NationStates

Terruana wrote:Any "consequences" that you could apply to a medical researcher whose trial participants lied about symptoms/side effects

If the experiment is done in person, then a patient's self-reporting of symptoms and side-effects could be juxtaposed with the symptoms and side effects the researcher can actually observe. This constitutes a plausible incentive to tell the truth.

If the experiment relies entirely on self-reporting and is not conducted in person, then I'd treat it with just as much skepticism as any other self-reporting survey.

Terruana wrote:and are pretty much limited to "wow, that's kinda embarrassing that you got that wrong".

No.

If your specialization is in the medical sciences, then getting it wrong severely enough can provoke career-threatening suspicion; and rightfully so; of getting it wrong on purpose. (The W.H.O.'s suspected beholdenness to China after they downplayed this pandemic, to the point where money sent to it was put on hold, for instance.)

If your specialization is in the social sciences, people don't care quite as much. (Eg. The media talking about polling failure and then completely forgetting all about it by next week.) A lot of people would rather be caught off guard by an upset victory than face the fact that others have reasons for lying that they don't foresee. Either they don't care if pollsters got it wrong on purpose or they just don't want to go there.

Terruana wrote:I guess you're trying to make the point that you don't trust science or research whether it agrees with you or not, but either way, you're still coming across as the proud owner of a tin foil hat.

Science is not just science. Different subdisciplines have different levels of incentive to pander to whatever their funders; be they the public or just a more specific subset thereof; are willing to believe; or not to.

But yeah, I'd rather come across as a tinfoil hat wearer than a science worshipper.

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:

Terruana wrote:Any "consequences" that you could apply to a medical researcher whose trial participants lied about symptoms/side effects

If the experiment is done in person, then a patient's self-reporting of symptoms and side-effects could be juxtaposed with the symptoms and side effects the researcher can actually observe. This constitutes a plausible incentive to tell the truth.

If the experiment relies entirely on self-reporting and is not conducted in person, then I'd treat it with just as much skepticism as any other self-reporting survey.

Terruana wrote:and are pretty much limited to "wow, that's kinda embarrassing that you got that wrong".

No.

If your specialization is in the medical sciences, then getting it wrong severely enough can provoke career-threatening suspicion; and rightfully so; of getting it wrong on purpose. (The W.H.O.'s suspected beholdenness to China after they downplayed this pandemic, to the point where money sent to it was put on hold, for instance.)

If your specialization is in the social sciences, people don't care quite as much. (Eg. The media talking about polling failure and then completely forgetting all about it by next week.) A lot of people would rather be caught off guard by an upset victory than face the fact that others have reasons for lying that they don't foresee. Either they don't care if pollsters got it wrong on purpose or they just don't want to go there.

Terruana wrote:I guess you're trying to make the point that you don't trust science or research whether it agrees with you or not, but either way, you're still coming across as the proud owner of a tin foil hat.

Science is not just science. Different subdisciplines have different levels of incentive to pander to whatever their funders; be they the public or just a more specific subset thereof; are willing to believe; or not to.

But yeah, I'd rather come across as a tinfoil hat wearer than a science worshipper.

Thats not how clinical trials work. Researchers cannot discount side effects that are reported just because they don't observe them personally. If a patient on a new drug reports joint pain, or diarrhoea, or incontinence, or even a cough - those symptoms don't have to be observed by the researchers in order to be "counted", whether its in person or not. Also, if having to report your symptoms to a researcher is an incentive to tell the truth, why don't you apply this thinking to social sciences?

I would be incredibly surprised if you can find a single example of a medical researcher who lost their career because the participants in their clinical trial lied about their symptoms. The closest example I can think of would be something like Wakefield and his "MMR causes autism" nonsense, but that wasn't a case of "getting it wrong", it was intentional falsifying of data. Which, by the way, was picked up on by the scientific community because the peer review system accounts for people making mistakes or falsifying data, which is yet another reason why you putting your fingers in your ears every time you're confronted with facts is a poor excuse for a defence.

And yes, the choice of what to study and how to present the conclusions can vary depending on who is studying what and for what purpose, but the data itself is unbiased and dismissing it entirely the way you choose to is disingenuous at best. To quote one of your apparent idols, "facts don't care about your feelings".

