse.

I will assume you've never bothered to read my positions in the OTP threads with any rigor.

And that's your right. Many women didn't support women's suffrage, either.

Heh. Better than the rape comparison! Which isn't saying much.

Heh. Better than the rape comparison! Which isn't saying much.

? Someone said that forcing the man to pay for the woman's decision to have the baby is just like rape? Where?

I will assume you've never bothered to read my positions in the OTP threads with any rigor.

If you agree with someone who is labeled a libertarian then you yourself become a libertarian.

? Someone said that forcing the man to pay for the woman's decision to have the baby is just like rape? Where?

No, I used the rape analogy to show the idiocy of Vlad's repetition of "if he didn't want a baby he shouldn't have had penis-in-vagina sex."

the comment in question:

498. Rickey uses words like 'normative' Posted: February 04, 2013 at 05:20 PM (#4362564)

Because when a man decides to nail a random chick from a bar without bothering to put on a jimmy hat, that's the same thing as a woman being raped. Obviously.

No, jackass, but a man being forced to support a woman's child he *did not want to have* isn't so far removed from a woman being forced to have sex she *did not want to have* to make the response invalid. You're the one making the "it's their fault for being in the wrong place" argument.

If you agree with someone who is labeled a libertarian then you yourself become a libertarian.

Keep in mind I granted mutant status to those non-libertarians referred to. Of course, now you'll have to worry about Senator Robert Kelly.

Keep in mind I granted mutant status to those non-libertarians referred to.

I will accept this only, if it comes with super-powers.

I also never said that I wouldn't support my 'progeny' in such a situation. Only that I think that it is not right to force men to do so, in a situation where they have no rights, or choice. The person with the rights and the choice should bear the responsibility.

For the millionth time, you have the rights and responsibility when you have the penis-vaginal sex act. Don't engage in penis-vaginal sex, no kids to worry about.

You cannot force a woman to take a morning-after pill or abort. You already took the positive action of having sex with her. You are not faced with the responsibility of carrying a baby to term. If you drew up a contract beforehand you might have some plausibility, but that still doesn't answer the contract you have with the child. But I haven't seen any interest in contracts here, only using abortion as a get out of fatherhood free card.

Don't engage in penis-vaginal sex, no kids to worry about.

And for the umpteenth time, repeating it over and over again doesn't make it not the exact same argument against abortion.

You cannot force a woman to take a morning-after pill or abort.

Who said anything about forcing her? Men and women, in a society that has sexual freedom, make their own choices. It's not my fault if you share, with Fred Phelps, an arbitrary cutting-off point at parts of sexual freedom you don't like.