patrick.net

She's also putting society on the hook as well.

rando says

FP says

So you are willing to sacrifice the child to make it fair for men.

Isn't it the woman who is sacrificing the child if she chooses to have it in poverty?

You think she should be forced to have an abortion?

If not, then you are fine with stamping the blame on her and letting the child live in poverty?

FP says

So the child should live in poverty

If the mother to be is too stupid to get an abortion, yes.

FP says

You think she should be forced to have an abortion?

If not, then you are fine with stamping the blame on her and letting the child live in poverty?

What? How did you jump to the idea that she should be forced to do anything? I never suggested any force.

I'm just saying that the man should have an equal right to decide on whether he wants to accept responsibility for the baby.

She has a right to choose. The man should have an equal right to choose.

Or do only women have rights?

"For the good of the child" seems to be coded speech for "whatever the woman wants".

Lawyers make a rather large % of their cases based on child rights laws. A law that would create an out for a mans responsibility would trim up to 10-20% of total Lawyers annual salaries.

Regardless of the merit of the idea - its not going to happen.

It will happen if the idea of equal rights can be presented to most men. This is part of that effort.

Dan8267 says

Our society should require a license to become a parent. To get the license you must prove

- you are financially capable of supporting a child (having at least $100k of savings and zero debt)

- you are financially stable (having an income of at least $50k/yr uninterrupted for each of the past 5 years)

- you are emotionally stable (no depression or bipolar issues)

- you are educated about being a parent (testing)

There are people in the public sector, Child Support, Child Welfare, Social Work, Country Childcare, School vouchers, city workers involved in daycare liscensing.

Again, the economy for assistance of low salaried husbands/wife and moms for the public sector is nearly a $Trillion dollar industry for the public sector. That those who work in the government assistance of poor families(who work in the private sector doing nearly all the menial work) - typically make 2-4X what the people make whom that are "helping".
A great financial analysis would be:
1. Determine the ratio of Fed/State/Local Jobs spent on low income assistance, (childcare/housing/school meals/welfare).
2. Sum up all the salaries and other direct costs of these child assisting public sector jobs from all states, fed, counties, cities.
3. Sum up all the cum salaries of the low income folks warranting the assistance to supplement their resources from all states, fed, counties, cities.
Divide #2/#3. If the ratio is greater than 0.4 suggest taking all the funds and giving them to the states, and gradually reducing the "public sector" children/family advocates by reassigning/attrition.
4. States take $$ that was spent on Public Sector children/family advocates (which in California would be in excess of $2.5 Billion per year) and spend 1/3rd of it on public works projects, 1/3rd on tax incentives to hire historically low income people, 1/3rd directly to the poor.

Another Idea.

Even time I go to the store, I see KGs of meat and chicken and other organic good near expiry.

What would a cost/benefit analysis be if we have "Freddie Mac" making food available to the needy?

- Provide Stores Tax incentive for food donations within 3-5 days of expiring.
- Stores could write off up to $4000 / per day of the retail costs (like income tax have a form Groc101 which is you donated food, the store could write off 25% of the retail cost of the food.
- Thus a store would have to donate $16K worth of food to get a daily $4K write off.
-Before you write off my idea, it likely costs $30K/day to run an supermarket (not counting the wholesale costs of food/goods recieved). So the savings to the store in some cases could approach 10% of costs. --Thus, the cost of labor to support the Donation of food would be nearly paid for.

FREE THE SPEWING DICKS! FREE THEM ALL!

For the sake of argument here, I hold the following to be true:

- The premise that men and women should be equal only makes sense if you are talking to a feminist.
- It is not the case that women and men are equal. They have different roles and responsibilities.
- Having a baby or not is her choice. It is basically deciding what to do with her body or not.
- A woman having a baby is not putting society on the hook, it has a net positive effect on society once the baby becomes a productive adult member.
- Women always bear a disproportionate portion of the cost in time of parenthood.
- The role of men in every society is to provide resources for the society to perpetuate itself, i.e. share resources with mothers who are spending their times on the child rearing task.
- It is obvious that men would benefit greatly from denying this support role and just keeping resources for themselves to enjoy life.
- Thus society needs a mechanism to force men to contribute their due whether through marriage or child support. If men could opt out of child support, then I would say all childless adults should pay a special tax as a compensation that would used to help single parents.