Terruana wrote:Thats not how clinical trials work. Researchers cannot discount side effects that are reported just because they don't observe them personally. If a patient on a new drug reports joint pain, or diarrhoea, or incontinence, or even a cough - those symptoms don't have to be observed by the researchers in order to be "counted", whether its in person or not.

A patient has no way of knowing if the doctor can tell they're lying. So yeah, it's still somewhat of a disincentive against lying.

Terruana wrote:Also, if having to report your symptoms to a researcher is an incentive to tell the truth, why don't you apply this thinking to social sciences?

Because:

A: Surveys are often conducted over the phone rather than in person.

B: Even in person, a skilled enough liar can mask the symptoms of lying. Even lie detectors can be fooled.

C: On the whole, there is more incentive to "get it right" in the context of medicine because, with the possible exception of anti-vaxxers, most patients' first priority is to deal with the physical ailments that are afflicting them right now, not the emotional ailments of realizing they picked the wrong thing with which to deal with them. Contrast that with how rational they are about how polling has failed them...

Terruana wrote:The closest example I can think of would be something like Wakefield and his "MMR causes autism" nonsense, but that wasn't a case of "getting it wrong", it was intentional falsifying of data. Which, by the way, was picked up on by the scientific community because the peer review system accounts for people making mistakes or falsifying data, which is yet another reason why you putting your fingers in your ears every time you're confronted with facts is a poor excuse for a defence.

I'm the one putting fingers in my ears? That's rich coming from someone downplaying the one factor that every polling failure has in common.

The peer review process isn't going to do much good if the peers have similar biases. Or worse yet, have any incentive to selectively dig up dirt on those who go against the prevailing biases.

Terruana wrote:To quote one of your apparent idols, "facts don't care about your feelings".

Emphasis mine. If you can't tell the difference "idolizing Ben Shapiro" and "acknowledging the discrepancy between using his frailty against him and pretending to respect frail men", then you have discredited yourself completely.

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:

Terruana wrote:Thats not how clinical trials work. Researchers cannot discount side effects that are reported just because they don't observe them personally. If a patient on a new drug reports joint pain, or diarrhoea, or incontinence, or even a cough - those symptoms don't have to be observed by the researchers in order to be "counted", whether its in person or not.

A patient has no way of knowing if the doctor can tell they're lying. So yeah, it's still somewhat of a disincentive against lying.

Terruana wrote:Also, if having to report your symptoms to a researcher is an incentive to tell the truth, why don't you apply this thinking to social sciences?

Because:

A: Surveys are often conducted over the phone rather than in person.

B: Even in person, a skilled enough liar can mask the symptoms of lying. Even lie detectors can be fooled.

C: On the whole, there is more incentive to "get it right" in the context of medicine because, with the possible exception of anti-vaxxers, most patients' first priority is to deal with the physical ailments that are afflicting them right now, not the emotional ailments of realizing they picked the wrong thing with which to deal with them. Contrast that with how rational they are about how polling has failed them...

Terruana wrote:The closest example I can think of would be something like Wakefield and his "MMR causes autism" nonsense, but that wasn't a case of "getting it wrong", it was intentional falsifying of data. Which, by the way, was picked up on by the scientific community because the peer review system accounts for people making mistakes or falsifying data, which is yet another reason why you putting your fingers in your ears every time you're confronted with facts is a poor excuse for a defence.

I'm the one putting fingers in my ears? That's rich coming from someone downplaying the one factor that every polling failure has in common.

The peer review process isn't going to do much good if the peers have similar biases. Or worse yet, have any incentive to selectively dig up dirt on those who go against the prevailing biases.

Terruana wrote:To quote one of your apparent idols, "facts don't care about your feelings".

Emphasis mine. If you can't tell the difference "idolizing Ben Shapiro" and "acknowledging the discrepancy between using his frailty against him and pretending to respect frail men", then you have discredited yourself completely.

I just don't understand how you can't see how obvious your doublethink is here. Every single reason you give for why medical studies should be considered as valid also applies to other studies in fields like psychology, and all of the reasons you are dismissive of social sciences could also apply to medical studies. Do you seriously not see it, or is it just that you're already committed to your stance and don't want to lose face?

