And so basically we're back to the fact that every argument that's totally invalid when talking about abortion is now crucial to making men pay child support. Spiffy. Because, you know, they're different.
Of course, they really are different. But that still doesn't make all these calls to "responsibility" and "choosing not to have sex" sound less empty.
Oh well. I still support my idea of allowing fathers to legally and bindingly walk away, and replacing whatever child support they may have paid with additional government aid. I think it does the least harm all around; the harm to the child is minimal, the harm to the woman as well, the harm to the father is minimized, and the harm to any individual taxpayer would likely be small enough as to be negligible.
Seriously, compared to our defense budget [EDIT: and other social programs] how much do you really think a "deadbeat dad" fund would cost?
EDIT: Also, this would minimize harm in the form of dads that do decide not to pay and instead decide to fall off the fucking planet for 16 out of the kid's 18 years (personal experience here) because the safety net would already be in place.
I actually like that idea, its just that no-one else who pays taxes would. "I ain't supporting no welfare queens!"
I actually like that idea, its just that no-one else who pays taxes would. "I ain't supporting no welfare queens!"
Yeah, but I say fuck them. We don't get to choose what our taxes go to. I certainly wouldn't choose to fund our war in Iraq or our detention center in Guantanamo. Or the War on Drugs. Or Faith Based Initiatives, for that matter. Or a ton of other things that often those same people favor.
EDIT: And really, I think my suggestion fits the "most fair" and "least harm done" criteria. Everything else seems to boil down to "men should just be responsible if they have sex!!!1!" Which, as I said before, is just another variation on "punish the slut."
EDIT: And part of that "most fair" part is the fact that a vast majority of people have had sex without the intention of having children...including protected sex. Just because one guy lost the lottery doesn't mean he should be fucked...he wasn't necessarily more or less responsible than most of the other taxpayers who would experience harm that is best described as negligible.
TheCat, all I was trying to get at was something this thread hasn't dealt with, which is, WHAT is that responsibility that the man has? I agree that the father should support the child regardless. It's fair because a woman's choice to abort or not doesn't have any relevance to the man if he's not interested in the child. It's a false dichotomy to say that he's responsible for her choice, because he's not. He made his choice.
However, what I believe is unfair is the courts bias against men when it comes to determining what that responsibility is. So for those advocating that responsibility, what should that responsibility be?
Responsibility to help make sure junior makes out okay. And the 'court bias' thing is a myth put about by angry abusive divorcees. At best, there was a kernel of truth to it 20 years ago in small regions of the US, but the pendulum's well and truly swung back since. Even so, you'll always have some jerkoff whining about their money while demonstrating a complete lack of concern for the children caught up in the crap.
With Cat's information that child support payments tend not to be terribly crippling, that puts me further on the side that says fathers can opt out (pre-birth) if the forfeit all rights to the child before it turns 18. Shifting the burden to the taxpayers helps restore some personal freedoms to men, helps in cases where the father shirks payment or loses his job and can't pay, and will allow for more money, in general to go towards the kids (since they'd get a flat rate and not 10% of a very low income).
No one would vote for it, but I think it would make the system much more stable and restore some personal freedom.
Dagrabbit on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Responsibility to help make sure junior makes out okay. And the 'court bias' thing is a myth put about by angry abusive divorcees. At best, there was a kernel of truth to it 20 years ago in small regions of the US, but the pendulum's well and truly swung back since. Even so, you'll always have some jerkoff whining about their money while demonstrating a complete lack of concern for the children caught up in the crap.
Yep. I'm sure Darrin White and Brian Armstrong do a lot of complaining. You know, considering they're dead.
The more I research this, the more cases I read, the more it seems you aren't right. That the pendulum isn't swinging. I'll see what else I can dig up when I get home.
And I'm not sure how that number would change if it considered need, and not the father's income (because it wouldn't need to, if we eliminated mandatory child support).
The number isn't as obscene as I expected it to be, though, so my opposition has dropped considerably.
And I'm not sure how that number would change if it considered need, and not the father's income (because it wouldn't need to, if we eliminated mandatory child support).
Taking into account need would push the figure downwards slightly, since if below need is supplied, the state already tops that up with other benefits; whereas presumably in a lot of cases above need is taken since the father's income is great enough.
