I'd also add that Duquesne University, a Catholic institution in Pittsburgh, has forced the local NPR station (located on their campus) to refuse donations from Planned Parenthood.

Did anyone else see this article too?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7028449.stm

"...Push open the door and you walk into what is believed to be the world's first retirement home for prostitutes..."

wow...anybody else depressed by the what-is-rape mismash that the comments on that match.com rapist piece is getting?

Ah, MRAs. I was just remarking on how they seem to comment on every single YouTube video that has anything to do with women.

Even this clip from Mystery Science Theater isn't safe.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pPBSD3tOoDA

The first comment even! Jesus! Do they just round up everything with a "women" tag and go to town?

It amazes me that people don't see date rape as "real" rape, and, in many ways, worse than being grabbed off the street. There's a violation of trust and a deeply personal element to date rape that causes a great amount of harm.

The Holy Cross uproar makes sense. If my super-liberal college campus had rented space to an anti-GLBT forum, I would expect uproar, too. The Catholic mission is even more explicit than a general campus zeitgeist.

Apropos of the Deep South article, I have ZERO sympathy for these pro-choicers who claim to be harassed by pro-lifers. Such bullshit. One of my friends was gunned down and almost run over on Saturday, while holding a sign that says, "Abortion hurts women." She and about a dozen other people were silently praying outside of a Planned Parenthood when some jerkoff decided to run them down and came within a foot of her.

The Deep South’s reproductive rights community has few political allies. In Mississippi and Louisiana, Democrats run on anti-choice platforms

It's not anti-choice; it's pro-life. If you don't want to be called anti-life, don't call us anti-choice.

Oenophile, I really don't care what pro-forced-birthers call me, so I'll carry on calling them what I like.

And your friend was "gunned down"? That would require a gun. But obviously you're right. Your anecdote means that all pro-choicers everywhere deserve to be harrassed by pro-forced-birthers. It's not like we have any anecdotes about, oh, a 70-year-old clinic escort being shoved down so hard by an anti-abortion protester that she suffered a concussion.

Yes, it is bad to run over anti-choicers, but it is also bad to harass and intimidate women. And if they think that God will answer their prayers, why do they have to pray outside the clinic? Can't they pray at home? Or were they trying to make the women seeking services and the men and women working inside uncomfortable?

Good point, JLP. I seem to recall a bible verse warning against broadcasting one's piety or something like that. Praying in public was frowned upon by Jesus.

As a man, I've always been insulted that Maxim Magazine is marketed towards me. It could be written by 12 year olds.

It's pretty amazing that Israel wants to use beautiful women to excuse it's human rights abuses. I'm a little worried that that ploy might work...

Another great week of articles! I've been trying to decide whether to read Susan Faludi's Terror Dream; the review made me think it will be interesting, but not to put it at the top of my list.

One solution to women being thrown out of women's bathrooms: unisex bathrooms! I live in a graduate dorm right now with unisex bathrooms. They have stalls. We all wander in and out in our bathrobes. It was a little disconcerting at first, but I got used to it in, like, 48 hours.

Plus, then you've eliminated the problem of making people choose their gender (and get other people to agree with that choice!) just to use the restroom.

Speaking of nooses, I would NOT surprise me if a noose was found at a Planned Parenthood clinic. After all, all anti-choicers are white supremacists, in addition to being male supremacists.

And we can now increase the maternal death toll to at least 200 in Nicaragua.

Sorry for going OT, but the US maternal death rates are NOT going down as the Washington Post reports, the maternal death rates are steadily going up, because of barriers to abortion. In the South, maternal deaths are skyrocketing every day.

And about the South, the anti-choice tactics described in the blog In These Times are in fact the exact same tactics used by the Ku Klux Clan and all other white supremacists. This is why I would designate all anti-choice groups as terrorist organizations.

"It's not anti-choice; it's pro-life. If you don't want to be called anti-life, don't call us anti-choice."
Yeah, but you are anti-choice. Because you don't think women should be able to make a choice about their own bodies. Pro-choice is not anti-life, in that some women will choose to not have abortions, and we support that choice as well. How is that hard to understand?

kittentheverb-you're not the only one. That story is fucking horrible, and things like that are part of the reason I'm not completely against the death penalty. I mean, would the death penalty really be too harsh of a punishment for that guy??

I can't access all of the link I want to, though, because living in a communists country means a lot of websites are censored by the government. Every day I thank Godric Gryffindor that I can still read Feministing.

It's not anti-choice; it's pro-life. If you don't want to be called anti-life, don't call us anti-choice.

Well, I think that outlawing abortion would lead to a death increase amongst women who attempt to terminate their own pregnancies. Some "pro-life" people react to this by saying she "deserved to die" for trying to "murder her baby." Sorry, I don't see that as being pro-life in any way. I see it as anti-choice AND anti-life.

Apropos of the Deep South article, I have ZERO sympathy for these pro-choicers who claim to be harassed by pro-lifers. Such bullshit.

For those not in the know, here's a quick recap of what oenophile thinks is "bullshit":

Every morning when June Ayers arrives for work, she scans the parking lot for suspicious people and packages before getting out of her car. Ayers owns Reproductive Health Services, one of seven clinics that provide abortions in Alabama. She’s been followed home, trailed at the mall and harassed on her front porch.

But of course oenophile's one friend trumps what this woman has to go through EVERY DAY. But I'm sure for oenophile, if she didn't want it to happen then the silly bitch would stop trying to help women exercise their state, federal and bodily right.

Another gem oenophile believes to be "bullshit":

In March 1993, Gunn died when a protester shot him three times in the back outside of his clinic in Pensacola, Fla. The doctor on Ayers’ staff now wears a bulletproof vest.

But of course oenophile doesn't believe this ever happened, why? Because she's got her fingers in her ears, eyes pinched shut and singing that familiar tune, "la la la la la la la I'm nooooot lissssteninig!"

And the capper:

In the early-1990s, researcher Loretta Ross noticed the anti-abortion movement was borrowing tactics from the Ku Klux Klan—things like “Wanted� posters and targeted bombings.

I'm sure, 50 years ago, oenophile would have been one of those lovely women who were just DISGUSTED by those uppity negros who had the nerve to think they were as good as white folk. She'd probably be upset to learn that they didn't like having people burn crosses on their lawns. Those people were just expressing how they felt, after all.

oenophile, even though I doubt your "story" about your friend being "gunned down" (thanks, EG, for pointing out in order to be "gunned down" there needs to be a gun) here's a bit of wisdom: sometimes, when people who have been continuously harassed get fed up with being harassed, they FIGHT BACK. And sometimes, people who are on their last straw will use the same dirty tactics that they're adversaries use in order to make the point that they wish to be LEFT THE FUCK ALONE.

As JP pointed out, if they wanted to pray they can do it in church or at home, they don't have to block sidewalks in front of a legal clinic to do it.

I default to the term "anti-abortion", because I believe it is objective and accurate. I refuse to say "pro-life", given that anti-abortion advocates are often pro-war, pro-death penalty, and commonly care very little about what happens to the "child" once it becomes an adult.

Anti-choice works fine, too. But 'pro life'? Certainly not.

that should be "their" adversaries. typing too fast.

The MRA screed appears to be factually incorrect and reads more like a swift-boat attack rather than an intellectual analysis of MRA beliefs. The MRAs can certainly be criticized on legitimate issues rather than descending to the tactic of character assassination. I found many of the "troll" comments to be more interesting and nuanced than Jeff Fecke's post. Perhaps it's the fact that it is 99% unlikely that a woman will even bear my child that allows me to step back and look at the issue more objectively - but I felt several of the posts on divorce, parental rights, and paternity issues to be compelling arguments. Of course, I would never support the MRAs conservative positions on marriage (ending what they and the fundie Xtians call "no-fault divorce"), their bigoted position on gay rights (which apparently isn't included in "men's rights"), and their anti free-love and anti libertine positions.

Oh dear. It appears that after reading the "everything you need to know about MRA's", I have discovered that I share a specific view with MRA's. I guess I shouldnt show my face around here again...

If you're going to talk about honour killings can I get a plug in for our campaign at www.stophonourkillings.com. It's a collaboration of volunteers from many countries and cultures dedicated to exposing and eradicating the crimes and oppression committed in the name of 'honour'.

Did anyone else click on the link in "everything you wanted to know about mens rights activists" article, that leads you to the National Centre for Mens Voluntary Parenthood site? I have rarely been so sickened. Esepcially the "how to win the argument" section. I can't believe that these men, acting like bloody children who have been told off, have the nerve to go shouting about it in public. "Forced parenthood?" All there problems might just go away if they accepted one defining truth of our (and most species) biology; EVERY time you have sex, there is a chance that the woman may get pregnant. So, for all you poor fellas out there who may be "tricked, trapped, or forced" into parenthood, the outlook is good! All you have to do is not have sex until you are ready to cope with the fact that your actions may have consequences!!

As above, should have typed "their" instead of "there". Furious typing frenzy syndrome.

Oenophile: I'm curious was there any direct connection between pro-choice activists and your friend almost getting clipped besides her protesting at the time. I mean, I was nearly clipped in the Target parking lot the other day, and the car was a lot closer than a foot away, but I didn't assume it was because I was carrying Halloween decorations.

When I was a pro-choice escort, the anti-abortion protesters would frequently almost get clipped by cars. The clinic was on a busy city street and they would bub in student from a local Christian college and over pack the 10'x6' protest area, spilling onto the sidewalk and the street. Protesters would often try and physically block and "bump" people walking down the sidewalk, they weren't supposed to but claimed it was due to over crowding. When the protesters wandered into traffic, their near misses were not a politically charged act, despite some claims to the contrary.

I'm sorry your friend was frightened, but that does not cancel out the countless threats and acts of violence carried out by supposedly pro-life advocates.

Do you guys remember a few months ago when a Glamour staffer said that black women shouldn't wear Afro's because they're unprofessional?
Cindi Leive, Glamour Editor-in -Chief finally responds:
http://www.glamour.com/news/articles/2007/10/leive_letter

Isn’t it funny Oenophile always has a very convenient story about one of her friends that prove some universal truth, despite tons of news stories, statistics and evidence to the contrary? I am thinking in particular of another one where one of her friends or someone she knew was tricked into having an abortion at a PP clinic; the point of that story being that it’s not just crisis pregnancy centers that lie to women.

Phlegmatic and Sgt.York, If you find yourself having *anything* in common with MRA’s I think it is a very good idea not to show your face on Feministing, especially Sgt.York who is known as an ardent rape apologist around here.

Okay, I guess Ill just have to take my "men should have an equal say on NOT becoming a parent" and keep it to myself. I have said my feelings on it here before, and quite frankly, I have been puzzled as to why feminists would reject the idea that, under certain circumstances, men should be able to avoid becoming a parent without taking away women’s rights.

But then, Im not a feminist, nor an MRA, so its not big loss. Thanks sojourner.

Men can avoid becoming a parent without taking away women's rights. They can use condoms or get vasectomies. Just like women, they have the right to bodily integrity. Because pregnancy takes place in women's bodies, women's right to bodily integrity includes abortion. In fact, men and women have exactly the same right. Once a kid is born and exists, men and women continue to have exactly the same rights and responsibilities--the non-custodial parent has to pay child support to the custodial parent. If both parents wish to give up parental rights, they can put the kid up for adoption. Period. End of story.

I very much agree on that point EG, so please dont think Im screaming about some major injustice here. I just feel that, although Im not in a position to know since I dont have sex, there is sometimes more involved than that. After all, if it were so clear-cut, couldnt having to make the choice to become a mother or not ever actually have to take place? If those methods, and peoples ability to use them, or agree on them, were so immaculate, there would never be any complications anyway, would there?

I just think it should be acceptable for someone to say "I dont want to become a parent". And I dont just mean that in a “women have abortion, men should be able to walk away� sense. I would see no difference if the woman were to have the child, and then give it to the father, and that would be the end of it. No child support for a child someone didnt want to support in the first place. Not quite, as I have been accused of saying here before “wanting to give men the right to fuck and walk away�.

But other than that vague point, Id say fuck year, if you don’t want to be a parent, don’t engage in the activity where you run the risk of putting yourself in that place.

I very much agree on that point EG, so please dont think Im screaming about some major injustice here. I just feel that, although Im not in a position to know since I dont have sex, there is sometimes more involved than that. After all, if it were so clear-cut, couldnt having to make the choice to become a mother or not ever actually have to take place? If those methods, and peoples ability to use them, or agree on them, were so immaculate, there would never be any complications anyway, would there?