You've also completed misunderstood how peer review works. The scientific community isn't a hive mind conspiring to pull one over on the general public. Do you really think that every researcher in the social science fields is working together and covering up lies/mistakes for each other? And that, in your mind, is more likely than that the majority of their study participants aren't lying?

Its also not a particularly convincing argument that you are able to critically evaluate sources when you have apparently decided that all social science studies are conducted over the phone without even looking at the methodology. Do you even know how a research paper is written? There's an entire section describing the methodology for the exact purpose of allowing the reader to evaluate it objectively. If you don't even bother reading that section, you have no grounds for claiming that you've "evaluated" the source.

Terruana wrote:I just don't understand how you can't see how obvious your doublethink is here. Every single reason you give for why medical studies should be considered as valid also applies to other studies in fields like psychology, and all of the reasons you are dismissive of social sciences could also apply to medical studies.

I've already specified the distinctions. Feel free to ignore them if you like.

Terruana wrote:The scientific community isn't a hive mind conspiring to pull one over on the general public.

Me: "They may risk alienating the public by telling them the truth."
You: "So you're saying they're trying to pull one over?"

One of these is about the public preferring to be lied to over being told truths that offend them. The other is about a public not wanting to be lied to but somehow being so anyway.

If you can't even represent what I'm saying accurately (or as you so conveniently ignored, whether or not I'm a fan of someone accurately), why should I trust your judgment on this?

Terruana wrote:Its also not a particularly convincing argument that you are able to critically evaluate sources when you have apparently decided that all social science studies are conducted over the phone without even looking at the methodology. Do you even know how a research paper is written? There's an entire section describing the methodology for the exact purpose of allowing the reader to evaluate it objectively. If you don't even bother reading that section, you have no grounds for claiming that you've "evaluated" the source.

Hence why point B noted the limitations on identifying lies even in person.

And while I don't always check the source (though as noted in that other thread, I often do), I do know that:

1. The social sciences are often known for relying very heavily on self-reporting in surveys, to the point of treating respondents as honest by default despite that assumption having led them wrong before...

2. Apologists for the social sciences, including those not claiming to be within it, are especially prone to making excuses for the notion of treating respondents as honest by default, let alone for the concept of surveys.

A package of ten condoms is like, what, six, eight bucks? Wrap it up tight fellas. I hear they also keep you from catching a dose of clap.

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:

Terruana wrote:I just don't understand how you can't see how obvious your doublethink is here. Every single reason you give for why medical studies should be considered as valid also applies to other studies in fields like psychology, and all of the reasons you are dismissive of social sciences could also apply to medical studies.

I've already specified the distinctions. Feel free to ignore them if you like.

Terruana wrote:The scientific community isn't a hive mind conspiring to pull one over on the general public.

Me: "They may risk alienating the public by telling them the truth."
You: "So you're saying they're trying to pull one over?"

One of these is about the public preferring to be lied to over being told truths that offend them. The other is about a public not wanting to be lied to but somehow being so anyway.

If you can't even represent what I'm saying accurately (or as you so conveniently ignored, whether or not I'm a fan of someone accurately), why should I trust your judgment on this?

Terruana wrote:Its also not a particularly convincing argument that you are able to critically evaluate sources when you have apparently decided that all social science studies are conducted over the phone without even looking at the methodology. Do you even know how a research paper is written? There's an entire section describing the methodology for the exact purpose of allowing the reader to evaluate it objectively. If you don't even bother reading that section, you have no grounds for claiming that you've "evaluated" the source.

Hence why point B noted the limitations on identifying lies even in person.

And while I don't always check the source (though as noted in that other thread, I often do), I do know that:

1. The social sciences are often known for relying very heavily on self-reporting in surveys, to the point of treating respondents as honest by default despite that assumption having led them wrong before...

2. Apologists for the social sciences, including those not claiming to be within it, are especially prone to making excuses for the notion of treating respondents as honest by default, let alone for the concept of surveys.

In other words, you are no different to a run of the mill anti-vaxxer. You are presented with scientific research that doesn't fit with your world view, and you immediately dismiss it without a second thought. You have zero insight into this, and you think the majority of people are just going along with it because they "prefer to be lied to", and you are somehow above those people because you've "figured it out". But of course, you're not actually anti-science, because it only applies to social sciences - other science you have no issue with, even though your "justifications" apply to many different branches of research.