Oh well. I still support my idea of allowing fathers to legally and bindingly walk away, and replacing whatever child support they may have paid with additional government aid. I think it does the least harm all around; the harm to the child is minimal, the harm to the woman as well, the harm to the father is minimized, and the harm to any individual taxpayer would likely be small enough as to be negligible.
I would add to your idea if your are going to have society take responsibility for your actions than society should be able to control your actions.
Give the man a choice take responsibility for the kid or get a vasectomy. Though after reading this thread I would support castration in the case of anyone that doesn't get having sex means the possibility of pregnancy.
Seriously the court isn't forcing you to be a father or actually raise the kid, just write a check every month. It's the absolute minimum that you can do.
Seriously the court isn't forcing you to be a father or actually raise the kid, just write a check every month. It's the absolute minimum that you can do.
nah, you see... it didn't come out of his body and he doesn't want it so writing a check is a huge deal.
Responsibility to help make sure junior makes out okay. And the 'court bias' thing is a myth put about by angry abusive divorcees. At best, there was a kernel of truth to it 20 years ago in small regions of the US, but the pendulum's well and truly swung back since. Even so, you'll always have some jerkoff whining about their money while demonstrating a complete lack of concern for the children caught up in the crap.
Yep. I'm sure Darrin White and Brian Armstrong do a lot of complaining. You know, considering they're dead.
The more I research this, the more cases I read, the more it seems you aren't right. That the pendulum isn't swinging. I'll see what else I can dig up when I get home.
Oh well. I still support my idea of allowing fathers to legally and bindingly walk away, and replacing whatever child support they may have paid with additional government aid. I think it does the least harm all around; the harm to the child is minimal, the harm to the woman as well, the harm to the father is minimized, and the harm to any individual taxpayer would likely be small enough as to be negligible.
I would add to your idea if your are going to have society take responsibility for your actions than society should be able to control your actions.
So I'm going to guess that you don't favor any other social welfare programs as well? Because that's all this would be: a safety net (for both parents) against unwanted pregnancies.
And based on the numbers Elkamil pulled up, it wouldn't even cost that much.
Give the man a choice take responsibility for the kid or get a vasectomy. Though after reading this thread I would support castration in the case of anyone that doesn't get having sex means the possibility of pregnancy.
Sounds fair. Then we can do the same with hysterectomies and not have to worry about keeping abortion legal.
Hint: Everybody knows that sex means possibility of pregnancy. But pregnancy does not mean motherhood/fatherhood.
Seriously the court isn't forcing you to be a father or actually raise the kid, just write a check every month. It's the absolute minimum that you can do.
But why should you have to? Write at check or be a dad? If you made it clear you had no intention of having children before having sex (and really, that should probably be assumed in most sexual encounters and definitely if any birth control was used) then why should you have to deal with the child simply because she made the choice not to abort? Especially when we're talking about a check that may well be 25% to 50% of your income.
Here's my take on the situation after reading a few of your arguments and googling a bit for procedure costs in the US.
The father and mother are both responsible for their actions and neither can claim that they're a victim of the system as they both have choices open to them. These choices are as follows:
Shared Choices (pre-conception)
1) To have sex with a specific individual either knowing or not knowing what they will do in the case of a pregnancy
2) Discussing or ensuring birth control such as condoms, pills, etc. are used. For men, there is some trust involved here, but still goes back to their choice listed in #1.
Male Choices (pre-conception)
1) To have a vasectomy - cost $400-$700 dollars - choice of reversing it later
Female Choices (pre-conception)
1) To have her tubes tied - cost $1000-$3000 - to my knowledge, this is not easliy reversed if at alll possible
Female Choices (post-conception)
1) To have an abortion - cost ~$400 - irreversible and with the risk of psychogical impacts (my personal belief is that the mother should not abort if the father wants to keep the child and that she should be just as financially liable in these cases as he is)
Shared Choices (after birth)
1) Keep the child
2) Put the child up for adoption
With all the choices available to each party that I've listed here, I think that each bears responsibility for the child regardless of the woman's choice with regard to abortion. As far as the state goes, even if both parents end up supporting the child, the state may still provide funds. That the choice society has made if not individuals on this thread.
I want to thank the OP for opening this up - previously I hadn't been decided on this issue as far as what rights should be, but now I am.
witch_ie on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
But to be honest I'm drifting away from the topic of this thread. I'll start a new one if I gather enough evidence to warrant one on whether or not family court needs reform.