I just think it should be acceptable for someone to say "I dont want to become a parent". And I dont just mean that in a “women have abortion, men should be able to walk away� sense. I would see no difference if the woman were to have the child, and then give it to the father, and that would be the end of it. No child support for a child someone didnt want to support in the first place. Not quite, as I have been accused of saying here before “wanting to give men the right to fuck and walk away�.

But other than that vague point, Id say fuck yeah, if you don’t want to be a parent, don’t engage in the activity where you run the risk of putting yourself in that place. Or at least dont do it unprotected. But still...

Sorry for the double post, I got an error, corrected my post and reposted it not realised it had done so when I got the error in the first place.

This actually has nothing to do with any of these links, but I was wondering if anyone else saw the "Anna Rexia" halloween costume? Have eating disorders become so trendy that people feel this is ok? (And I'm sorry if this isn't the spot for this, it just really bugged me and I had to get it out there)

"if the woman were to give the child to the father and that would be the end of it." Therein lies the issue: the woman always already has the child. The man is always already somewhere else besides physically attached to it. That's why the choice is about her body. And haven't fathers been walking away from their children from centuries?

This actually has nothing to do with any of these links, but I was wondering if anyone else saw the "Anna Rexia" halloween costume? Have eating disorders become so trendy that people feel this is ok? (And I'm sorry if this isn't the spot for this, it just really bugged me and I had to get it out there)

Hey Staar, there was a post about that costume a few days ago--it should still show up on the main page if you scroll down.

Also, mirm, let's point out that that's not the end of it. If the woman decides to go through with the pregnancy and then gives the baby to the father, guess what? She is then responsible for paying child support. Just like a man would be if he ditched his kid! Surpise, surprise--the situation is already equal.

I have to agree slightly with phlegmatic. The reason why women have the right to choose is personal bodily privacy, but the reasons given for abortions are usually not "because I wanted to have control of my body." The reason is usually, I'm not economically capable of supporting a child, I don't have the ability in my career right now, etc. Women get a second chance on opting out of being a parent. They could have decided not to have sex, and therefore not gotten pregnant. Then, if they do get pregnant, they have the option of aborting if they don't feel they are ready. However, if a man gets a woman pregnant and he doesn't want a kid and she does, he can swear up and down to deny parental rights, but he will still be paying child support because of a choice he has no say in. I don't want men to have a say in whether or not women get an abortion. I don't want men to have any control over women's bodies, but I think men should be able to deny all parental rights before viability. If they deny all parental rights, they never get to see the kid, be near the kid, have any sort of interaction in the kids life...but they also don't have to pay for it. Then it gets into the tricky area of women getting abortions because they won't have the support of the father. Gosh, the whole issue just confuses the heck out of me.

Also, mirm, let's point out that that's not the end of it. If the woman decides to go through with the pregnancy and then gives the baby to the father, guess what? She is then responsible for paying child support. Just like a man would be if he ditched his kid! Surpise, surprise--the situation is already equal.

Well, in my view it isnt. Why should she have to pay child support? If she decided to give birth to the child, but not to raise it, why should she have to support the child? You can put a child up for adoption for people who want to raise it, but you cant leave the childs welfare to the parent who wants to raise it? Im just confused as to why that is?

Ive already stated that I feel this is just as valid for men and women in my view.

It's been said a hundred times, but I'm going to say it again.

CHILD SUPPORT IS FOR THE CHILD'S WELFARE.

Once a child exists, it's welfare must be taken care of. Child support is paid in order to support the child. It is not for the mother. It is not for the father. It is for the child. Allowing someone to say, "No, I just don't want to do this" will only end up punishing children. There is no other way around it. Regardless of what you think about the various levels of choice involved, child support is really about the kid and only the kid. And we can't punish them because Daddy doesn't feel ready.

But if mommy doesn't feel ready she can shell out $300 and not have to worry about paying for a kid for 18 years.

I think I agree with FemiDancer and others; it doesn't seem fair to say to guys "you had sex, deal with the consequences," when one of THE things we advocate for in terms of reproductive rights is to say that just because a woman says "yes" to sex doesn't mean she has to say "yes" to pregnancy and parenthood.

I like the idea of biological fathers having a framework in which to terminate parental rights and responsibilities that roughly mirrors a woman's right to choose to end the pregnancy. Obviously, a man may be "pregnant" and not know it until after the child is born (a situation that would not occur for women), so the legal framework would need to take that into account somehow. But I think men, just like women, should have the right to choose not to be parents. And, as for women, I don't believe that right to choose means the decision not to have sex unless you're prepared for the possibility of parenthood.

Once the child is THERE, of course, then the child has independent rights and needs for care that parents can't just opt out of without going through a formal adoption process or something. So a father (just like a mother) can't just decide, when the child is three, that they don't want to parent anymore, and quit.

Kimmy is right. If men could choose to "opt out" of paying child support for children they don't want the poverty rate for women and children would skyrocket. Of course, government assistance could increase to help out, and than we will all be paying for these unwanted children w/ our taxes. I don't think thats such a bad idea.

Exactly. And that is because pregnancy is a condition of her body. She does not have to endure it if she does not want to, no matter what her reasons. Basically, MRAs want the "right" to fuck whomever they want, whenever they want, without considering or taking responsibility for the consequences. This is not a right that anybody has. Women have to cope with the consequences of sex in the form of unintended pregnancy. Why shouldn't men?

Still, here's an idea. Every time an MRA is going to have sex with a woman, he should say to her "I want you to know that I'm the kind of person who, if your sexual encounter leads to your pregnancy, has no moral problem with skipping out on you and taking no responsibility whatsoever. I feel no obligation to you or to any child that may result. I care so little for your well-being that I have no problem dancing off and leaving you holding the bag--in fact, I'll probably be self-righteous about it, because of course your magic pussy prevented me from double-bagging my dick."

If he makes his position plain, I doubt he'll ever have any problem with any consequences of sex.

Because Mommy has the dubious virtue of being the one who has to carry and give birth to the baby. And let's not forget the mommies who can't get abortions for whatever reason (I notice they all get left out of these discussions) - the mommies who don't believe in abortion, who can't afford abortion, who don't have access to abortion or whose parents prevent them from getting abortions.

An abortion isn't snapping your fingers and wishing the pregnancy away. It's money shelled out, it's a surgical procedure, it's choices made, and it's not always easy. Some women can't do it. And they end up with a child that needs support just as much as any child that was kept because the woman desperately wanted to be a mother.

Here's the thing: Mommy can make a choice before there is a child to worry about, in most cases. As was pointed out above, men may consider it unfair that she gets two chances to make this choice (pre-sex and then pre-birth), but that's the way reproduction works, and there's nothing we can do about it until men figure out a way to be the ones who get pregnant.

However, once there is a child, nobody has a choice. The child needs care. Child support is for the child's care. Hence, the non-custodial parent pays child support. Paying child support and abortion are not equal, and it's disingenuous to compare the two. One is a choice made pre-child. The other is not a choice because there is unquestionably a child whose welfare must be paramount.

That's really all there is to it.

Obviously, a man may be "pregnant" and not know it until after the child is born (a situation that would not occur for women), so the legal framework would need to take that into account somehow.

That's because men cannot, in fact, be pregnant. That is the all-important difference. Women do not have the right to have sex without coping with the consequences--that's impossible for us. One of the ways we cope is abortion. But MRAs want men to be able to have sex without coping with the consequences. Nope. We don't get to skip off, and neither do they.

Kimmy is right. If men could choose to "opt out" of paying child support for children they don't want the poverty rate for women and children would skyrocket. Of course, government assistance could increase to help out, and than we will all be paying for these unwanted children w/ our taxes. I don't think thats such a bad idea.

But you forgot mirms little fact treestump:

haven't fathers been walking away from their children from centuries?

Besides, I guess you would be adding "paying for unwanted children" to a long list of things peoples tax money goes towards which they dont like.

“But if mommy doesn't feel ready she can shell out $300 and not have to worry about paying for a kid for 18 years.�
Femi, it seems you don’t understand the difference between an existing child, a *person* with rights (including the right to be taken care of and provided for by the parents) and a fetus. If a child hasn’t been born the woman is not “mommy�, she can make the decision whether or not to carry the pregnancy to term. Why? Because it is *her* body. She has a right to decide whether she wants to carry a fetus inside *her* body and give birth to it or not.

Okay, EG, I get what you're saying and I'm not sure what the solution is. I don't feel like I'm saying men should get to "skip out" on the consequences any more than women can . . . except of course you're right that an unintended pregnancy is going to have a physical impact on us (as women) that it doesn't have on men. That's a biological fact that we can't really change.

But I don't see how that gives us the right to hold different standards for men and women when it comes to choosing parenthood. One of the arguments we make as feminists for pro-choice policies is that women regardless of their sexual histories, behaviors, or the circumstances in which they got pregnant should not have to "pay" for sex by being forced into parenthood. We don't think ALL women should be punished because some women terminate pregnancies for reasons we disagree with. Why, then, should turn around and point fingers at all guys because SOME guys are jerks and aren't responsible about their sex lives?

“ women should not have to "pay" for sex by being forced into parenthood.�
Anna, you are wrong. It’s not about being forced into parenthood, it’s about being forced to be pregnant and give birth = violation of one’s bodily autonomy.

Annajcook: The answer to your question is right there in several posts above yours.

Men have to pay child support (as do non-custodial women) because THE CHILD'S WELFARE IS PARAMOUNT. That means it trumps everything else. Including the whims and desires of any parent who would rather not be a parent. The child's care comes first and foremost, and that's the whole point of child support. It's for the kid. Not for the father, not for the mother, not for the little dog in the backyard. The kid.

Allowing men to sign out of child support is going to have two major consequences: (1) it could increase the incidences of abortion among women who would not otherwise have gotten one (and I don't think any of us agree that women should be forced into that) and (2) it will increase the number of children who are suffering from poverty.

Letting men sign out of child support isn't protecting men. It's punishing children. You know, the ones who are completely innocent of the whole affair? It's easy to cast this in the light of men vs. women, but it isn't about either of them. It's about the child.

I don't know how many times I've had to argue with people that sex does not equal consent to pregnancy. Why, then, for men, does sex equal consent to fatherhood? What Kimmy says is true, child support is for the child, but maybe the woman made the decision to keep the child knowing she would receive child support from a man who had no desire to be a father. I don't like the idea of forced abortions, because that is also a violation of women's bodily privacy. But I don't think women should be making the decision to keep a child if the only way her finances will work is with the help of a dad that doesn't even want to be around. If you can argue that a woman consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy, why can't you argue that a man consenting to sex is not consenting to supporting a child. I don't understand how you can deny the causal chain in one instance but not the other.

And I don't like that people are throwing around the "he should have used a condom/protection" bs when we all know that contraception fails, and that you wouldn't deny a woman an abortion if she didn't use contraception.

I can't believe there actually pro-MRA women now.

Let's break it down: "male choice" == child support is optional, by choice.

That's it. Child support is optional. Is that what you want? I can see how a misogynistic juvenile male might want that, but anyone decent? A woman? How so?

Look, I know there's a lot of pro-choice people on here, young people with high tech backgrounds etc, but "biological fathers having a
framework in which to terminate parental rights and responsibilities" is a non-starter. We've had that framework for thousands of years, it's called "leaving town".

Anyway, again, given the demographics of feministing I'm sure a lot of people here are very pro-choice. As am I. But I'm not prepared to
change the law so that women who choose to give birth find a world where a father's child support is optional.

Americans (does anyone?) do not support abortion to the point where we want to make choice for women a choice between abortion and supportless single parenthood.

Especially when the primary benefit is to misogynistic underdeveloped males & the primary harm is to children.

Ratcity: I'm not a men's rights activist. I think men have it pretty darn great, and they don't have anything to bitch about. I just don't like that the same damn arguments that people use against abortion are being used to support child support. If we use the same arguments that they use, it validates their arguments. I want a good argument for child support payments for men that doesn't negate arguments for abortion for women, and I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing "men should choose not to have sex if they don't want kids," which is the same thing pro-lifers say to women seeking abortions. I'm also seeing "the child's welfare is at stake," but whether or not there is a child is the mom's choice, and not the dad's, because after it's in her body and growing, it's out of his hands, and rightly so. If the fatherhood decision is out of his hands after he ejaculates, then sex = consent to fatherhood for men, but sex doesn't equal consent to pregnancy for women? I don't think it does, and I've had a very hard time reconciling my pro-choice views with my views that men should be forced to pay child support.