Discuss.

BTW, if a man consents to responsibility for the baby, he should be held to it. I'm not suggesting that men be able to give up responsibility after accepting it.

The key word is consent. For a woman to have a baby without the man's consent should free the man from forced payments. You would not force a woman to have a baby without her consent, so you should not force a man to be financially responsible for it without his consent.

Ideally, we'd all have children in normal marriages and none of this would matter. The problems start when women demand to have greater rights than men, as they do now.

Heraclitusstudent says

Thus society needs a mechanism to force men to contribute their whether through marriage or child support

So therefore you also agree than society needs a mechanism to force women to have babies, right? ;-)

Probably you don't agree to that. Just to forcing men to pay.

rando says

So therefore you also agree than society needs a mechanism to force women to have babies, right? ;-)

I would give men a chance to opt out but put a tax on childless adults (above say 30), including women. Having a baby would move them from support provider to supported.

Single parents could be men too and receive support as such.

rando says

What? How did you jump to the idea that she should be forced to do anything? I never suggested any force.

Good, I didn't think you did, just wanted to clarify this as it is the starting point.

Once we accept this, the situation between men and women becomes asymmetrical. They cannot have equal rights. If you want to give more rights to men, in this particular case about child support, you are taking them from the children.

FP says

Once we accept this, the situation between men and women becomes asymmetrical. They cannot have equal rights. If you want to give more rights to men, in this particular case about child support, you are taking them from the children.

I disagree. The situation between men and women would become symmetrical. Her choice and his choice. Not just her choice alone.

They can indeed have equal rights, and it would be very simple and fair to implement.

Giving men the same rights as women takes nothing from children. It is the woman's choice to have the child or not. The child has no say under any conditions.

Women can have children in poverty any time they want, right now. Giving equal rights to men would not change that.

All I'm suggesting is fairness outside traditional marriage.
Traditional marriage and motherhood is a far better solution for everyone, but that has been soundly and loudly rejected by feminism.

Heraclitusstudent says

The premise that men and women should be equal only makes sense if you are talking to a feminist.

1. Define feminist
2. Define equal. Are you talking about equal rights (equality under the law) or something else?

Heraclitusstudent says

Having a baby or not is her choice. It is basically deciding what to do with her body or not.

It's more than that. It starts out as just that when the egg is fertilized, but by the time the baby is about to be born, it's not just about the mother. A baby one minute before birth is not materially different from a baby one minute after birth. So yes, there is a time limit before the rights of the offspring must be considered. That doesn't happen at fertilization, but it does happen before birth.

Heraclitusstudent says

- A woman having a baby is not putting society on the hook, it has a net positive effect on society once the baby becomes a productive adult member.

1. No. The fact that we have financial safety nets like food stamps, assisted housing, public schooling, etc. means that there is most certainly a non-zero cost to society when a woman has a baby, and even more so when poor women have babies. In fact, there is considerable cost. We spent a lot of our local government spending and land on children from schools to parks to child-related services.

2. Not all people become net-productive people. I question if even half the people in our society contribute more than they consume.

Heraclitusstudent says

Women always bear a disproportionate portion of the cost in time of parenthood.

Yes, but this is irrelevant to the questions of
- whether or not men should have the right to opt in to parenthood
- whether or not there should be licensing for parents

Women have always had the better deal when it comes to reproduction. Barring death or infertility, they are guaranteed reproductive success if they want it. For women, reproduction is a right. For men, it's a privilege. There was a PatNet thread referencing that throughout history only about 5% of males actually reproduced and that changed only recently (past 1000 years or so).

Second women are guaranteed parental certainty. Without paternity tests, men have no such guarantee.

Heraclitusstudent says

The role of men in every society is to provide resources for the society to perpetuate itself, i.e. share resources with mothers who are spending their times on the child rearing task.

Should this be the purpose of man? To be a slave?

Heraclitusstudent says

It is obvious that men would benefit greatly from denying this support role and just keeping resources for themselves to enjoy life.

