Your body, Your RULES.
“The totals are striking: middle-income parents with two kids will spend roughly $13,000 a year to raise a child from birth through age 17.”
Why am I paying my ex that much every fourteen months when I don’t have money for rent? And I barely get to see my daughter?
Well, Ms. Warren, it may be that you moved up the ladder and away from the lexicon of such crime.
I feel like i have been threatened by aggression, micro or otherwise, at least once a week.
We have already gone back…and it is going to get far far worse. Ladies, my advice is to get out of this country if you want to have any rights at all, let alone the freedom of choice. We are a hairs breath from the absolute worst society of all…a religious based corporate fascist totalitarian state and fascists like their women barefoot and beaten…in the name of god. I reject it all…especially the sheep that still even now have no clue.
I too remember the horror stories of coat-hangers, bleeding to death and the like. That’s what they are, horror. Dan_Harris has it correct in saying it is “a religious based-corporate fascist-totalitarian state”, this is to be feared by every citizen. Eleanore Roosevelt claimed back in the 40’s that we would have to fight for religious freedom again and again, on and on.
The argument for financial self-determination where an unwanted pregnancy is concerned doesn’t only apply to women. Men should have a similar opt-out period. And I suspect pro-choice-for-women advocates would find they have more allies if more of them weren’t so adamantly and hypocritically opposed to choice-for-men.
Ultimately the choice belongs with the woman. Men can have a say if a pregnancy involves them, on support issues, but it;s the woman’s sovereign body that gets the final say. I don’t think men have any right at all for enacting policy they have no clue about,(They don’t bear children). Why do men even get involved with legislation they know nothing about? Oh yeah, they own women and order them to obey or else because they heard it at church or some shit.
Men already have the same rights however not the same outcomes. They have limited and negotiated financial contributions unless they are the custodial parent. Look at the poverty levels for single parents which are most women. Change society and their would be fewer abortions and I don’t mean by making life choices illegal and punitive.
No they don’t. Women can opt out of the financial responsibility of an unwanted pregnancy, either by abortion or adoption. Men (and even boys) have no such option. If the woman decides to have and keep the baby, the man incurs financial responsibility for that.
“They have limited and negotiated financial contributions unless they are the custodial parent.”
That is not the same as a right to opt out. A real right to opt out would give men a limited duration in which to irrevocably take on a status equivalent to a sperm donor.
“Look at the poverty levels for single parents which are most women.”
Do you see that as having some sort of relevance to the issue of whether men too should have a right of choice?
Thank you! It is not a political issue- it’s personal. Maybe women should get all riled up about birth control for men!
Simple solution. Stop promiscuously giving your body to someone who is not your husband. The whole purpose of sex is to create life. The Playboy mentality which began in the '60’s has taken the sacred act and demeaned it.
Of course, the answer is even more complicated than just the first sentence I wrote. We live in a completely pornographic, hedonistic society in which it is considered “mean” and “hateful” to tell anyone that they can’t have whatever they want and do whatever they want. If we are to stop having unwanted children, the society much stop allowing pornographers to treat women as objects. Where is the anger from the Left about that? Pornography reduces women to a piece of meat.
Killing a baby is no answer to a problem pregnancy. Perhaps we should get all the greedy lawyers out of the adoption business and allow the unwanted babies to live by giving them homes with the thousands of couples who cannot conceive but would love to give their love and attention to a child, even one that they did not conceive.
There is a lot that can be done to protect women. Abortion is not one of those answers.
Respectfully, look at your first sentence it starts with, “No they don’t” Do you see there is parity in that regard. True, if two people have a child they have to provide for it. If the father choose to take the responsibility the mother would have to assume part of the financial obligation.
I think that the statistics speak for themselves in terms of poverty levels. That is men exercising a choice to opt out.
No, but aborting a fetus is.
I don’t think Edward_ understands the medical scope of “problem pregnancy”. In the documentary I recommended “Birthright” it examines how these laws prevent best medical practice.
Sitting here, in Israel, i’m watching in horror this POTUS and just can’t believe how cruel a U.S. president can be. it’s shocking how much back the country has gone back. can’t forget that poor undocumented teenager that was almost forced to keep her pregnancy. it’s not only DRUMPF. it’s his enablers. they are cruel people.
That’s because they don’t. There is no legal option the man has to opt out that is comparable to a woman’s right.
“Do you see there is parity in that regard.”
I see there is no parity. If the woman decides to have and keep the child, she can compel him to pay and he will have no legal option for avoiding that financial burden.
“True, if two people have a child they have to provide for it.”