I have to run to class in a minute, but I'll come back to reading this thread later. It's raising interesting issues and thanks everyone for the discussion.

I'm not a "men's rights activist" either . . . I consider equality in reproductive rights to be integral to my feminist principles. I'm open to considering some of the issues people have raised here, but I agree with FemiDancer that I still don't understand how we can get away with saying sex=consent for men, but not for women.

I want to clarify that, in my opinion, there are two distinct ways of thinking about the "right" to choose not to parent. Clearly, choosing not to parent when there is already a child born and in need of care is very different from (in my pro-choice perspective) choosing not to go through with a pregnancy. So any framework for giving men reproductive choice would have to (as I wrote above) match the sort of timeline we ideally give women--a sliding scale of freedom in deciding whether or not to become parents, depending on the length of gestation, etc. I am NOT arguing for a parent's right (either mother or father) to just decide they don't want to parent one day and walking away without further responsibilities.

While Oenophile has proven that she is deeply in denial about abortion-rights issues (I have yet to see a news article about an anti-abortionist being murdered or having their home vandalized or children harassed by pro-choicers), insinuating that she's a white supremacist is crossing a line. Yes, a lot of the tactics of the so-called "pro-lifers" are very similar to those of the KKK, but saying that anti-choice=racist in every case is unfair. It'd be awfully convenient to be able to say that people who are close-minded about one thing are so about everything, but the facts do not back that up; there are lots of people who are progressive on one issue but regressive on another.

EG, JenLovesPonies, and Roni all managed to rebut Oenophile's argument without calling her a racist.

FemiDancer, if paying child support was the same as giving birth I could support giving men the right to MAKE WOMEN HAVE THEIR CHILDREN after they get pregnant. Yeah, legally force the woman I've known for three weeks who got pregnant to have the child and give it to me.

That's an incredibly stupid & evil idea. But it makes sense based on equating giving birth & paying child support.

So using proof by contradiction we can say that child birth/abortion is not the same as paying child support. In fact it's different enough that we're going to have to deal with the individually.

Of course that should have been obvious.

Logic is only going to get you so far. What kind of world do you want to live in? The consequences of the sort of choice you propose is: child support is optional. That's what you want? And women who can't deal with that can just have abortions?

That's the MRA position, they're like: wow abortions are great, it only sucks that I can't get one.

And of course things are actually FAR, FAR more complicated than the MRA wish-fulfillment world. What if a woman doesn't know who the father is? Abortion to the rescue again?

For the record, I am very pro-choice. I just think that the MRA/abortion aliance has more to do with forced abortions than choice.

I still don't understand how we can get away with saying sex=consent for men, but not for women

Think of it like this: every person, man or woman, has the right not to engage in the reproductive process. You have the right not to make out with someone. You have the right to insist on a condom between you and the person you're having sex with. You have the right not to have sex with that person, and to terminate sex with them at any time, for any reason. You have the right NOT have a fetus inside you, taking an immense physical toll on your body.

What I'm getting at is that both men and woman have the right to STOP the reproductive process at every stage they are involved in. SO: they are equally able to terminate sex, and control the circumstances of sex. AFTER sex has taken place, the mechanics of reproductive process change. Only one party is now involved. That party still has the right to stop the process if they wish.

That party (erm, the woman, just so there's no misunderstanding..) has more involvement in the babymaking. She has an extra stage to say 'no', because she has an extra stage of physical bodily involvement.

Think of the right to choose issue like this:

Both men and women have the right to choose whether to conceive when they choose to have sex.

Due to privacy issues, once conception occurs only the woman has the right to choose because the fetus is part of her body. If she wasn't allowed to control her own body it would be tantamount to admitting that a woman is enslaved when pregnant, and her sentient concerns are less important than the concerns of the fetus she is carrying. No sane person would admit that, right?

And once the child is born, the child has a legal right to protection and/or support from his/her parents. Abandonment laws exist solely to keep babies from dying in dumpsters and they apply to whomever chooses to abandon the baby. The fact that the person who does so is almost always female merely underlines the fact that women are primarily responsible for the physical care of children once they are born.

The fact that legal parents (male and female, by the way) can't merely opt out of support for a child the other legal parent is raising is justified, because (as pointed out by another) the support is for the child, not the parent.

It all makes sense to me. The only way to make this seem unfair to men is to lump all of these very different situations into one big clump and start shouting about it. Which is usually what MRAs do.

Hahaha, great minds think alike sgzax!

But I don't see how that gives us the right to hold different standards for men and women when it comes to choosing parenthood. One of the arguments we make as feminists for pro-choice policies is that women regardless of their sexual histories, behaviors, or the circumstances in which they got pregnant should not have to "pay" for sex by being forced into parenthood. We don't think ALL women should be punished because some women terminate pregnancies for reasons we disagree with. Why, then, should turn around and point fingers at all guys because SOME guys are jerks and aren't responsible about their sex lives?

What you're saying would make sense if we advocated for abortion rights because women shouldn't have to parent if they don't want to. But we don't do that. The solution for a woman who doesn't mind pregnancy and childbirth but doesn't want to parent is for her to give the resulting kid up for adoption. Men are not forced to parent either, by the way--writing a check is not parenting.

We argue for abortion rights because pregnancy is a condition of the woman's body. And my body is not equivalent to a man's wallet. It is, to quote a phrase, myself.

So no, as far as I'm concerned, there is no sliding time scale. Men and women have the same rights--the right to bodily integrity--and the same responsibilities--the responsibility to support their children. The fact that sometimes men are required to do the bare minimum of what is required to be a decent human being (nobody, after all, is advocating legislation that would require men to get up in the middle of the night to change diapers, or any of the really unpleasant parenting tasks) does not seem to me to be a great burden, especially when contrasted with the biologically mandated burden of pregnancy and abortion, or pregnancy and childbirth.

Personally, I would advocate for a system under which all children are guaranteed an acceptable standard of living by the state. In that case, this issue would be moot. But interestingly, I never see MRAs advocating for that solution, which would provide reproductive choice to all men and all women. Because all they're actually concerned with is maintaining the same "rights" men have had for hundreds and hundreds of years--the right to fuck women and run away at the slightest hint of responsibility.

I think I owe Dinogirl a coke.

"I would see no difference if the woman were to have the child, and then give it to the father, and that would be the end of it."

Considering that this scenario still requires the woman to undergo 9 months of pregnancy, complete with all the radical physical and emotional changes that accompany it, not to mention the health risks, lost pay, possible lost job, etc., etc. in order to birth the child she didn't want in the first place just so she can turn around and hand it over to Daddy, I'd say there's a slight difference.

Maybe you wouldn't mind working for almost a year at a physically demanding, potentially life-endangering job you didn't want in the first place, and then turning over your entire paycheck to someone else at the end of it. That sounds totally fair and reasonable, don't you think?

What? It doesn't? Well fancy that.

Honestly, people, get it through your heads. Women don't get pregnant in the morning, pop out the kid on their lunch break and then head on back to work afterwards. Please stop acting as if 9 months of pregnancy or an abortion are equivalent to writing a child support check or signing a stack of legal documents. They're not. Whichever choice a woman makes, she ultimately risks her health and maybe even her life. The man risks only the contents of his bank account.

So tell me again how it's fair to treat the two equally. Because maybe if I apply your logic to my arguments, I can convince someone I deserve hazard pay for my desk job...

Vervain, have I ever asked you to marry me? If not, I'm a fool.

Wow, a lot of people came back with really good responses while I was writing mine, expressing pretty much the same idea.
Makes me feel a little redundant. Maybe I get bonus points for snark?

"What I'm getting at is that both men and woman have the right to STOP the reproductive process at every stage they are involved in."

Thanks Dinogirl! This is exactly what I was looking for. Helps ease the cognitive dissonance.

There's at least one problem with the idea of letting men opt-out of parenthood (and when I say "parenthood," I mean "ponying up x amount of dollars every month"). That problem is: what happens if the mother doesn't tell the father about the pregnancy until it's too late for an abortion? There are documented cases of women finding out they're pregnant only when they go into labor. How does the opt-out option work then?

Those of you who are advocating for men having a choice, saying women shouldn't be able to force them to pay, and should base their child-bearing decisions on their own financial capabilities if necessary...

I still haven't seen anyone answer what happens when the woman can't have an abortion for whatever reason (whether it's cost, moral problems with it, it's unavailable to her, parents won't let her, etc.). Do you still think the man should be allowed to opt out, even though the woman doesn't have a choice?

“Why, then, for men, does sex equal consent to fatherhood?�
Because once your sperms leave your body and enter hers, fatherhood is not something that requires consent, because it’s not something that is done to *your* body.
You seem to agree with “What I'm getting at is that both men and woman have the right to STOP the reproductive process at every stage they are involved in.� Then you should know that the man’s involvement in the reproductive process ends when his sperm enters the woman’s body, therefore his right to STOP the process ends there.

Sojourner: when I agreed with her I was saying that she convinced me, I thought it was a good argument. And it eased my cognitive dissonance about wanting to force child support and being pro-choice, because there is no dissonance. So, no worries, I'm convinced.

"What I'm getting at is that both men and woman have the right to STOP the reproductive process at every stage they are involved in."

That is exactly right. Love. Love. Love.

Re: The Pruity Balls

It is interesting that these events/beliefs rely heavily on the rhetoric that girls who are outside of the purity ball circle will fall into ruin because they'll base their self worth around other men or being "promiscuous." Yet, purity balls do the same exact thing- only making the girls self-worth based on keeping this one promise and tying their whole sexual idenity to one person (their father!).

""(But) girls whose fathers are in their lives are less likely to be promiscuous, get depressed, have thoughts of suicide. We believe a girl's identity and self-worth comes from the father."

If that's true, what will it do to these girls' ideas of self worth if they don't keep that pledge? How could she avoid being depressed if she can't go to her father (her so-called center of identity!) with questions about sex or feelings or troubles she might have between what she was taught and what she might naturally feel.

(This isn't even touching on how these events might affect the kids who are gay or are questioning their orientation!)

I am sure my father was a huge influence on teaching me to be responsible and developing a strong sense of self-worth. But he was able to do that without trying to take a weird romantic-like role in my life with "date nights" or telling me that the only way to be a good daughter/woman was to remain "pure." Instead he coached my soccer teams and got up early on Saturday morning to drive me to debate tournaments and never missed an opportunity to tell me that he thought I was smart and capable and that he trusted me to make my own decisions. So what I find most disturbing about what purity balls teach is that it doesn't include this sort of behavior in their idea of what a dad should be. It's bad for the kids, but I think it's also bad for parents by telling them that they need to enforce strict sexual guidelines instead of letting them be an open and honest resource and preventing them from tailoring their parenting depending on what their child might need/want from them.

well presumably the right to 'cancel' fatherhood has the following clauses:

- It cannot be done once the baby is born or beyond the 24th week just like abortion.

so you just get women masking the pregnancy until it's too late...

- Also like abortion it can't be undone.

can you really see these things lasting a childs lifetime? Or the father can only see his child (even once) as soon as he has back paid with interest all the child support.

The whole thing is completely unworkable once you get past the "well that's a nice idea" and into the practicalities of how it works....

I think this says it all about purity balls
"""I have too many things I want to do — NASCAR driver, author, oceanographer, Egyptologist — I'm pretty independent," she said.
She added one more thought: "Without my dad, I don't know where I'd be."""

Maybe you wouldn't mind working for almost a year at a physically demanding, potentially life-endangering job you didn't want in the first place, and then turning over your entire paycheck to someone else at the end of it. That sounds totally fair and reasonable, don't you think?

What? It doesn't? Well fancy that.

Well that’s an extremely odd way to put it Vervain. First of all, in the suggestion I made, I thought I made it clear it would be the womans own choice to endure the pregnancy, for whatever her reasons (dislike of abortions could be a good one?). And second, since giving it over would require her to not want to raise the child. Her “paycheck� is apparently many more years hard graft of raising that child? Doesn’t like too good a deal taking into account a) she doesn’t want to raise it b) its not a very worthwhile “paycheck� to keep and look after and c) her partner wishes to raise the child, while she doesnt. I don’t see what the problem would be in her leaving the rasing of the child to her partner, and be completely free of it, support payments and all?

Please stop acting as if 9 months of pregnancy or an abortion are equivalent to writing a child support check or signing a stack of legal documents. They're not. Whichever choice a woman makes, she ultimately risks her health and maybe even her life. The man risks only the contents of his bank account.