No amount of discussion will ever help you to see this blind spot either, as your beliefs are fixed and rigid and you're unable to actually consider opposing points of view. You'll either grow out of it one day, or you won't.

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:A few years ago on this site, the average NSer's response to a hypothetical about a guy having sex with a girl he met at a party but having to drop out to get a job to pay child support was met with "he should've gotten a vasectomy instead."

That moment gave me the impression that this debate consisted solely of:

Side A: Believes there should be exceptions for guys whose career aspirations would be ruined, and/or who'd be thrown into poverty, by having to pay child support bills, if she said before sex that she wouldn't keep the baby even if she got pregnant...

Side B: Thinks it is reasonable to expect every teenage boy to choose between abstinence that gets them mistaken for having been too undesirable to get laid, a vasectomy that shuts them out from future biological fatherhood, or a risk of live-ruining poverty every time he has sex.

But that sort of "judge each side by who defends it on webforums" line of reasoning has led me wrong before, and recently, this old thread came back to mind. *

So I felt compelled to follow up on it.

1: What safeguards; real safeguards (none of these "she wouldn't want to be a mother unless she had a promise from the father to stay" assumptions, I mean actual safeguards under law, not murky assumptions about human behaviour) are there against the sort of scenario described above happening and ruining the guy's life and career prospects and dragging him into poverty?

2: If these safeguards exist, why was the average NSer's first instinct to say "he should've gotten a vasectomy"? Doesn't that suggest, in their eyes, "he should've gotten a vasectomy" to be a stronger argument than any relating to whatever supposed safeguards exist?

3: As well, why wasn't the rest of side B distancing themselves from the "he should've gotten a vasectomy" talking point? Or for that matter, why weren't they actively calling BS on it? Why were the only people actively calling BS on it those of us from side A? How to get a capricorn woman to chase you

*(Yes, the reception of my thread about the new Bill Maher season was what got me thinking about previous such threads.)

Fathers can play an important role in
children’s lives. Involved fathers contribute economically, engage in child rearing,
act as role models, and provide indirectly
through supporting the mother. Young
disadvantaged dads face challenges in all
these areas.

Big Bad Blue wrote:A package of ten condoms is like, what, six, eight bucks? Wrap it up tight fellas. I hear they also keep you from catching a dose of clap.

And this does nothing for a guy whose condom broke if she keeps the baby after saying she wouldn't. That you used a condom isn't a get out of child support bills free card.

I'm very suspicious of a status quo where people's proposed solutions are at odds with what the law says.

Terruana wrote:In other words, you are no different to a run of the mill anti-vaxxer. You are presented with scientific research that doesn't fit with your world view, and you immediately dismiss it without a second thought. You have zero insight into this, and you think the majority of people are just going along with it because they "prefer to be lied to", and you are somehow above those people because you've "figured it out". But of course, you're not actually anti-science, because it only applies to social sciences - other science you have no issue with, even though your "justifications" apply to many different branches of research.

No amount of discussion will ever help you to see this blind spot either, as your beliefs are fixed and rigid and you're unable to actually consider opposing points of view. You'll either grow out of it one day, or you won't.

Whatever. You were wrong about everything from what I was saying to who I was a fan of and who I wasn't. I feel no need to take your opinions seriously.

...condoms?

Other than that... none specifically, at least where I live, just the same basic security net all other people enjoy. But everybody is taught how to prevent accidents in school, the old cucumber exercise, so at least to me it doesn't appear to be a problem. If 98% security isn't enough for you you can always do what the catholics do, but that aside it seems a reasonable assumption that their counterparts will do their own part in preventing, at least those of reasonable mental acuity, so one more incentive not to dip your wick into the crazy.

An insular approach that discards the class-question, tunnel vision at its best. Every citizen should be protected from poverty after all.

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:

Big Bad Blue wrote:A package of ten condoms is like, what, six, eight bucks? Wrap it up tight fellas. I hear they also keep you from catching a dose of clap.

And this does nothing for a guy whose condom broke if she keeps the baby after saying she wouldn't. That you used a condom isn't a get out of child support bills free card.