From an evolutionary perspective, this is a self-correcting problem. Simply require females to choose mates that will provide support and you'll get future generations in which men are supportive. If such support turns out to be unnecessary because women can support the children themselves and choose to shop for the best looking men rather than the best supportive men, then again, by evolution this is a self-correcting problem. Men cease to be needed for economic productivity and become simply peacocks. And if that is to be their function, then fine. Under such a system men should just be exercising, pruning themselves, fucking women, and playing x-box. If anything, women should be taxed to pay for the living expenses of all men in such a society. Men would just be reproductive children, but evolution is a-OK with that.

Heraclitusstudent says

Thus society needs a mechanism to force men to contribute their due whether through marriage or child support. If men could opt out of child support, then I would say all childless adults should pay a special tax as a compensation that would used to help single parents.

This argument is essentially, society needs slaves. The degree of slavery might vary, but it can never be zero. As a liberal, I reject that position.

The solution is to restrict reproduction to those who are licensed after demonstrating financial solvency. Any woman who violates this restriction gets fined and denied all social services including housing subsidies and food stamps.

Dan8267 says

Heraclitusstudent says

- A woman having a baby is not putting society on the hook, it has a net positive effect on society once the baby becomes a productive adult member.

1. No. The fact that we have financial safety nets like food stamps, assisted housing, public schooling, etc. means that there is most certainly a non-zero cost to society when a woman has a baby, and even more so when poor women have babies. In fact, there is considerable cost. We spent a lot of our local government spending and land on children from schools to parks to child-related services.

2. Not all people become net-productive people. I question if even half the people in our society contribute more than they consume.

Yes the costs are heavy, and it should be obvious that all these costs are absorbed always by adult working people and we still have resources left to eat, provide for the sick and the retired, etc... that proves that human beings on average are net producers even considering the cost of childhood, education, retirement and sickness when these human beings have to rely on others.

Heraclitusstudent says

Yes the costs are heavy, and it should be obvious that all these costs are absorbed always by adult working people and we still have resources left to eat, provide for the sick and the retired, etc... that proves that human beings on average are net producers even considering the cost of childhood, education, retirement and sickness when these human beings have to rely on others.

You are almost as bad at math and logic as Marcus. Average and median are not the same thing. The median person can easily be net-negative productivity while the average is net-positive. Furthermore, environmental degradation means that we as a society can be net-negative productive while still having resources left to eat, provide for.... etc., at least for some time.

Dan8267 says

This argument is essentially, society needs slaves. The degree of slavery might vary, but it can never be zero.

Call it what you want: it's what always happened, and will always happen, however you feel about it.
The notion that women will slave to raise children and provide for them while men care only for themselves is silly.
Civilization relies on sounds education and this cannot happen without men support.

Dan8267 says

You are almost as bad at math and logic as Marcus. Average and median are not the same thing. The median person can easily be net-negative productivity while the average is net-positive. Furthermore, environmental degradation means that we as a society can be net-negative productive while still having resources left to eat, provide for.... etc., at least for some time.

I've just showed that on aggregate (doing the sum) human beings are necessarily net positives. Divide that by the number of people and ON AVERAGE human beings are net positives.
Here's for your math, Einstein.

Heraclitusstudent says

Dan8267 says

This argument is essentially, society needs slaves. The degree of slavery might vary, but it can never be zero.

Call it what you want

What it's called is irrelevant. It's slavery by any name.

Heraclitusstudent says

It's what always happened, and will always happen, however you feel about it.

How I feel about it is irrelevant to my argument. The messenger is always irrelevant.

Second, just because something has always happened in human history does not mean it has to continue to happen. A mere two hundred years ago, you could truthfully said that most children died before reaching adulthood and that's the way it's always been. Is it true today, though?

Also just because something never happened in human history does not mean it won't be common from now on. Before 1903 no human had ever flown. Now it's common. Before 1940 no human had ever used an electronic computer. Now you have one in your pocket. Before 1975 no person owned his own computer. A decade later they were common household items. Before 2000 no one had smartphones and digital video cameras, now they are cheap. Yes, there are new things under the sun every day.