I don’t recall ever make the suggestion that paying child support is equal to abortion. I just feel people should be able to choose if they are going to take further responsibility of a child and its life before things become obviously difficult, no matter how minute those responsibilities are. And your financial stability is such a frivolous, petty thing isnt it? It doesn’t of course, make up a fucking large portion of who you are.

Because once your sperms leave your body and enter hers, fatherhood is not something that requires consent, because it’s not something that is done to *your* body.

Oh I see becoming a parent – something, which we all know, comes with serious repercussions on your life – cannot require consent, because it doesn’t affect your body….

That post on men's rights activists is precisely why I can't get on board with these guys/groups. I have a hard time feeling bad for so-called oppressed majorities, unless of course we're referring to apartheid. As Groucho Marx (perhaps) once said, "I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member."

Phlegmatic... did you have a response to the arguments posted by dinogirl or myself? There were others too, who pointed out that support is for the child, not the custodial parent. Did that make sense to you?

Phlegmatic, please answer my question. I'm very curious to see your take on this.

Phlegmatic, sex = babies.

You can do your best to prevent it through contraception, and a woman has the option (as and where the choice is open to them) to terminate it but the fact still stands.

Give me your sperm and I am not making you an unwilling father. To do that I'd have to wank you off in your sleep and then inject it into me. THEN you have the right to be pissed.

Those "non support" agreements are of two VERY different varieties:

1) Agreements made before the sexual act; and

2) Agreements made after the sexual act.

I don't see how anyone can have sex and THEN change their mind regarding support, so I'll ignore #2.

But I think #1 is a very different story. Yes, men and women have vastly different physiologies with respect to reproduction. But why not look at equality of process?

It's sort of like... a prenup:

Woman: "I don't want an abortion or to raise a child. If you want to have sex with me, you'll be liable for all pregnancy expenses and you'll agree in advance to be the sole parent and solely responsible for child support."

and so on.

“Oh I see becoming a parent – something, which we all know, comes with serious repercussions on your life – cannot require consent, because it doesn’t affect your body….�

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Because EG explained it very well if you bothered to read. It doesn’t affect your body it affects your wallet. There is a right to bodily integrity than there isn’t to pocket integrity or whatever it is called. Fatherhood unlike pregnancy is not something that is violating your bodily integrity. What does require consent is obtaining your sperms. Once a child is born you are a father, that’s just the way it is. You are not *made* to be a father you just are, it’s a fact of biology. Even if you walk away you are still a father, an asshole father but still a father.
I liked your original suggestion of not showing your face here a lot better …

Great thread of comments going on here... I wanted to post something about the MRA's as well.

I actually think there are things a men's rights movement could achieve. The current patriarchal situation is hurting them as well, issues around male rape, domestic abuse and paternal rights should be addressed, and the women's rights movement isn't going to do it. And we shouldn't, we're pursuing women's interests.

Categorizing all men's rights sympathizers or activists in the same light as the extreme right conservative Christian douchebags the author is targeting is patently unfair in my opinion. I realize a lot of MRA's are in fact extreme right conservative Christian douchebags, but it seems to me there are some issues (like the ones I mentioned earlier) that should be thoughtfully discussed and addressed. Shouldn't we be working with those MRA's who are in it for those reasons and see their movement as in complement to ours? There are some of those too you know...

mara_jade, I think the problem is that the most vocal MRAs fall largely into the category that was described in that post. I've read some of the sites and blogs from these guys, and I have to admit, it only takes a little bit of time before I find something that I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with. I don't consider myself a feminist, but I refuse to accept that the alternative is MRAs.

Actually, I believe that feminism should and does address issues involving male rape, domestic abuse and paternal rights. The best thing MRAs who are truly interested in resolving these issues could do would be to become feminist and fight the good fight.

Phlegmatic... did you have a response to the arguments posted by dinogirl or myself? There were others too, who pointed out that support is for the child, not the custodial parent. Did that make sense to you?

Perfect sense. That’s my whole point - paying >for the –child- someone didn’t actually want in the first place>. I don’t think people should be without a choice to avoid having to do that.

Phlegmatic, please answer my question. I'm very curious to see your take on this.

That situation varies quite a little bit. Id like to think if it came to wanting an abortion, but unable to afford it, Id like to think a man would do his best to try and help pay, but I think that’s wishful thinking on my behalf. With moral problems, yes he should be able to walk away, because then her moral problems with abortion and decision to have the child (expecting his support) are forcing their way into his life, without his permission. The parents, again wishful thinking on my part, shouldn’t have a say anymore than her partner should have a say on her decision. With the unavailable one, like with the financial one, Id like to think the partner would individually decide to stay and help. But again, Im all for choice, for people choices over there own bodies, and their own lives. Im sorry, that’s probably a pretty inconclusive answer.

Once a child is born you are a father, that’s just the way it is. You are not *made* to be a father you just are, it’s a fact of biology. Even if you walk away you are still a father, an asshole father but still a father

No, believe me, I know it takes A LOT more than mere genetic bond to make a father. My “father� killed himself before I was old enough to remember him, and left my mother to take care of me, a brother, and a sister alone. Then I guess in the years that followed was “some guy� who my mother met, and helped take care of us, died after a couple of years in a traffic accident.

No, sojourer. My REAL father had no genetic bond with me whatsoever.

I liked your original suggestion of not showing your face here a lot better …

That was originally a little facetiousness on my part, because I was a little concerned about “everything you need to know about MRA’s� somehow bundling me in with “the most hated enemy� (MRA’s) because of a particular view I “shared� (just barely). But of course, if people don’t want to know what I think, Ill do the decent thing and leave. I never wanted to be a troll here.

Phlegmatic, you didn't answer my question at all. If you can't count on a man to pay child support, you can't count on him to help you in other ways either. And it's a fact that some girls are prevented by their parents from seeking abortions.

So, best I could gather from what you posted is that you believe the man should have the choice to walk away even when the woman doesn't. I think that's pretty telling, don't you?

I'll say it again. Men have plenty of choices regarding their own bodies. What they don't have is choice regarding anyone else's, and that includes any child that may result. Whether he feels ready to be a father or not, there is a child that requires support and care. And if he doesn't want to be a daddy, he can send the check every month and never see the kid, but it's still his responsibility, same as it is the woman's, to see that the child's welfare is taken care of.

Or do children, along with women who can't get abortion for whatever reason, have no rights in your perfect world?

So, best I could gather from what you posted is that you believe the man should have the choice to walk away even when the woman doesn't. I think that's pretty telling, don't you?

So you basically believe women have rights over their partners. An accident with contraception, and a womans decision to have the child, means that mans life has been altered without his full say so? Thats how I see it, just as you apparently see me as some woman ditching misogynist. (Id like to remind you that I dont take ANY risk, and avoid sex altogether).

Or do children, along with women who can't get abortion for whatever reason, have no rights in your perfect world?

They certainly do have rights, just, but they shouldnt, in however minute a way, dictate someone elses life, just as with a womans body, and the potential child growing inside, dictate what happens to her body. Im not trying to compare the two, only point out what I see as a similarity.

Phlegmatic, I don't think you are arguing in good faith. The point at which each partner has a choice has been clearly delineated. The reason for a difference in choice has been ably defended. All that remains is the fact that some men want to opt out of responsibility, but it seems sociopathic to propose that people should be able to opt out of supporting their biological children just because they don't feel like it. Is personal responsibility really all that difficult a concept for some people?

For my above post, Id like to add that - they shouldnt dictate someone else’s life, unless they choose it. And by that I mean, actually choose, and hopefully want to become a parent, fully and unconditionally.

Purity Balls:
1) Ew.
2) I used to go to church with the girls in that article. It's a big family with something like seven daughters. With the exception of maybe one, they are all like that. Very "daddy oriented."

Let me summarize some of the major points in the comments for you, Phlegmatic.

1. Child support is for children, not a man vs. woman thing. Regardless of why or how it came into existance, once the child does exist it's needs and claims (on both parents) trump pretty much everything else.
2. Each partner has the ability to stop the reproductive process at any time their body is actually involved in that.
• Men are not being punished because their physical involvement ceases first.
• Because this is just the way our bodies work, there's no need for legal redress to counterbalance the facts.
3. Integrity of the wallet (the right to not pay for something) is not equal to integrity of the body (the right not to have something done to your body). Therefore, child support is not a claim on a person which is equal to the claim made by pregnancy.
4. No one should force a man to behave like a father, or to be part of his child's life (he'd likely only do more harm than good if he's not into it). However, that does not absolve him of his responsibilities which, again are to the child.

Does that lay it all out, nice and neat? I really don't understand why this is so difficult. A man's desire to keep his money doesn't trump a child's right to be cared for. It's just that simple.

And if they don't choose it, Phlegmatic, then to hell with the kids, let 'em suffer? Is that the next logical step?

Phlegmatic, I don't think you are arguing in good faith. The point at which each partner has a choice has been clearly delineated. The reason for a difference in choice has been ably defended. All that remains is the fact that some men want to opt out of responsibility, but it seems sociopathic to propose that people should be able to opt out of supporting their biological children just because they don't feel like it. Is personal responsibility really all that difficult a concept for some people?

I really cant see how what Im suggesting is all that much different from adoption? Is adoption parents “abandoning responsibility for their biological children�? Or is it all that you can see from my posts is my supposed fervent desire for men to leave poor women just with child, all alone and without support? The more brutal form of what I suggest happens all the time, mostly by men again, when they walk out without so much as a word. All I have been trying to point out is that I wonder why it isnt possible for a biological parent (man OR woman) to not put the child out for adoption, but leave all responsibility for the child with their partner, provided is is their wish to raise the child?

It's clear to me that there's no point in prolonging this argument, but it makes me sad to see someone who can make such an inhuman argument with no sense of shame or embarrassment.

I can't say I feel very sorry for oenephile's alleged friend. Abortion is a very difficult, private choice, and these anti-choicers can be so callous.
I mean, I'm an athiest, and I think that raising children to be religious is a form of child abuse, but you don't see me picketing churches or synagogues with signs saying "Religion hurts children" or "Religion hurts women" (Which it undoubtedly does). Seriously, if you don't want an abortion, don't get one. But knock of the holier-than-thou attitude. Honestly, some of Jesus's followers are so unChristlike.

Also, I really enjoyed the MRA post. One of them took one of my women's studies classes once (Why would you spend several hundred dollars just so you can be disruptive and rude?)
I debated with him just once and the conversation went something like this;
MRA: I can has penis so I superior to the womenz!
Me: Why?
MRA: Acause Jebus made mens first so we superior.
Me: What if you're not a Christian?
MRA: Everyone should be Christian!
And then my head exploded.
Feminism acknowledges the damage men do to the patriarchy. The MRA movement is just a reaction to the loss of male privilige, and is really not legitimate except for psychos and misogynists.

Phlegmatic makes things very clear. He or she proposes to legalize walking out on your child, like men have been doing for 1000's of years.

This is why MRA types hang out on the internet. Stop trolling here, Phlegmatic, try to round up some real-world support for your brilliant idea. Maybe an initiative?

Adoption has nothing to do with this. In an adoption someone receives the child of their own free will. Ideally a family, but orphanages were traditonally charitable institutions. No one is forced to be an adoptive parent.

BTW, in the event both partners agree I believe one partner can give up the child to the other.

Also, I don't really want to give "women rights over their partners." However women DO HAVE RIGHTS over their bodies & children DO HAVE RIGHTS upon both their parents. Them's the breaks. Good for you for sticking by your principles and not having sex.

It's clear to me that there's no point in prolonging this argument, but it makes me sad to see someone who can make such an inhuman argument with no sense of shame or embarrassment.

Oh, Im sorry, I was just contemplating how appropriate some would deem those words in another situation regarding an individuals right to choose. Of course, with that argument I side with the right to choose yet again. Its a shame, because I didnt realise people could construe so much "poor woman left with new-born baby, as bastard partner runs away" of my posts. I was thinking more, a decision not to become a parent, and leave the child with the person/people who want to raise it. And not in a *baby is born* "fuck this, Im out of here" manner either. More like, as the biological mother first learns she is pregnant, and wishes to have the baby, the decision is made then. And of course as I outlined earlier, I wouldn’t condone this unless it was a couple who had taken precautions but they had failed.

But of course, people abandon their partner and children anyway. Or they perhaps take care of children they never really wanted and the child suffers anyway, even without (perhaps, though not always likely) financial strain.

"BTW, in the event both partners agree I believe one partner can give up the child to the other."