I'm very suspicious of a status quo where people's proposed solutions are at odds with what the law says.

Terruana wrote:In other words, you are no different to a run of the mill anti-vaxxer. You are presented with scientific research that doesn't fit with your world view, and you immediately dismiss it without a second thought. You have zero insight into this, and you think the majority of people are just going along with it because they "prefer to be lied to", and you are somehow above those people because you've "figured it out". But of course, you're not actually anti-science, because it only applies to social sciences - other science you have no issue with, even though your "justifications" apply to many different branches of research.

No amount of discussion will ever help you to see this blind spot either, as your beliefs are fixed and rigid and you're unable to actually consider opposing points of view. You'll either grow out of it one day, or you won't.

Whatever. You were wrong about everything from what I was saying to who I was a fan of and who I wasn't. I feel no need to take your opinions seriously.

Right, because I said you seemed like a fan of Ben Shapiro (based on your numerous posts defending him and his views), that means everything I said is wrong...

Then again, deflection is a pretty typical reaction for someone like you when confronted with the truth. I guess it helps to maintain the fictional world you live in.

Terruana wrote:

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:And this does nothing for a guy whose condom broke if she keeps the baby after saying she wouldn't. That you used a condom isn't a get out of child support bills free card.

I'm very suspicious of a status quo where people's proposed solutions are at odds with what the law says.



Whatever. You were wrong about everything from what I was saying to who I was a fan of and who I wasn't. I feel no need to take your opinions seriously.

Right, because I said you seemed like a fan of Ben Shapiro (based on your numerous posts defending him and his views), that means everything I said is wrong...

Then again, deflection is a pretty typical reaction for someone like you when confronted with the truth. I guess it helps to maintain the fictional world you live in.

Fictional world I live in? You're the one conflating fandom of someone with "thinks there are criticisms of him that aren't so valid." If person A thinks Trump is too much of a war hawk and person B thinks Trump isn't enough of one, does that make both of them fans of him because they disagree with each other's criticisms of him?

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:And this does nothing for a guy whose condom broke if she keeps the baby after saying she wouldn't. That you used a condom isn't a get out of child support bills free card.

Condoms don't break unless the product itself is defective or if its from user error where its the person's fault to begin with that the material got a tear in it. If people would quit whining about or ruminating over "what-ifs," maybe they'd be able to do more. Either do or don't do something, and get on with your day.

One common aspect of poverty is that people in that situation face obstacles to getting out of a low economic status, but those people who succeed usually look for ways they can accomplish something and actually execute on it. Where as the people who don't win usually focus too much on why they can't do something and just accept their lot or use it as an excuse because they can't or won't fight or do all the efforts to truly start winning to get ahead economically.

The laws are what they are because people collectively decided what form it should take. A court wants to ensure that whoever the biological parents are, that they're held financially responsible where it is possible to collect resources from them. So the tax burden can be lessened. It sits right with most people that those who reproduced help pay for their offspring if not assume the entire cost.

It doesn't matter how the child came about, so much as the state wanting to make sure the child gets the material resources they need growing up; somehow or some way. At the end of the day, the person needs food, water, shelter, education, and some other stuff that adds up in cost.

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:

Terruana wrote:
Right, because I said you seemed like a fan of Ben Shapiro (based on your numerous posts defending him and his views), that means everything I said is wrong...

Then again, deflection is a pretty typical reaction for someone like you when confronted with the truth. I guess it helps to maintain the fictional world you live in.

Fictional world I live in? You're the one conflating fandom of someone with "thinks there are criticisms of him that aren't so valid." If person A thinks Trump is too much of a war hawk and person B thinks Trump isn't enough of one, does that make both of them fans of him because they disagree with each other's criticisms of him?

Of course. Deny, deflect, distance, and deride. The four cornerstones of all your arguments.

Saiwania wrote:

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:And this does nothing for a guy whose condom broke if she keeps the baby after saying she wouldn't. That you used a condom isn't a get out of child support bills free card.

Condoms don't break unless the product itself is defective or if its from user error where its the person's fault to begin with that the material got a tear in it. If people would quit whining about or ruminating over "what-ifs," maybe they'd be able to do more. Either do or don't do something, and get on with your day.

