Originally posted by bunge
Here is the meat and potatoes of the pro opt-out crowd. "Screw law and equality, I want special treatment!" What happened to personal responsibility?
I'm all for something that's equitable. The problem is, you're creating a band-aid over a problem but not addressing the problem directly. There are problems in the child support system that should be fixed. That's where the basis for this argument lies. Unfortunately opt-out doesn't address any of the problems.
Just because a woman can have an abortion doesn't mean any device you think of can be used to give men another option. Find a solution that's remotely equitable. I've already said that giving both parents the opt-out even if the pregnancy goes though option is at least equitable, even if it's stupid. But that's not good enough for most of you. You want inequity.
I want to start this reply with this quote from the mission statement of planned parenthood.(note not motherhood)Reproductive freedomthe fundamental right of every individual to decide freely and responsibly when and whether to have a childis a reaffirmation of the principle of individual liberty cherished by most people worldwide. It helps ensure that children will be wanted and loved, that families will be strong and secure, and that choice rather than chance will guide the future of humanity.
A choice should determine when somene is a parent, not a chance.
Bunge, you say what has happened to personal responsibility. In our society we have determined that sex is about much more than just reproduction. If we followed your logic, then abortion shouldn't be allowed. Women should just be "responsible" for their sex.
However we know this not to be true because feminism and women have taught us that sex does not equal reproduction. Reproduction should be a choice.
What you need to do is come out of the dark ages my friend. There are many women who are capable and desire to raise a child without the issues a man brings. They make their own money and pay their own way in this world. They are liberated, capable and likely insulted by the notion that they need a man. This is true for buying a house, changing the oil in the car, or being able to financially afford a child.
You have repeatedly claimed that fathers should not be allowed to opt out because there will be ongoing costs associated with the child after it is born. I haven't avoided this issue. I have said quite plainly that women know their ability to raise a child alone and will choose whether to do so via abortion. Shawn at least politely admitted that he thought this was an infringement on their right to choose. I told him, yes to choose to parent, but that isn't what is guaranteed by the Constitution.
You keep harping on the issue as well without really stating it or addressing it head on.
The Constitution does not guarantee financial support for a woman when she has a child. It does not guarantee that parenting will be easy, financially comfortable, shared or anything else. Why anyone would expect this to be so, especially when no commitment has been made is even more ludicrous.
These independent, capable women that we have are intelligent enough to see how having and raising a child alone will affect them. If they believe it will affect them negatively. They will abort. If they believe it won't they will keep it. If morally they disagree with abortion, they can easily put it up for adoption since the father has already given up his parental rights.
Under every scenario the mother is fully in charge and fully decides her fate. That is freedom.
The reverse is not true. The man is left waiting, wondering, and hoping that his concerns might even be weighed in the decision. He may not want the child, but now he has 18 years of court fights and support issues.
You ask where is the responsibility on the father's part. They are taking it. If they want a child they will support it and if they don't they shouldn't have to. Responsibility as you define it is like accepting the punishment for a crime. Well last time I checked sex wasn't a crime. In fact last I checked with you, you viewed very negatively anyone who tries to criminalize sex between two consenting adults.
As I mentioned earlier, if the courts shouldn't care if I have sex with a man. Why should they care if I have sex with a woman?
What you refuse to discuss is the woman's responsibility. Her reproductive choice makes her weigh some options as well. Her responsibility is to decide whether she has the time, finances and desire to care for this child, possibly alone. If she feels she doesn't then that is why society give her the choice of not parenting. If she chooses to parent knowing she cannot meet the needs of the child. Then she has been irresponsible. Petitioning the government, sperm donor, or anyone else does not change the fact that she didn't weigh her choice responsibly.
Parenting should be a choice for both parties involved. Men being able to opt out is beneficial for women. It helps them truly understand his intent and the likelyhood of his support both physically and financially. In this regard it gives her more freedom of choice because she cannot be deceived about his intent and thus choose parenting with a partner who won't provide.
It solves many support issues because right now they revolve around women who are attempting to force men to parent against their will.
It can also be used to refocus public aid. Instead of a stream of women who demand public aid because the father of the child did not provide, we can instead focus it on women who truly were left in a bad spot via divorce, widowed, etc.
You say where is the responsibility of the man. I ask you where is the responsibility of the woman to insure that her child will have more in it's life than a garnished wage from a father that never wanted it. If a child truly needs two parents, then a woman has a responsibility to only choose when she knows the child will be supported, loved by two parents, and a cherished choice.