This is absolutely true. I've seen this situation a couple of times with people I've known. The father didn't want responsibility and threatened the mother with a lifetime of shit if she didn't let him sign away his paternal rights. So, in both cases, she gave in. In one case the man tried to come back years later when all the heavy lifting was done and 'get to know his child.' With predictable results.

Anecdotal, yes, and not the basis for much of any argument, except that there is an opt-out option when both parents mutually agree.

None of this paints a pretty picture. Why would people go to such trouble to ensure their right to be irresponsible assholes? Why would people be proud to hold that banner up and parade it around? Wouldn't all of the effort be much better placed in agitating for a society in which children are guaranteed things like healthcare and quality education, thus taking some of the onerous burden off of parents who are often unable to purchase these basic needs outright?

Wouldn't that be the nobler pursuit?

"None of this paints a pretty picture. Why would people go to such trouble to ensure their right to be irresponsible assholes? Why would people be proud to hold that banner up and parade it around? Wouldn't all of the effort be much better placed in agitating for a society in which children are guaranteed things like healthcare and quality education, thus taking some of the onerous burden off of parents who are often unable to purchase these basic needs outright?

Wouldn't that be the nobler pursuit?"

Wait, are you protesting abortion now or men's choice?

This isnt a fucking pursuit, its an idea, an opinion. When I thought about this issue I could see parents supporting children they didnt actually want, because of their partners wishes, and a fucking mistake of contraception. I didnt think that was fair, and wanted to express that opinion. Clearly all a few people here could see was me laughing evilly as millions of fathers walk out on mothers and children around the globe. Not to mention for like the fifth fucking time, many do it anyway.

Ill just go to extremes for a second and say that the alternative suggestion is the willing parent getting the other to pay for the child they wanted, but the one paying did not want to support, or know in any fashion at all. I just got the idea that maybe if for a moment a parent (or parents) didnt want a child, there was abortion, adoption, or leaving the care of the child to the one who wishes to do the caring.

Unless there is a problem with my keyboard, I cant quite see where it says "condone, and let men continue walking out on partners and children with nary a fucking word?"

Okay, so for example, I know a woman who was dating her boyfriend for a few years and they decided that they wanted to have a kid. So she deliberately gets pregnant, believing that they will raise the child together, both contributing time, money, love, etc to the child's life and well-being. Then of course when she is in the middle of her pregnancy, he decides that he does not want to date her anymore and does not want to be a father. She did not opt for an abortion or adoption because she still wanted to be a mother to her child. However, she also needed the child support to raise it and her douchebag ex could not and should not opt out of the financial responsibility.

So that is a different situation than the people who use protection that fails, use no protection for whatever reason, or any of the countless varying scenarios everywhere in between. So is the suggestion that men should be able to "opt out" in certain situations and not others or under all circumstances? Because although I can see the frustration (jealousy?) that women biologically have a "second chance" to decide whether to continue a pregnancy and choose parenthood, trying to give men the option of legally avoiding financial responsibility gets messy (and expensive) in the real world. Lawyers on both sides would be arguing about consent, prior agreements, trickery, and everything in between. I'm not seeing a realistic way to decide which men have to take financial responsibility and who can just throw up their hands and walk away at any point.

"Wait, are you protesting abortion now or men's choice?"
I think my use of the word 'children' makes it clear that I am not talking about abortion.

"I didnt think that was fair, and wanted to express that opinion."
And I think that many other people have demonstrated that it is fair and is, on the whole, the best way to handle the situation with the child's best interests kept clearly in mind.

dear betty

I think it's already been addressed. The idea was that it would probably loosely follow the same guidelines as abortions for women. You can legally opt out only at the beginning of the pregnancy.

But the point is that there is a problem when it comes to real life, as far as women hiding pregnancies, men who don't find out until after the 2nd trimester, and again, are we holding everyone to the same standard regardless of the circumstances of the pregnancy (planned or not)? It is just unrealistic to compare abortion (biological) with child support (financial) and hold them to the same standard.

Personally, I would have liked to think it could be handled between the two partners, again like adoption for example. I know there are so many factors the change each time, but I dont think its okay just to ignore it because of that. Maybe that sounds ludicrous to some (it wouldnt surprise me) but again, say in this situation they had no plans to have a child. The woman gets pregnant by some failure of contraception, and doesnt want an abortion. This is still early on, but Id like to think knowing before hand there were no plans to have a child, there would be some understanding between the two partners. Id like to think that about men and abortion too, but its obvious people arent always so reasonable. Of course there is always the open chance of the man having to pay, and like so many others, the chance of him just ignoring it and leaving without any help or say whatsoever. I don’t condone that at all, ESPECIALLY under less clear-cut circumstances then my little ideal example.

Truthfully, I would like to think men and women who are truly concerned about problems with pregnancy would leave taking any risk until they can deal with them if they arise, but I don’t mean that in a malicious way. Ive said it before, since its such a fluid situation and tricky to handle properly, but I dislike the idea of an unwilling parent having to support children it was clear they didn’t wish to support. Just as much as I dislike the notion than women should carry on with a pregnancy they didn’t want. Once again, that is only what I see as a similarity between the two. Not that they are equal in severity, as I have never thought that.

I think I see the problem. MRAs look back on human history, and they see that women's bodies have often been treated as property. And then they take a look in their wallets, and realize that they have property too--their money. So they look around at the current state of affairs, wherein right-thinking people recognize women's right to sovereignty over their own bodies and they think it's not fair to them.

"But-but-but-" they sputter "Women get to control what happens to their vaginas, uteruses, digestive systems, and respiratory systems, and they're only property! Why can't we control what happens to our money! After all, our wallets are just like vaginas! It's not faaaaaaiiiiiiiir!"

And indeed it has not been fair. For too long men have equated women's bodies to property. But feminists do not. Feminists recognize that our bodies are, well, ourselves, which is feminism and MRA notions about child support are incompatible.

It is profoundly insulting to suggest that my body is in any way equivalent to property. It is not. My decisions about pregnancy and abortion are not equivalent to men's decisions about money. You know what's equivalent to men's decisions about money? Women's decisions about money.

Abortion is not an issue equivalent to men paying child support. Women paying child support is an issue equivalent to men paying child support. I will devote time to finding a male equivalent to abortion when I am presented with a male equivalent to pregnancy.

And I think that many other people have demonstrated that it is fair and is, on the whole, the best way to handle the situation with the child's best interests kept clearly in mind.

And I disagreed, and here we are still.

Yes, you disagreed. However, you've failed to present any reasoning that our arguments are incorrect.

Take, for example, my numbered post above. How about a point-by-point response with an actual argument against each individual concept? Because right now all anyone can really hear you saying is, "But paying child support for a kid you didn't want sucks, so they shouldn't have to do it." You aren't really responding to the points we're making.

I hope that wasnt directed at me EG, because Ive said it more than once already, so Im sure youll see. One is pretty close by actually.

Phlegmatic:
"I dislike the idea of an unwilling parent having to support children it was clear they didn’t wish to support. Just as much as I dislike the notion than women should carry on with a pregnancy they didn’t want."

This is what I see as the crux of your argument, which is why I find your argument weak. You dislike the idea of people having to pay for a child they did not want. Since it has already been demonstrated over and over that there is absolutely no valid correlation with abortion here, I'll disregard that aspect of the argument. As to the other... How is liking or disliking it relevant? We're talking about the best interests of the child now, not the best interests of a biological parent who wishes he had used a condom. We all have some regrets. We become better people when we swallow those regrets and acknowledge our responsibilities. I haven't yet seen an MRA argument that isn't merely an argument for self-interest and irresponsibility. Do you expect people to get behind a position like that?

I pay taxes, and my tax dollars get spent on social welfare programs that support those unwanted children. I don't get to choose how my tax dollars get spent, ultimately the politicians do. If I had a choice in the matter, I'd rather see my money spent on kids, not wars. But that aside, I don't get to "opt out" of paying for child support for kids I didn't want. I didn't even have the sex to make those babies, and I'm still paying for them. Why should either party actually responsible for making the baby get to walk away when I can't?

Kimmy -

Child support is for children, not a man vs. woman thing. Regardless of why or how it came into existance, once the child does exist it's needs and claims (on both parents) trump pretty much everything else.

I never suggested it was man vs woman, I suggested it was desire to raise child against desire to NOT raise child. In ANY way at all, even if its contributing a measly cheque every so often. That’s your opinion, and others, and mine is different. Blow me off if you want, but its not changing how you or how I feel, and since Im not DIRECTLY trying to affect change, it doesn’t matter if we disagree anyway.

Each partner has the ability to stop the reproductive process at any time their body is actually involved in that.
ï‚· Men are not being punished because their physical involvement ceases first.
ï‚· Because this is just the way our bodies work, there's no need for legal redress to counterbalance the facts.

I already am aware of the ability to stop the reproductive process and agree that men truly concerned should exercise those abilities whenever possible. Im thinking beyond the actual unprotected sex = babies idea. And once again, I never suggested legal counterbalance, I put forward a belief that individuals should be able to leave the welfare of the child to the interested persons, if the circumstances seem acceptable enough. That is where it becomes shaky, but I feel its still a valid opinion.

Integrity of the wallet (the right to not pay for something) is not equal to integrity of the body (the right not to have something done to your body). Therefore, child support is not a claim on a person which is equal to the claim made by pregnancy.

Never suggested they were in fact equal, and have repeated this many times over.

No one should force a man to behave like a father, or to be part of his child's life (he'd likely only do more harm than good if he's not into it). However, that does not absolve him of his responsibilities which, again are to the child.

I agree for the start, but these responsibilities are created by others and placed on others who might not share them. In a situation where it was unwilling, these are not their own responsibilities but those others have placed on them. Much like certain peoples belief that a woman has an overriding responsibility to that collection of cells that grows inside her, and may form a human eventually. That is not a comparison of these two instances, outside of trying to perhaps take away choice, but what I view as a similar example of others placing their own believed “responsibilities� onto others.

To put it simply and in an ideal situation, I believe that if two partners had sex not intending pregnancy, yet there is a pregnancy and the woman wishes to go through with it (which I believe she is 100% entitled to do), the man should not be bound in any way because of her choice. Again, Id like to think understanding partners would deal that appropriately, but again, this isnt real, its just an idea to illustrate my opinion.

Im not against child support under ALL circumstances. Just under some, but it becomes difficult to legally know which, and still how easy it is for many men to ignore it. But I still stick by my original opinion too.

Sgzax –

Since it has already been demonstrated over and over that there is absolutely no valid correlation with abortion here, I'll disregard that aspect of the argument.

What, the aspect of unwanted parenthood for an individual? Im not going to bother with this either sgzax, you frustrate me too much.

We're talking about the best interests of the child now, not the best interests of a biological parent who wishes he had used a condom.

Im not talking about that. Im talking about an instance where a person wishes the contraception hadnt failed, and that they wished their partner hadnt changed their minds on not wanting to have a child. Your ignoring that, and foisting your own responsibilities on what you think others should do in a situation that is so varied Im not going to even bother going further.

Do you expect people to get behind a position like that?

No, I expected nothing, I only believe that this circumstance is for the individual to decide, and I feel that a lack of decision creates some serious problems. This isnt some rallying MRA cry or something, so please, stop acting like it is. Read through what Ive said again, and if there is no chance in your opinion of exactly what Im trying to convey, lets leave it at that. Im going to sleep now anyway, and I havent the patience for this or you right now. Good night. (And should you feel the idiotic sensation that you have “won�, I want you to know Im very happy for you.)

you don't get it do you Phlegmatic?

You've completely ignored my points on why this is unworkable...

you say: An accident with contraception, and a womans decision to have the child, means that mans life has been altered without his full say so?

but it completely misses the point. the fetus is made and incubating and growing once a man fertilises the egg, something he has consented to doing once he actively gives his sperm to his partner. The woman doesn't 'choose' to have the baby, she just doesn't choose to have an abortion.

The baby is already in the pipeline, it's a done deal. If you aren't taking responsibility for it than who should?

and what viola said..... good point

chem_fem, excellent point there as well.

I'd like to add to it that for many women, abortion isn't even an option open to them. Either they are morally against it (just like some men are), or they simply do not have access to one. There are more and more laws restricting that access and with funding being cut or moved, it's just not fair to say that all women can choose to have an abortion, whenever or wherever they want. If you really want to discuss this topic, Phlegmatic, take abortion out of the equation.

Let's see here...

1) Why should children have legal privileges over their biological parents that they don't have over other adults?