I appreciate the sentiment of the thread, but I'd like to step back a bit. If you agree to marry someone, your vows should mean something. For rich or for poor, in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, till death do you part. Where the fuck does it say "Until I get bored", or " Until its too much hassle". Life isn't easy, marriage takes work.
Now if you decide to have a child in your marriage, shouldn't that child have a choice? Shouldn't the child have human rights? And shouldn't you do everything, absolutely everything in your power to raise that child in the best environment possible, with a mom and a dad? Money NEVER replaces parents.

But what about outside of marriage, you didn't agree to be with this person forever. You made no vows. Fine, then WHY THE FUCK are you having a child with them.

Men's rights are important, as are all humans rights. But I think as a man or woman we suck it up and sacrifice some of our rights because children are more vulnerable, weaker, and we have a duty to raise our children ourselves.

Heraclitusstudent says

I've just showed that on aggregate (doing the sum) human beings are necessarily net positives. Divide that by the number of people and ON AVERAGE human beings are net positives.

Here's for your math, Einstein.

1. Your math is wrong because you aren't taking into consideration environmental degradation including pollution and resource exhaustion.
2. The average being positive would not imply, in any way or form, that the average or median baby born to poor women grow up to net produce.
3. The greater the population, the less productive each person is due to resource contention. If this were not the case, then an infinite population would be best. Obviously an infinite population is not best, or even possible, therefore there most be some point where population increases are net bad.
4. China empirically disproves your hypothesis that greater populations is best for economic productivity. China had to go to extremes to get its population under control.
5. Ditto for Africa. African women having lots of babies is one of the chief causes of starvation. It's the tragedy of the commons.

I never said greater populations is best for economic productivity. I said on average, whether the population is growing or shrinking, human being are net producers.
All the rest is straw man.

Dan8267 says

From an evolutionary perspective, this is a self-correcting problem. Simply require females to choose mates that will provide support and you'll get future generations in which men are supportive. If such support turns out to be unnecessary because women can support the children themselves and choose to shop for the best looking men rather than the best supportive men, then again, by evolution this is a self-correcting problem. Men cease to be needed for economic productivity and become simply peacocks. And if that is to be their function, then fine. Under such a system men should just be exercising, pruning themselves, fucking women, and playing x-box.

I guess that is an argument in favor of men having no choice, paying child support for their offsprings and being needed for their productivity.
Let's just add paternity tests to close a certain evolutionary loophole and we are good.

rando says

I disagree. The situation between men and women would become symmetrical. Her choice and his choice. Not just her choice alone.

rando says

This trap catches rich men all the time.

I think it was Mercedes Carerra or Lisa Ann or some other Porn Star who is/was an NBA groupie: flush the condom down the toilet.

NuttBoxer says

Men's rights are important, as are all humans rights. But I think as a man or woman we suck it up and sacrifice some of our rights because children are more vulnerable, weaker, and we have a duty to raise our children ourselves.

Yep - and Feminists are opposed to that.

For starters, get rid of no-fault divorce if kids are involved. You married with kids? You need a real reason - abandonment, drug abuse, etc.

Heraclitusstudent says

I never said greater populations is best for economic productivity. I said on average, whether the population is growing or shrinking, human being are net producers.

Actually what you said was

A woman having a baby is not putting society on the hook, it has a net positive effect on society once the baby becomes a productive adult member.

This is simply not a true statement. The statement, as you wrote it, means that every baby becomes a productive adult and pays back society for the costs it imposed. This is simply and clearly not true.

Then you revised your statement to say that the average baby will become a productive adult with a net-positive flow back to society. This may be true -- you certainly have not proven that, but for the sake of argument, let's give you this point even though it's probably not true -- but that does not mean
1. That the median baby will become a productive adult with a net-positive flow back to society.
2. That the average baby born to poor women will become a net-productive adult. In fact, empirical evidence shows that the most productive people in our society are those not born into poverty. Poverty generates more poverty.

So your revised statement is also completely wrong.