One common aspect of poverty is that people in that situation face obstacles to getting out of a low economic status, but those people who succeed usually look for ways they can accomplish something and actually execute on it. Where as the people who don't win usually focus too much on why they can't do something and just accept their lot or use it as an excuse because they can't or won't fight or do all the efforts to truly start winning to get ahead economically.

The laws are what they are because people collectively decided what form it should take. A court wants to ensure that whoever the biological parents are, that they're held financially responsible where it is possible to collect resources from them. So the tax burden can be lessened. It sits right with most people that those who reproduced help pay for their offspring if not assume the entire cost.

It doesn't matter how the child came about, so much as the state wanting to make sure the child gets the material resources they need growing up; somehow or some way. At the end of the day, the person needs food, water, shelter, education, and some other stuff that adds up in cost.

Which is why we (states and individuals) should just give money to the poor.

Big Bad Blue wrote:A package of ten condoms is like, what, six, eight bucks? Wrap it up tight fellas. I hear they also keep you from catching a dose of clap.

While I certainly encourage condom use for a host of reasons, real world effectiveness is only about 82%. Far from a sure thing.

Besides, we offer multiple safeties to prevent teenage moms from suffering a lifetime of poverty provided they decide to use literally any of them (including those available after the child is born).

It doesn’t seem in any way inequitable to give the same rights teenage moms already have to teenage dads.

Galloism wrote:

Big Bad Blue wrote:A package of ten condoms is like, what, six, eight bucks? Wrap it up tight fellas. I hear they also keep you from catching a dose of clap.

While I certainly encourage condom use for a host of reasons, real world effectiveness is only about 82%. Far from a sure thing.

Besides, we offer multiple safeties to prevent teenage moms from suffering a lifetime of poverty provided they decide to use literally any of them (including those available after the child is born).

It doesn’t seem in any way inequitable to give the same rights teenage moms already have to teenage dads.

Besides, how many teenagers have that kind of cash on hand these days? Unless they're so rich that child support wouldn't make a dent.

Chessmistress wrote:A child is a person, not a "personal outcome" like creating a debt.

Why not both?

Jello Biafra wrote:

Chessmistress wrote:A child is a person, not a "personal outcome" like creating a debt.

Why not both?

You could demand that be treated so consistently, but it would mean reducing women’s rights.

If you’re in favor of reducing women’s rights, that is.

Galloism wrote:

Big Bad Blue wrote:A package of ten condoms is like, what, six, eight bucks? Wrap it up tight fellas. I hear they also keep you from catching a dose of clap.

While I certainly encourage condom use for a host of reasons, real world effectiveness is only about 82%. Far from a sure thing.

Besides, we offer multiple safeties to prevent teenage moms from suffering a lifetime of poverty provided they decide to use literally any of them (including those available after the child is born).

It doesn’t seem in any way inequitable to give the same rights teenage moms already have to teenage dads.

Given the inherent differences in situation is seems that doing so is rather difficult, no? As the law stands now, the interests of an already-born child come before the autonomy of either parent, with no or an extremely limited amount of severability. Adding paternal severability would require changing that principle OR allowing the father to force the mother to take a severability option.

Galloism wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Well child support isn't a thing that normally happens, rather it's usually a result of some kind of legal proceeding like a divorce or annulment. Further, child support payments are calculated in some way based on the party's ability to pay. So a teenager in full time education who had a child would probably never be ordered to pay child support in the first place, because there aren't divorce proceedings when you fuck someone at a party, and even if a court did find such a party liable for child support payments it would probably also have to conclude that they are not in any position to pay anything.

This is 100% false, at least within the United States. It is absolutely without any doubt or any ambiguity certain in every single case in which child support is pursued against a putative father that the putative father will be found liable for child support, regardless of age, personal circumstances, whether or not they were literally raped by the mother, whether they are completely and totally disabled, or any other factor of any sort always forever.

And if you are in school in full time education, the court will determine what you COULD make if you WERE working, and calculate your child support based on your theoretical earnings, plus, in addition to levying child support against your theroetical earnings, levy child support against any scholarships, grants, or tax credits due to education in addition to that (this means, in practice, an obligor parent who goes to school will pay MORE in child support than an obligor parent working full time).