2) Should not consenting to the sex act that resulted in conception be a justification for allowing someone to unilaterally terminate all parental rights and obligations? In other words, should a man be forced to pay child support if he was raped? (For the record, there was a court case in which a male minor was found liable for child support despite being unable to legally consent to sex with the mother of his child.)

3) Is there such a thing as a right not to be a parent?

4) As a practical matter, how hard is it for parents to eliminate their legal obligation to support their children? Do they have to find someone willing to adopt a child before it can be "given up for adoption?"

5) As saving lives are clearly more important than property rights, would you be so kind as to donate some money to charity right now? UNICEF seems like a reasonable choice.

"Im not talking about that. Im talking about an instance where a person wishes the contraception hadnt failed, and that they wished their partner hadnt changed their minds on not wanting to have a child."

Again, we all have regrets but the child's right to support takes precedence over either partner's wishes.

Your position only makes sense if you mash all of the stages of a conception, gestation, birth, and child-rearing together. They are separate and the interested parties have different rights at each stage. Both parties have the right to use contraception before conception takes place. After conception, a woman retains the right to make decisions about her own body. Once a child is born it has rights of its own and is entitled to protection under the law. The child's right to support might interfere with some parent's desire to buy a fancy new toy. So?

The condom broke? Well, sucks to be you, I guess. Sometimes things happen that are not completely under our control. Adults deal with their responsibilities.

I acknowledge that you have made an argument. The argument is not supported. "It's not fair" is not a valid support for an argument. That's all.

There's a very telling underlying assumption in the entire "Men's Right to Choose" [barf] idea. There's an implied — though often express — reciprocity posited by "Men's Right to Choose" advocates between women's right to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy or carry it to term and men's supposed right to either have a "meaningful say" in the abortion decision or to opt out of child support.

The argument essentially goes as follows:

Women can decide whether to terminate a pregnancy, a right that men don't have. This is unjust. Either men must have control over the abortion decision itself or the right to opt out of its consequences.

The underlying assumption is telling. Men have a right to control women's bodies. If this right is denied, they must — as compensation for the loss of this right — be granted the right to opt out of providing any financial support of any child that might, for whatever reason, result from a sexual encounter.

Once you take into account the underlying assumption, the difference between pointing out the various options — all safer and more effective than any option women have — they have to prevent pregnancy and anti-choice rhetoric is clear.

The entire idea that the difference between men's options for avoiding unwanted parenthood and women's options for the same is somehow unjust reminds me of Stan-who-is-called-Loretta from The Life of Bryan

LORETTA: It's my right as a man.
JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
LORETTA: I want to have babies.
REG: You want to have babies?!
LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
REG:
But... you can't have babies.
LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.
REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
LORETTA:
[crying]
JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.
FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.
REG: What's the point?
FRANCIS: What?
REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!
FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

1) Why should children have legal privileges over their biological parents that they don't have over other adults?

Good hypothetical. Turning to the actual situation, children's rights do not apply merely to their biological parents. If they should be adopted, those rights apply with full force to the adoptive parents. If they become wards of the state, those rights apply to the persons legally charged with their care, including foster parents and others. Those rights exist regardless of any biological ties between the responsible party.

Assuming that the question is why every other adult in the world should not have the same duties (child's rights = parental duties) to Child A as the biological parents, "too many cooks ruin the soup" comes to mind.

It's the same principle, more or less, that says that I'm not bound by a contract concluded by some random person (with whom I'm not relevantly in privity) with some other random person.

if I see a child doing something that is most likely going to end in harm to themselves would I get into trouble for not stepping in if I could?

I instinctively would if i could but I've never thought about it really.

It is illegal to sell children harmful items (at least in the UK) knives, lighters, fireworks etc. so we have these duties professionally.

1) Why should children have legal privileges over their biological parents that they don't have over other adults?

Because parents have power over their children that they do not have over other people, and that other adults do not have over those children. If you want to do away with that system, you'll have to also do away with the notion that parents have rights to bring up their children.

2) Should not consenting to the sex act that resulted in conception be a justification for allowing someone to unilaterally terminate all parental rights and obligations? In other words, should a man be forced to pay child support if he was raped? (For the record, there was a court case in which a male minor was found liable for child support despite being unable to legally consent to sex with the mother of his child.)

Interesting. My gut reaction is to say no, that's a disgusting violation of the molested child's autonomy, it adds insult to injury. And yet. If a 12-year-old girl becomes pregnant due to rape, is she not required to support any resulting child? Consider that she herself or her parents may object to abortion, or she may be unable to gain access to one. Still, you know what, I think both cases would be examples of child abuse, akin to that stupid case some months back in which two thirteen-year-olds who had sex with each other were arrested for sexual conduct with a minor. It doesn't make the underlying principle stupid; it just means that prosecutors aren't doing their jobs correctly.

3) Is there such a thing as a right not to be a parent?

Yes. That's what adoption, celibacy, contraception, and abortion are for.

4) As a practical matter, how hard is it for parents to eliminate their legal obligation to support their children? Do they have to find someone willing to adopt a child before it can be "given up for adoption?"

No. That's what the foster care system is for. It's lousy, of course, but that's the underlying idea.

5) As saving lives are clearly more important than property rights, would you be so kind as to donate some money to charity right now? UNICEF seems like a reasonable choice.

I do donate money to various charities over the course of the year, though I fail to see what relevance it has to this discussion. But when I donate, I generally do so to groups focused on saving lives or promoting human liberty rather than shoring up property rights, specifically because that is my value system.

3) Is there such a thing as a right not to be a parent?

Yes. That's what adoption, celibacy, contraception, and abortion are for.

Ah, I made a logical error, there, conflating the power to avoid something with the right to do so. We have techniques to help those who do not wish to become parents avoid doing so; that does not necessarily imply a right. Similarly, we have techniques that would allow me to straighten my hair, but that doesn't mean that I have a right to straight hair. Given that, I would say no, there is no right not to be a parent. If you don't want to be a parent, you have to make sure that you don't become one. But if you find yourself in a terrible movie, and your best friend dies, leaving custody of her son to you, you don't just get to walk away. You have to go through the process of giving the kid up for adoption, and you are responsible for his care until that process is complete.

if I see a child doing something that is most likely going to end in harm to themselves would I get into trouble for not stepping in if I could?

The general principle is that you don't have to intercede to prevent another person coming to harm unless you're in a "special relationship" (akin to "guarantor status" in Roman law), or you took an active step toward rendering aid (because this might lead others to refrain from helping, thinking the situation is under control). However, some jurisdictions have enacted laws requiring people to render aid to people with whom they're not in any suh relationship to the extent reasonably possible.

thanks....

Right, although there are mandatory reporters for child abuse, such as teachers, social workers, etc., but those would probalby be covered under "special relationship," yes?

thanks....

Phlegmatic, you are either being deliberately obtuse, or you are simply naive. Adoption is not the magical solution to the desire not to become a parent. Educate yourself on the adoption process, and what happens to children who are given up. Years of floundering in foster care. But who cares so long as men don't have to own up to their parental responsibilities if they don't want, right?

You've been told over and over again. A man's ability to consent or withhold consent as to becoming a father ends at ejaculation. That is simply how our reproductive systems work. And, good for you for not having sex if you don't feel ready to deal with those consequences, but please don't act as though that's something everyone ought be doing if they don't want children. Neither my boyfriend or I want children. We use hormonal birth control for that. It may fail, and I may become pregnant. And if I did, and did not have an abortion, you bet your ass Mr. KMP would be shelling out support for the child that he made. It is a fact of having sex. You may create a fetus. And since the fetus does not reside in a man's body, he had better understand his responsibilities before his sperm exits his penis.

And Doug S. Seriously? You're equating the rape of a boy who was too young to consent to sex with a man who has full understanding of what responsibilities being sexually active entails? Seriously?

Right, although there are mandatory reporters for child abuse, such as teachers, social workers, etc., but those would probalby be covered under "special relationship," yes?

They would be covered either under "special relationship" (akin to police officers, lifeguards, etc.) because they are either in loco parentis (teachers) or have a heightened duty of care due to their professional obligations (statutory and ethical).

Just a tip, randomly and falsely calling people "ardent rape apologists" makes Feministing look like THE ONION spoof on feminism where women blurt-out wildly outrageous statements completely unrelated to the topic being discussed.

"Oh dear. It appears that after reading the "everything you need to know about MRA's", I have discovered that I share a specific view with MRA's. I guess I shouldnt show my face around here again..."

Imagine how many people share the specific view that we prefer breathing oxygen to breathing methane. ;)

"CHILD SUPPORT IS FOR THE CHILD'S WELFARE.

"Once a child exists, it's welfare must be taken care of. Child support is paid in order to support the child."

Exactly. That's also why parent A shouldn't have the right to cancel parent B's child support obligation to their child (and vice versa).

You know, like if you borrow money from FemiDancer then a third party like me shouldn't have the right to cancel it and tell FemiDancer "too bad, you can't have the money she owes you."

"But if mommy doesn't feel ready she can shell out $300 and not have to worry about paying for a kid for 18 years."

Child support is for the child, so if there is no child there is no child support to pay.

"Femi, it seems you don’t understand the difference between an existing child, a *person* with rights (including the right to be taken care of and provided for by the parents) and a fetus."

Exactly!

"Due to privacy issues, once conception occurs only the woman has the right to choose because the fetus is part of her body."

Nitpick: Except when they both still may have the right to choose because the embryo is in the petri dish and not yet transferred to any woman's body. I've heard of a few couples out there putting spare embryos in storage when they got IVF, breaking up before using them up, then disagreeing over whether or not the embryos should be transferred to anyone's body.

"That problem is: what happens if the mother doesn't tell the father about the pregnancy until it's too late for an abortion?"

Good point. Likewise, what if he doesn't want to be a father, she wants to be a mother, and he waits until she's 7 or 8 months along to tell her "I don't want to support the child in any way"?

"'Why, then, for men, does sex equal consent to fatherhood?'
"Because once your sperms leave your body and enter hers, fatherhood is not something that requires consent, because it’s not something that is done to *your* body."

Yeah - it's part of your body while it's in you. That sperm cell essentially becomes part of her body at conception during sex.

"'(But) girls whose fathers are in their lives are less likely to be promiscuous, get depressed, have thoughts of suicide. We believe a girl's identity and self-worth comes from the father.'"

"If that's true, what will it do to these girls' ideas of self worth if they don't keep that pledge?"

For that matter, what if she *does* keep that pledge but still can't keep her father (her so-called center of identity!)? Is she expected to lose all her self-worth, get AIDS, and go kill herself if her dad gets killed in battle or dumps his wife and kids for his perky secretary or whatever?

"And Doug S. Seriously? You're equating the rape of a boy who was too young to consent to sex with a man who has full understanding of what responsibilities being sexually active entails? Seriously?"

Another good point.

Just a tip, randomly and falsely calling people "ardent rape apologists" makes Feministing look like THE ONION spoof on feminism where women blurt-out wildly outrageous statements completely unrelated to the topic being discussed.

Just for the information of anyone who didn't follow Sgt. York's antics on the "judge bans the word rape" thread, Sgt. York was opposed to convicting the defendant, whom Sgt. York himself admitted had committed rape (intercourse with person unconscious or otherwise unable to consent). Now, how "ardent" Sgt. York is is a matter on which reasonable people can disagree, but he certainly did state that a man who (admittedly) committed rape shouldn't go to jail.

And Doug S. Seriously? You're equating the rape of a boy who was too young to consent to sex with a man who has full understanding of what responsibilities being sexually active entails? Seriously?

I didn't say that. You did.

But anyway, given that

a man's ability to consent or withhold consent as to becoming a father ends at ejaculation

then if there was no consent to ejaculation, should that make a difference regarding whether the biological father is obligated to assume the duties (financial or otherwise) of fatherhood?

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

Given that, I would say no, there is no right not to be a parent. If you don't want to be a parent, you have to make sure that you don't become one. But if you find yourself in a terrible movie, and your best friend dies, leaving custody of her son to you, you don't just get to walk away. You have to go through the process of giving the kid up for adoption, and you are responsible for his care until that process is complete.

If there is no right not to be a parent, does that imply that a government could require people to become foster parents using the same types of justifications that allow it to collect taxes or conscript soldiers?

(Incidentally, after doing some Google searching, it seems to be the case that U.S. and Canadian law says that a judge has to confirm the choice of guardian in a will, and won't give custody to a non-parent who refuses, so that dead best friend really can't force someone to become a parent.)