By “two people” I assume you mean a married couple, in which case the decision to abort or keep is, in theory, a joint decision. And yes, in that context, there is a sort of legal parity of rights, even if the reality is usually that this is an unequal joint decision. But in the case of an unmarried couple, even if the woman decides not to terminate the pregnancy, she can still opt out of responsibility for the baby through adoption. She cannot be forced to provide for it. Conversely, if she decides to have and keep the child, all she has to do in order to compel the father to pay support is to identify who he is.
“If the father choose to take the responsibility the mother would have to assume part of the financial obligation.”
In the case of a married couple, yes. But for unmarried couples, first the biological father can usually be blocked from taking responsibility by simply not identifying him. In around 2/3 of the states, there are putative father registries, where the biological father can identify himself as the father prior to birth, but that only gives him the right to be notified of an adoption proceeding if she should decide to give it up, it does not grant him parental rights, and if she winds up giving birth in a different state than the one he registered in, that’s the same as him not having registered at all. Do you actually know of a case where an unmarried woman wanted to give up a baby for adoption, and the biological father not only interceded and managed to get custody but also compelled her against her will to provide support? If that ever happens, I think it must be very rare because I’ve never heard of such a case. And if it does happen, that really should be added to the list of arguments for abortion.
“I think that the statistics speak for themselves in terms of poverty levels.”
Statistics about poverty levels do indeed say something about poverty levels. The part that was not at all apparent is what this had to do with the issue of whether men have a right of choice.
“That is men exercising a choice to opt out.”
First, a bare poverty rate says nothing about what all the relevant causes are. I expect there are many single women living in poverty despite receiving child support. Second, many men are failing to meet their legally mandated burden of support because they are simply unable to. That is a matter of “choice” in the same sense that being poor is a matter of choice–and yes, I know that’s what many Republicans believe, but that doesn’t make it true. And third, what do we do with men who have the ability to pay the mandated support but choose not to if we catch them? We put them in prison. (Same as we do for the ones who are simply unable to pay, and then we compound their debt with the costs of getting ensnared in the “justice” system.) So the ones that do choose not to pay are “exercising a choice” to opt out in the same way that women had the ability to exercise a choice to abort in the days before Roe, merely because illegal abortion options were available to them. Having the ability to do something and having the right to do something are two different things. If doing X is illegal and can land you in prison, what that normally means is that you expressly do not have the right to do X, even if you are capable of choosing to do X.
The X “ability” vs “right” thing is not a complete paradigm as regards pregnancy, it would look more like Z-a, X-c,X-ac.
Providing child support is a requirement for both men and women. Even poor people are required to meet basic standards. There are statistics, on how well those choices work, the choice isn’t the disparity other than women give birth and men don’t, it is the outcome of those choices. Really, counting the number of men in jail for non-support is really not dealing with the issue.
It was only presented as a complete paradigm as regards capability. In other words, it is restricted to the domain of things that can be done, and it includes every element in that domain. For everything that you can do, you only have the right to do it if it is not illegal or otherwise prohibited by rule, regulation, or mandate.
“Providing child support is a requirement for both men and women.”
That has nothing to do with whether the requirements are applied equitably–which is the core issue when it comes to choice. In any given pregnancy, the woman has two options for avoiding the financial burden of the prospective child. One is to abort, and the other is to adopt out. That means the mere fact of having gotten pregnant does not take away her right to decide whether to undertake the burden of support, and she therefore only assumes that burden voluntarily if she does so at all. The man has no similar option. If she decides to keep it, all she has to do is name him and the state will compel him to pay. It is not voluntary and he has no choice. The fact that the two biological parents may both wind up required to provide support in no way implies that the situation is fair, particularly if the women got to decide whether to undertake her financial burden AND she also got to decide whether to impose that burden (often even a larger burden) on the man.
Where we are talking about married couples, I’m going to say the man implicitly gave up any right of refusal when he married her. But for unmarried men, a fair system would let them have, say, 30 days (after being informed) to decide whether they will take on the rights and costs of fatherhood, or whether their contribution will only be that of sperm donor.
“Really, counting the number of men in jail for non-support is really not dealing with the issue.”
The relevant point is that men can be imprisoned for failing to meet an obligation which was involuntarily imposed on them, whereas such an obligation cannot be involuntarily imposed on women.
The right to have an abortion is a constitutionally protected right, along with the right of privacy. With that said, having additional legal requirement for being pregnant does not mean everything falls within that context or contexts as determined by local laws. Some women were within that legal context but are now dead. In any case there are other ways to meet financial requirements, not in all cases though and that is my point.
If I were a man and felt about caring for a child I fathered as an involuntary imposition, I would require a LLC contract before having sex. See there are all sorts of solutions.