If the father in question is not literally forced out of higher education, they no doubt will not be able to keep up with this burden, and will therefore be placed in debt for decades for failure to pay, along with high interest rates and fees for failure to pay while they were getting educated.

Most of the proceeds of that go to the state, not the child.

I always look for your comments when it comes to topics like this, because you make the most sense.

Diopolis wrote:

Galloism wrote:While I certainly encourage condom use for a host of reasons, real world effectiveness is only about 82%. Far from a sure thing.

Besides, we offer multiple safeties to prevent teenage moms from suffering a lifetime of poverty provided they decide to use literally any of them (including those available after the child is born).

It doesn’t seem in any way inequitable to give the same rights teenage moms already have to teenage dads.

Given the inherent differences in situation is seems that doing so is rather difficult, no?

Politically, yes. Practical application, no.

As the law stands now, the interests of an already-born child come before the autonomy of either parent, with no or an extremely limited amount of severability.

This isn’t true. It's 100% false. It's a lie. Complete untruth. Absolutely no basis in reality. It's been oft repeated ad nauseum in the public, but it's just not true in any way in our society. The needs (and autonomy) are cared for in this order (generally speaking), from highest to lowest.

The mother
The child
The state
The father.

The mother’s needs and wants are paramount. If she wants to sever her responsibility, outside of unusual corner cases (incarceration, etc), she may do so for any reason or no reason at all, in only a matter of minutes, with little to no paperwork or explanation even required. It's is 100% her choice, with no blockers from the child's needs, state's needs, or other parent's wants/needs taken into account in any way at all. Only her needs and wants matter. No one else's.

Then, after her needs are met, the child’s needs are thought about. The child can’t make choices, but the child’s needs, although behind the mother’s are ahead of the state or father. So if the mother exercises her guaranteed right of abandonment, the state will care for the child. If she doesn’t, the state will help her force the father to help care for the child (more on this below). If he can’t, the state will step in and help care for the child (this net is inadequate but does exist).

Then the state’s concerns come into play. This means if the mother relinquishes, it looks for adoptive parents to take on the burden. If it can find them, the state's burden is relieved. If it can't, the state takes on teh burden - because the mother's needs and child's needs are ahead of the state. If she doesn’t, it looks for the father to take on the burden. If the father is unable, then it will - but then it will pursue the father til the day he dies to get its money back, because the state is more important than he is.

Last and certainly least, the fathers needs come into play. If the mother relinquished at step 1, she also forcibly terminates his rights and responsibilities without his input or consent. If she chooses to not do so, he is faced with automatic responsibility (but not rights, he has to fight for those) without his input or consent. If the state stepped in to help her because he was unable, the state will pursue him relentlessly until the day he dies to get its money back. He has no choices, no autonomy of any sort, and exists only to support the mother, child, and state - in that order.

Now, you can find unusual cases where the law has been applied the other way - just as you could find white people denied the vote under grandfather laws before they were struck down - but that doesn't change how the law is designed to function and actually functions in practice every day across the country.

Adding paternal severability would require changing that principle OR allowing the father to force the mother to take a severability option.

I do agree that the current paradigm (where the mother can force severability on the father without his input or consent) is particularly egregious. We could make that bidirectional, and everyone would suddenly see what a huge problem it is when social workers come take babies from mothers because fathers elected to sever both parents rights and responsibilities unilaterally (as mothers can do unilaterally now).

But really, we should just make it so either parent can sever without impacting the other.

Galloism wrote:

Diopolis wrote:Given the inherent differences in situation is seems that doing so is rather difficult, no?

Politically, yes. Practical application, no.

That's probably fair. And, indeed, politically the state is not going to go further down the hierarchy of concern... and the public probably won't stand for the child doing so either.

As the law stands now, the interests of an already-born child come before the autonomy of either parent, with no or an extremely limited amount of severability.

SNIP

Isn't the mother's postpartum severability pretty sharply limited? I mean, she can drop her baby off at a fire station, but that's usually limited pretty severely in time.
Now men don't have any equivalent to abortion rights, but that's because they don't get pregnant.

Adding paternal severability would require changing that principle OR allowing the father to force the mother to take a severability option.