Purity balls: I was amused to see a Baptist church sponsoring a dance of all things! I went to a Baptist college in the South, and the administration was so anti-dance, they called the square dances done at the freshman retreat "square rhythms." I guess dancing is OK if it promotes sexual purity. **rolls eyes**
Incidentally, I am not a Baptist;I went there to attend their highly regarded registered nursing school.

Doug S.:
Are people responsible for their own children? If they aren't, who is? Should the government fund a major expansion of existing agencies to provide for an influx of children abandoned by parents who decide they don't want them? Why or why not? Why shouldn't parents be held at least financially accountable for the well-being of children they created, even if that wasn't their intention when they had sex?

Also, rape and incest are major concerns of the feminist movement. If rape and incest are major concerns of yours, have you taken steps to ally yourself with feminists in an effort to provide a voice for people who have been victimized? Are you willing to demand that all rape allegations brought forth by men and women and children of both sexes be taken more seriously by the courts and garner more serious punishment for the perpetrators, whether they be male or female? Why or why not?

In other words, should a man be forced to pay child support if he was raped? (For the record, there was a court case in which a male minor was found liable for child support despite being unable to legally consent to sex with the mother of his child.)

I stand by my interpretation.

"We believe a girl's identity and self-worth comes from the father." -Randy Wilson

My father passed away when I was 5 years old, when my younger sisters had just turned 4 years old and 7 months old, respectively. so does that mean that we have little to no self-worth or are lacking in an identity? afraid not! one thing we have in common is that we are all strong, independent women who know exactly who we are and value ourselves quite highly, thankyouverymuch. (thanks, mom!)

one's sense of identity and self-worth can come from any loving parent or guardian of any gender. to say that a daughter's identity and self-worth comes from her father (or that a son's comes from his mother, etc.) is sexist, insulting, and based on idealistic patriarchal standards.

Regarding child support in the case of rape of a boy:

What should have been done is that the child should have been taken away from the rapist and given up for adoption. Because, you know, she's a *rapist.* She rapes little boys. Why is such a person considered a fit mother?

If the little boy she raped wanted the child, he should have had the legal right to adopt it, although he is a minor himself, provided that his own parents were willing. However, if he did not want to adopt the child, it should have been given over while a newborn to some couple who want a baby -- healthy American newborns *will* find a loving home, hopefully with a mother who is not a rapist.

The notion that the 12-year-old should have been forced to pay child support his entire life for a child he was coerced into making is bullshit. I understand that, of course, the child deserves two parents who will care for it, and is not to blame for being the product of rape. The child also deserves a primary caretaker who is not already a proven molester of children. So solve both problems by taking the baby away from the rapist mother, terminating both parties' parental rights and giving the child up for adoption; or, give legal custody to the rape victim if he and his parents want it, and force the rapist mother to pay child support. After she gets out of jail.

I do not believe women rapists deserve to keep their babies, any more than man rapists deserve to have paternal relationships with any children they father. I do not believe in forcing an abortion on anyone, including a rapist, but I do not believe in leaving a helpless child in the hands of a child molester either. The judge in that case was wrong. The solution was not to make the rape victim pay his rapist child support, but to either make her pay him child support, with him having custody of the baby, or, more likely, terminate both parents' rights and give the child up for adoption to a family that consists of two adults who aren't rapists.

In cases where the father is not raped, the father should pay child support. Unless we all want to live in a society where all children, no matter who their parents are, are guaranteed a fairly high standard of living from the State. Men could opt out of child support if all children, whether they have fathers or not, were guaranteed, say, $25K a year to live on, in trust through whatever parent is actually taking care of them. When I see MRAs agitating for universal child welfare, then I'll take them seriously on this subject. Until then, your rights end where your body ends, otherwise mothers could kill their already born infants with total legal impunity. Once the procreative process is out of your body, you have no more control.

So far, I've been trying to ask questions so I can see where everybody stands and why. (I enjoy spirited Internet discussions, and sometimes like to play devil's advocate.) Now I'm going to offer my own opinion.

I believe that child support payments are, essentially, a tax on non-custodial parenthood. A tax on non-custodial parenthood that is assessed, collected and distributed in ways significantly different from other taxes strikes me as odd and potentially unjust. If there are going to be such a thing as abandoned child taxes, then they should be called taxes, assessed like taxes, collected like taxes, and spent like taxes.

Furthermore, we ought to decouple the payments made by non-custodial parents from the amount of support that parents of children are actually entitled to receive. If a person needs extra money to raise a child, and the child has a right to that money, then that money shouldn't be contingent on whether or not another individual pays their tax bill. It should come from the relevant government's general revenue sources. Why should the government intervene to guarantee a child with one rich genetic parent and one poor genetic parent a higher standard of living than it guarantees to a child with two poor genetic parents?

I don't have time to untangle your whole argument, Doug, but just a tip: Taxes don't work on liberals as a horrible, nasty buzzword. They just don't. The analogy is silly to begin with, but beyond that... TAXES!!!! Scary!!!!

Umm... no.

How are child support payments like taxes? They aren't. It's like if I was responsible for something and someone sued me. And I was ordered to pay. The amount that I would be ordered to pay is not a tax. It's an award paid to the injured party. That's a better analogy. Play with that one.

BTW, there's another interesting article here:

http://www.boston.com/jobs/news/articles/2007/10/14/women_step_into_gap_in_busy_construction_field/

Women step into gap in busy construction field

By Joyce Pellino Crane, Globe Correspondent | October 14, 2007

"What should have been done is that the child should have been taken away from the rapist and given up for adoption. Because, you know, she's a *rapist.* She rapes little boys. Why is such a person considered a fit mother?

"If the little boy she raped wanted the child, he should have had the legal right to adopt it, although he is a minor himself, provided that his own parents were willing. However, if he did not want to adopt the child, it should have been given over while a newborn to some couple who want a baby -- healthy American newborns *will* find a loving home, hopefully with a mother who is not a rapist."

Good points. I'd also like to add that even if the healthy American newborn isn't white, she or he can still find a loving home:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1027/p11s01-lifp.html

"...Families in foreign countries cite the availability of newborns as the primary reason they choose to adopt in the US. Canada and Europe don't have as many babies available for adoption. Therefore, 'if you want a newborn, you go to America,' says Bart van Meurs, Elisa's dad. Families also cite the health of the babies, the short waiting time, and the availability of medical records as additional advantages. Race is seldom a consideration.

"'Most of our families just want a baby as young as possible, and the US is the best place to go for a newborn,' explains Lorne Welwood of Hope Adoption Services in Abbotsford, British Columbia. 'They are not ignoring the race issues, but they don't think, like the Americans, that the less black the better.'..."

Firstly I can't see a law being at all popular if it says that absent parents don't have to pay child support because the rest of the population is going to pay it for them. I have been extremely careful over the years not to get pregnant and if the small chance that all my efforts fail one day, then I take resposibility for my actions. Why should I have to pay for feckless people who don't take the same precautions as me? Contraception is available to all here (UK) for free, there is no excuse. I do support my taxes going towards the welfare of children however because I believe in child welfare. Where possible parents should pay for their actions - meant 'pay' as in cover the cost of, not 'pay' as in be punished for.

As far as richer parents paying more than poorer ones goes, then it makes no difference which system is in place. If absent parents don't pay for the support of their children because the rest of the population is paying, then richer people, who pay more taxes (theoretically) will still pay more for the support of those children.

I do not support a system which doesn't encourage people to take their responsibilty as potential parents seriously. If I could just abandon any children that I may produce over the years without consequence why, would I put in so much effort to prevent pregnancy? That MRA's begin to advise each other that relationships and sex are to be avoided for fear that they lead to child support payments, could actually be a sign that men are beggining to take their role as egg fertiliser seriously. When men use condoms with anywhere near the level of paranoia that women use contraception it may actually be a step forward. The majority sure as hell don't at the moment.

How are child support payments like taxes? They aren't. It's like if I was responsible for something and someone sued me. And I was ordered to pay. The amount that I would be ordered to pay is not a tax. It's an award paid to the injured party. That's a better analogy. Play with that one.

Okay, I'll play with it. Now for some more Socratic questioning. ;)

Lawsuits generally award money because one person did something that caused harm to another. In this case, who is the injured party, and what was the harm done? Stretching the analogy further, the amount of damages awarded only takes into account the harm done - plus punitive damages - and is otherwise independent of ability to pay. Is each child owed some specific minimum dollar amount from the people responsible for his or her existence?

----
I guess I wasn't so clear by that whole "taxes" segment. Basically, I think that when child support should be paid, the government should pay it directly, and that collecting from "deadbeat dads" should be the job of the IRS or whatever other government agency is responsible for collecting taxes. That way, no one individual gets screwed too badly by the non-payment of another individual.

----

As far as richer parents paying more than poorer ones goes, then it makes no difference which system is in place. If absent parents don't pay for the support of their children because the rest of the population is paying, then richer people, who pay more taxes (theoretically) will still pay more for the support of those children.

In the case of child support payments made after a divorce, it's easy to justify the child of a rich father getting more money than the child of a poor father. At least one source of the father's financial obligation is clear: the "contract" of marriage. Differences in the payment received can easily be justified on the same basis as differences in alimony payments.

In the case of an unwed father who wants to decline legal parenthood, there is rarely a written contract between the mother and father. It strikes me as odd that the abandoned child of a rich father deserves more money than the abandoned child of a poor father. In this case, the amount the father ought to be required to pay (which would depend at least partially on the father's ability to pay) and the amount the mother ought to receive (which would depend at least partially on the mother's level of financial need) are not necessarily equal. To me, it makes more sense to separate the two, and have the payments made by fathers be considered general tax revenue and the payments made to mothers come from general tax revenue.

----
Am I making sense, or am I just talking in circles?

I think I understand then, my problem with that is that involves more beaurocracy (how do I spell that?) and that costs money in itself, which is less money that goes to the child.

Not that systems already in place for child support are any better, but the tax schemes that we have in the UK for children with no parental dispute is bad enough and are far from ideal ways of doing things and they should be straight forward.

I also don't think that marriage is the be all and end all. Many couples have children happily outside of marriage and why should they have different rules after a break up?

Phlegmatic, sex = babies.

You can do your best to prevent it through contraception, and a woman has the option (as and where the choice is open to them) to terminate it but the fact still stands.

I'm sorry, I've been holding it in, but I just can't let this pass.

The "sex=babies" argument is a terrible justification for child support payments- it's unfair to everyone involved, and it treats child support like it's a punishment for irresponsible behavior.

The only justification for child support is that it's necessary for the support of the child. It's not about punishing men for having sex, or teaching them to be responsible for sex, or anything else like that- it's about providing a standard of living for a child. We have a social interest in making sure that children have at least a minimally decent standard of living, and the reality is that childcare is expensive. But, the argument that sex=babies only reinforces the flawed notion that sex should or is only for reproduction.

Give me your sperm and I am not making you an unwilling father. To do that I'd have to wank you off in your sleep and then inject it into me. THEN you have the right to be pissed.

Again, no.
Consent to sex is not the same as consent to parenthood. The fact that we don't currently have a better system doesn't mean that we should pretend that this is the case. The reality is that the current situation isn't good for anyone. Custodial parents complain that they don't receive payments and that when they do, the payments are often late, lower than the awarded ammount, or not enough. This leaves children in a situation where they're not getting the level of care we'd like them to get (when it comes to money, at least). Non-custodial parents object to paying child support for children that they never wanted and would have prefered not to have.

That's not a good system.

If a man and woman are having sex, and neither of them wants a children, and something happens (poor planning, poor use of contraception, or just plain irresponsibility) and the woman becomes pregnant and decides to carry the child to term despite the man not wanting any children, he has become a father against his wishes- he has become an unwilling father.

Does that justify not paying child support?

Absolutely not. But I don't think it's fair to pretend that the situation is good, or that his feelings of frustration are completely unreasonable.

Child support is absolutely necessary, but I think it's fair to at least consider the possibility that the system has room for improvement.

RoymacIII, thank you for summing up what I've been feeling during this whole debacle very nicely, and more eloquently, than I could. Also, a very good link you included.

Noting that the current system is often unfair to both parents, and discussing alternatives, is *not* tantamount to proclaiming that children shouldn't get any support.

I'm surprised at how many people in these threads have coldly snapped "Suck it up and deal with the consequences(i.e. accept being a father) or don't have sex at all, Asshole" to some of the more genuine, non-trollish concerns about the nature of parenthood. Just, wow.