[stupid comment limit]

Now your third statement, "whether the population is growing or shrinking, human being are net producers", is also most certainly wrong. Human beings are committing massive resource depletion, pollution, and extinction. In the past 40 years, half of all wildlife has been destroyed. Clean water reserves are being permanently depleted. A third of the world doesn't even have adequate clean drinking water supplies. How have you factored this into your math? How is a higher population going to help these problems? It's not. It's going to make all these problems worse.

Heraclitusstudent says

I guess that is an argument in favor of men having no choice, paying child support for their offsprings and being needed for their productivity.

www.youtube.com/embed/U_eZmEiyTo0?start=219&end=221

Dan8267 says

Human beings are committing massive resource depletion, pollution, and extinction. In the past 40 years, half of all wildlife has been destroyed. Clean water reserves are being permanently depleted. A third of the world doesn't even have adequate clean drinking water supplies. How have you factored this into your math?

Maybe population should shrink but this is irrelevant here as it doesn't change the facts we are discussing:
- there should be children to perpetuate society
- on average society members are net-producers
- someone needs to support in time and resources children until they become adults. Which is the entire discussion here.

Dan8267 says

that does not mean

1. That the median baby will become a productive adult with a net-positive flow back to society.

2. That the average baby born to poor women will become a net-productive adult. In fact, empirical evidence shows that the most productive people in our society are those not born into poverty. Poverty generates more poverty.

Since I never said anything related to these statements, this cannot be an answer to my post. Unless you're trying some straw man.

Dan8267 says

So your revised statement is also completely wrong.

How so?

Dan8267 says

the average baby will become a productive adult with a net-positive flow back to society. This may be true -- you certainly have not proven that,

How could it be otherwise? Martians are providing for them?

NuttBoxer says

If you agree to marry someone, your vows should mean something.

I agree. Marriage is a promise, a contract. Part of the contract is that both parties have responsibility to raise any legitimate children produced by that marriage.

The only question is why women should have greater rights than men outside of marriage. I say they should not. If a woman chooses to have a baby outside of marriage against the wishes of the man, or without even asking him, then being the woman's choice, it should be the woman's problem.

The child custody laws need to be changed. If a child is born out of wedlock, the custody and child support payment should not almost always go to the woman. If the man and woman had equal status as potential parents, and the courts could decide custody based only on financial capability and personal parenting capability, and gender could not be a factor in the custody decision, then it wouldn't be a slamdunk for women to get custody of the child and child support. If this was the case women would think twice when they were pregnant with with a child with someone who they weren't going to end up married to. If there was a high probability that they would end up paying child support and not having custody, there would be a lot less woman choosing to have children out of wedlock. Many men would gladly except parental responsibility if they didn't end up with minimal custody and paying part of their earnings into someone else's household, and thus damaging their own ability to have a family and support their own household.

Heraclitusstudent says

Maybe population should shrink but this is irrelevant here as it doesn't change the facts we are discussing:

I did not suggest such a thing. I refuted a conclusion you proposed that is contradicted by the facts.

But to go over the points you are now making...

- there should be children to perpetuate society

No one has ever suggested that there should be zero children born per generation. This is a false dichotomy and a straw man argument. No one wold ever argue that children should not exist and our species should go extinct.

However, population control is important and if we want to maximize happiness, sustainability, health, and prosperity as well as avoiding war, famine, abject poverty, and ecological collapse, we should not encourage reproduction. Instead we should limit it and provide economic incentives to reduce it.

[stupid comment limit. How's that working out again, Patrick?]

Agree what fraser wrote above

rando says

BTW, if a man consents to responsibility for the baby, he should be held to it. I'm not suggesting that men be able to give up responsibility after accepting it.

The insertion of his penis is his consent to the possibility of a baby. Sure, he can try to do things to minimize the chances - condom, etc., but that's his line. Once it's crossed, he has to deal with the consequences. It's not fair to put it on the woman to either abort or raise her child in poverty. I understand your point, but I don't think it's the way to go.
In reality, your proposal would be framed as men forcing women to decide between abortion and starving kids, so it's a non-starter politically. It's more realistic to dream of a world of abstinence until marriage than this proposal ever becoming a reality.

ch_tah2 says

so it's a non-starter politically

I'd say morally too.