I do agree that the current paradigm (where the mother can force severability on the father without his input or consent) is particularly egregious. We could make that bidirectional, and everyone would suddenly see what a huge problem it is when social workers come take babies from mothers because fathers elected to sever both parents rights and responsibilities unilaterally (as mothers can do unilaterally now).

But really, we should just make it so either parent can sever without impacting the other.

Of course the state won't make it so it has no recourse to recover the money it spends on subsidizing children born into poverty. Arguably the mother's severability of her responsibilities only exists post-partum as a relic of the time when a robust network of (mostly)privately-funded orphanages covered the country and meant mothers could abandon their children to the nuns/NGOs at minimal cost to the state.
TBH the one change to parental severability laws that might actually happen is to allow the biological father the opportunity to receive full custody in lieu of placing the child for adoption.

Diopolis wrote:

Galloism wrote:
Politically, yes. Practical application, no.

That's probably fair. And, indeed, politically the state is not going to go further down the hierarchy of concern... and the public probably won't stand for the child doing so either.

Indeed. But they also won't stand for the child to go up the hierarchy of concern, because then the child's rights would be greater than the mother's.

Because the public at large views men, based on their sex, as little better than farm animals, to be used for the good of others.

SNIP

Isn't the mother's postpartum severability pretty sharply limited? I mean, she can drop her baby off at a fire station, but that's usually limited pretty severely in time.

For those specific safe haven laws, they're generally pretty limited in time. Conversely, men get absolutely no choice at any time for any duration at all based largely on their sex.

But mothers are also allowed to do single parent adoption out forever, and generally fathers don't get much (but slightly more) say in that either.

Now men don't have any equivalent to abortion rights, but that's because they don't get pregnant.

Irrelevant. We're talking about after birth here.

I do agree that the current paradigm (where the mother can force severability on the father without his input or consent) is particularly egregious. We could make that bidirectional, and everyone would suddenly see what a huge problem it is when social workers come take babies from mothers because fathers elected to sever both parents rights and responsibilities unilaterally (as mothers can do unilaterally now).

But really, we should just make it so either parent can sever without impacting the other.

Of course the state won't make it so it has no recourse to recover the money it spends on subsidizing children born into poverty.

From men. It does make it so for women. Currently. Now.

Arguably the mother's severability of her responsibilities only exists post-partum as a relic of the time when a robust network of (mostly)privately-funded orphanages covered the country and meant mothers could abandon their children to the nuns/NGOs at minimal cost to the state.

It's true that mothers have, for centuries, perhaps millennia, had their rights cared for more than their children or men's.

TBH the one change to parental severability laws that might actually happen is to allow the biological father the opportunity to receive full custody in lieu of placing the child for adoption.

Notably, the one possible feasible change (in your mind) STILL leaves the same exact hierarchy of societal concerns:

Women on top
Children in the middle
State below that
Men at the bottom.

Women can still abandon with impunity, while men can't.
Women can still keep with impunity, and men must support her whether they consent or not.

The only differences is that men have slightly more choice after women have made a certain choice. That's certainly an improvement, but it still means sexist hatred of men on the basis of their sex, and discrimination against them.

I'm going to essentially concede the point that the current system is biased against the autonomy of men, but I just want to address the below point.

Galloism wrote:

Arguably the mother's severability of her responsibilities only exists post-partum as a relic of the time when a robust network of (mostly)privately-funded orphanages covered the country and meant mothers could abandon their children to the nuns/NGOs at minimal cost to the state.

It's true that mothers have, for centuries, perhaps millennia, had their rights cared for more than their children or men's.

This system didn't exist because past societies were particularly concerned with women's autonomy. It existed because men under these societies had nearly unlimited severability of parental responsibility towards children they had with any woman they weren't married to, whereas women were required to find someone to take the baby before severing their responsibilities. Before this system existed it was tacitly acknowledged that parents had the right to kill or sell very young children if they didn't want to take care of them.
Every society has some solution to the percentage of parents that want to alienate themselves from their parental responsibilities. It is entirely possible our current society's solution is the worst of all possible worlds. But I don't see a meaningful alternative- the state is unwilling to take on such responsibilities itself, the public won't stand for children just not being taken care of, and we lack large social institutions such that unwanted children can just be handed over to the nuns.