In addition to my desire to not be pregnant or give birth, my decision to have a hypothetical future abortion would be equally influenced by my belief in my "right not to be a parent". I always presumed to have this right.

In an ideal world, consenting to sex should be just that...consent to sex. Not some invisible legal contract of parenthood. Just because having a child is one of the 'consequences' of sex doesn't mean that we can't work to reduce or eliminate that risk for those that aren't ready or willing, while still ensuring children the proper support and care they're entitled to.

Apoligies if I haven't added much useful insight with my comment...it's late and I just wanted to point out how much I appreciate seeing such in-depth discussion of a serious issue, and the promising progress we're starting to make on it.

roymacII if you read my last post actually you'll see that don't believe that the system is neccessarily perfect. I have never said that it was.

I also have repeatedly said that child support is taking responsibilty for your actions, you put the spin on it that it was punishment - something I said it shouldn't be in the post above....

If you view responsibility as punishment that is your take not mine.

The fact is, it is a matter of cause and affect. If my actions, no matter how cautious or well intentioned result in something that needs support - say I accidently injure someone in a way i could not have prevented and they cannot work, then I feel it is right that they pursue me for support.

Sex is for reproduction and you have to bare that in mind if you take part. To say it is only for that is putting words into my mouth, but most women will be very aware that every time they have sex pregnancy is possible. I think about it all the time. Why should men be immune from impending pregnancy?

If the woman you talk about above, can't get an abortion, doesn't believe in it, or is worried that it will effect her body in the future she is also an unwitting parent against her will. I think that people need to understand that abortion isn't an easy get out ticket. It is a decision that effects everyone differently, and until you have that baby in you how do you know how you are going to feel. Yes the father may feel frustrated, but the fact is that the woman feels too here. All the same things are happening to her, but it is inside her body.

while we have been talking about child support there is also the fact that the mother if she has the child may lose her job, may never have a career with the same oppotunities as before etc. It is no easy ride for the woman. Whether it is abortion or unwilling motherhood she still has to 'pay'.

albinosquid, i don't think you have a right not to be a parent in all circumstances...

I think you should have a choice, and I am pro choice, but not a right. A right implies that when the fetus is a baby you can just walk away, and I feel if a woman has had a baby that both parents have a responsibility for that child. Even if the mother was prevented from having an abortion (the preventing bit I feel is wrong).

The best analogy I have is that you can't choose which parents or family you have, but if one of them suffers from some sort of health problem and they need support then I feel you do not have a right to just neglct that need. I feel that extends to children too.

If you can turn your back on that then I can't understand where you are coming from. I do not want to be a parent, but it it happends through some bad set of circumstances I'll just get on with it. Fortunately that extends to other peoples children and every one else on this earth and I'm happy to pay any set of taxes I can afford if it helps others.

I think it would be better to qualify this notion of a "right not to be a parent". It would make more sense that you have (a) an absolute right to avoid parenthood altogether by not engaging in any conduct that might lead to becoming a parent, and (b) a right to take other measures in the context of sexual activity to prevent becoming a parent (contraception, sterilisation, etc.), but that in the case that a person opts for (b) and a child results, their right "not to be a parent" is limited by the child's right to support.

thanks Elise, that was really clear and i whole heartedly agree..

And as for the question of who is "damaged" (the compensation analogy), I'd say there are two injured parties: the mother (assuming that for some reason abortion is out of the question), who will have to finance the child's life for 18+ years with no help, and the child, who will have to make due with half of the financial support to which s/he is entitled given the existence of two living parents. Child support makes both whole.

"The best analogy I have is that you can't choose which parents or family you have, but if one of them suffers from some sort of health problem and they need support then I feel you do not have a right to just neglct that need. I feel that extends to children too.

"If you can turn your back on that then I can't understand where you are coming from."

Wouldn't that depend on the individuals? For example: I've heard of some men abandoning their wives and children, coming back years later, and being shocked that these daughters and sons don't want to support them in their old age...

I guess you get out what you put in.....

I'd say there are two injured parties: the mother (assuming that for some reason abortion is out of the question), who will have to finance the child's life for 18+ years with no help, and the child, who will have to make due with half of the financial support to which s/he is entitled given the existence of two living parents. Child support makes both whole.

I certainly never suggested, and would never support, a system by which the custodial parent becomes solely responsible for the financial burden of the child.

My arguing that non-custodial parents may have a valid gripe doesn't mean that I think that there's a better workable system right now, or that I think that we should throw our hands up and say "Well, they don't want to pay, I guess the child is screwed, even though we don't have a better system!"

My point was more that I find some of the arguments being presented troubling, because they bear more than a passing resemblence to the arguments that anti-choicers use.

I'm suggesting that the current system is really flawed, and fails to properly meet anyone's needs. Given that, it shouldn't be surprising that some non-custodial parents are critical of the system.

I object to MRAs trying to draw comparisons between abortion and child support issues, because they're not the same thing. I can't stress enough that the only justification I see for compelling a non-custodial parent to pay child support is for the support of the child, and if a solution could be found that would let us support the child without forcing a parent who doesn't want to be involved in the child's life to pay, I'd support that.

And as far as the right not to be a parent goes: We absolutely have that right. If neither parent wants to take care of the child, they can give up their rights and obligations and put the child up for adoption.

The argument here is over a very specific set of circumstances: the case where one parent wants the child and one doesn't.

I think it is difficult for me to calmly engage in a discussion in which some participants feel they should have the right to abandon responsibility for their own children.

The custody/support system as currently formulated is imperfect. I am completely supportive of the rights of non-custodial parents who want to be more involved in the lives of their own children. It's the ones who feel damaged by their inability to abandon their children who leave me cold.

We sometimes find, as adults, that we have responsibility for things that we might not have chosen. We become better people when we meet those responsibilities. If you show me a father who is fighting in good faith for the right to participate in raising his own child I will stand alongside that man.

I guess it is off-putting when you feel damaged by the prospect of a negative event and someone says, "Well, tough. Suck it up." As a woman though, it sometimes feels fun to say that since it has been the unspoken message given to women since the dawn of time. Women bear the children, women bear the responsibility. Women don't like it? Sucks to be a woman, I guess.

I think what I actually mean when I say "tough" in response to cries of "Unfair!" is... how old are we? What does fair mean, in this instance? Because it sounds as though unfair means, "I don't get to do what I want without consequences." Since that sentence pretty much sums up a large part of what it is to be an adult, you'll have to forgive the people who have always shouldered responsibility up to this point when they have limited sympathy for the latecomers.

My best advice to unintentional parents who find themselves responsible for support of their children? Sacrifice a little bit of ego and try to be a parent to a child who needs you. I'm on your side.

I certainly never suggested, and would never support, a system by which the custodial parent becomes solely responsible for the financial burden of the child.

I wasn't suggesting that you were or would. Though it's worth noting that what you describe is a pretty accurate description of the current system in 60-odd per cent of cases. It seems that walking away and leaving the custodial parent and the child in the lurch is pretty common.

The MRAs who get so exercised about this subject are almost certainly included in the 60% (several brag about being "political prisoners" because they were held in contempt of court for being deadbeats). What they want is a system where they not only have the practical option of complete abandonment of responsibility, but also get to do so with no moral stigma or legal sanction.

Chem_fem, I'd hoped that my agreement with roymacIII and the fact that I emphasized "children [should still be ensured] the proper support and care they're entitled to" would have made it clear that I am NOT advocating for children to be left out in the cold or go hungry, or for single parents to suffer raising them.

I would no more "turn my back on" or abandon a child, or any other person, related to me or not, if I was the only person able to help them, than you would. I would also happily pay my taxes to help social support programs for children.

The point I was trying to make is that one's genetic contribution to a child's DNA is a rather arbitrary way of forcing the bulk of financial responsibility for that child upon a single individual, when society as a whole benefits from said support when that child grows up to be a productive citizen. I recognise that under the current system, the parents HAVE to support the child because there's no other reliable source of support(aside from adoption). I also feel that this is unfair for all involved.

Where you and others see "one person gets to have ZERO responsibility for a child that's dependent on them, therefore leaving the child with nothing", I see "Society should take collective responsibility for the care and education of children, so that the burden is not unfairly placed upon just one or two people."

I disagree with your example about supporting family members in need...not that their needs shouldn't be met, but that my genetic relationship to them automatically makes me especially obligated to care for them more than the general "helping a fellow human". If I had a special relationship with them...we were close, there was a previous agreement or understanding, and/or I'd assumed legal guardianship of that person, then things may change. Sharing DNA is not a 'relationship', not in the social, emotional sense.

And as a response to sgzax's comment justifying forcing men into unwanted parenthood because "Women bear the children, women bear the responsibility. Women don't like it? Sucks to be a woman, I guess" :

I think we've all established the fact that women's role in pregnancy and childbirth is completely unrelated to the question of parental obligation after the child is born. It's wrong for the MRA's to try to link the two to justify further unfairness 'to make things even', and it's wrong for you to do it too.

Just because biology is painfully, rediculously unfair to women, doesn't mean making men miserable in a completely different way somehow makes it more 'even'. Blame "Mother" nature for that, not other people.

Sorry for my late reply. Hopefully people are still checking this thread.

There's not much left that I can say except that I just don't agree.

It isn't forced and unwanted fatherhood because abortion should never be a given - I left actually left the discussion here and continued on RoymacII's blog where he had an interesting post if you want to see more about this part.

I don't see why a man should be miserable knowing he has to give away some measily pounds (dollars) to support a child. Money to me just isn't that important, as long as I have enough to live fairly comfortably above the breadline, I don't need anymore.

I don't think it is about making things even, I just think that if you help make a baby, even if it is accidentally, you should help support it - male or female. If they are just being supported by taxes then you are supporting them any way so what is the difference? Doesn't it make you more miserable knowing you are supporting children where you have no DNA link? Why is it worse to support one's where there is?

Chem_fem, I'll stop by roymacII's blog when I get home and take a look.

It's good that you don't think this is about making things even, however my argument about that was in response to sgzax's opinion that it *was* about making things even between the sexes.

"If they are just being supported by taxes then you are supporting them any way so what is the difference? Doesn't it make you more miserable knowing you are supporting children where you have no DNA link?"

I guess it comes down to a matter of principle. I'm not miserable paying taxes to support our country's children, I just think using DNA as an arbitrary indicator of an individual's responsibility is an unfair concept. The act of paying money wouldn't make me miserable, it's the idea that I'm being forced to do so under a biased system, and that I'd end up paying all of the support instead of a fraction.

Again, this whole discussion was focused on the specific situation where a father had made no 'commitment' other than to consent to sex...as I stated in my last post, one's moral or legal obligation may be more apparent if you have an established relationship of support for an individual, where they may reasonably expect you to continue supporting them, and then you withdraw.

We'll just have to agree to disagree that one's genetic relatedness to another person, in the absence of any other relationship, should imply some moral or legal obligation above and beyond what would be expected of someone not related to them. Supporting someone because they're related to you isn't any "worse" than doing so for an unrelated person, it's just not any better.

Chem_fem, I'll stop by roymacII's blog when I get home and take a look.

It's good that you don't think this is about making things even, however my argument about that was in response to sgzax's opinion that it *was* about making things even between the sexes.

"If they are just being supported by taxes then you are supporting them any way so what is the difference? Doesn't it make you more miserable knowing you are supporting children where you have no DNA link?"

I guess it comes down to a matter of principle. I'm not miserable paying taxes to support our country's children, I just think using DNA as an arbitrary indicator of an individual's responsibility is an unfair concept. The act of paying money wouldn't make me miserable, it's the idea that I'm being forced to do so under a biased system, and that I'd end up paying all of the support instead of a fraction.

Again, this whole discussion was focused on the specific situation where a father had made no 'commitment' other than to consent to sex...as I stated in my last post, one's moral or legal obligation may be more apparent if you have an established relationship of support for an individual, where they may reasonably expect you to continue supporting them, and then you withdraw.

We'll just have to agree to disagree that one's genetic relatedness to another person, in the absence of any other relationship, should imply some moral or legal obligation above and beyond what would be expected of someone not related to them. Supporting someone because they're related to you isn't any "worse" than doing so for an unrelated person, it's just not any better.

You can say that DNA is arbitrary a million times and you will be wrong each and every time. DNA is not an arbitrary link between a parent and child; it is a definitive genetic link between those two people. It is the thing that says definitively that you are responsible for another person's existence.

I concede that you can't legislate that people should care about or for their own children, but financial support is really the absolute least that the child should be able to expect.

I'm horrified by the positions I've read in this thread and won't be opening it again.