But why should you have to? Write at check or be a dad? If you made it clear you had no intention of having children before having sex (and really, that should probably be assumed in most sexual encounters and definitely if any birth control was used) then why should you have to deal with the child simply because she made the choice not to abort? Especially when we're talking about a check that may well be 25% to 50% of your income.
Because stating your desire for a consequence not to happen shouldn't absolve you of responsibility in the event that it does happen.
Responsibility to help make sure junior makes out okay. And the 'court bias' thing is a myth put about by angry abusive divorcees. At best, there was a kernel of truth to it 20 years ago in small regions of the US, but the pendulum's well and truly swung back since. Even so, you'll always have some jerkoff whining about their money while demonstrating a complete lack of concern for the children caught up in the crap.
Yep. I'm sure Darrin White and Brian Armstrong do a lot of complaining. You know, considering they're dead.
The more I research this, the more cases I read, the more it seems you aren't right. That the pendulum isn't swinging. I'll see what else I can dig up when I get home.
I'd always be wary looking at extreme cases in order to judge any sort of system. It's usually impossible to place them in any sort of context to see how frequent they are - particularly with child payments, where you're probably going to have a lot of outraged male writers covering it, moreso than they would cover other injustices.
So I'm going to guess that you don't favor any other social welfare programs as well? Because that's all this would be: a safety net (for both parents) against unwanted pregnancies.
And based on the numbers Elkamil pulled up, it wouldn't even cost that much.
It would still be a safety net. Just like unemployment benefits often times require the receiver to be putting in a certain number of job applications each month or to take an available job. Why not make an requirement of having to get a vasectomy in order to enjoy this benefit?
But why should you have to? Write at check or be a dad? If you made it clear you had no intention of having children before having sex (and really, that should probably be assumed in most sexual encounters and definitely if any birth control was used) then why should you have to deal with the child simply because she made the choice not to abort? Especially when we're talking about a check that may well be 25% to 50% of your income.
Because stating your desire for a consequence not to happen shouldn't absolve you of responsibility in the event that it does happen.
It would still be a safety net. Just like unemployment benefits often times require the receiver to be putting in a certain number of job applications each month or to take an available job. Why not make an requirement of having to get a vasectomy in order to enjoy this benefit?
Because it's an invasive procedure with possible complications that isn't necessarily reversible? Also, you know, it's his body. Same reason we allow abortions.
It would still be a safety net. Just like unemployment benefits often times require the receiver to be putting in a certain number of job applications each month or to take an available job. Why not make an requirement of having to get a vasectomy in order to enjoy this benefit?
Because it's an invasive procedure with possible complications that isn't necessarily reversible? Also, you know, it's his body. Same reason we allow abortions.
Your right, I'll drop it. My main problem with your original idea remains, the abdication of the man's responsibility for his own choices.
After thinking about it for a bit, if we're worried about poor guys getting screwed, then why not have the state just pay the child support for those under a certain income level?
After thinking about it for a bit, if we're worried about poor guys getting screwed, then why not have the state just pay the child support for those under a certain income level?
It'd depend where you set that level. But in principle, I see no problem here.
Everyone above that level, as well as the super rick who got hit by gold diggers, would bitch.
I care about the former, but its probably the best solution.
Also, sorry for the off topic, but HOLY SHIT, ANOTHER PERSON WHO'S PLAYED PSYCHONAUTS!!!!!
I still say that it doesn't matter if the father (or mother) pays child support or not, more should be done to help single parents.
But, seeing how my sister is currently going through a rather nasty crippling divorce that involves her 3 under 5 year old kids, I may be a little biased. Also, I've learned that Illinois actually has rather good programs set up to help parents in need.
After thinking about it for a bit, if we're worried about poor guys getting screwed, then why not have the state just pay the child support for those under a certain income level?
When I went to grade school, and one of us got caught with something good to eat, we had to share it with the class.
We now live in an age where near-total reproductive freedom is afforded one half our species. No woman HAS to have a baby any more. And if no woman should have to, no man should have to either.
Women should share that freedom with the rest of the class, in the name of gender equality. That's the only way not to discriminate on the basis of gender.
I don't think this is about price tags, or how well off anyone is.
I still say that it doesn't matter if the father (or mother) pays child support or not, more should be done to help single parents.
But, seeing how my sister is currently going through a rather nasty crippling divorce that involves her 3 under 5 year old kids, I may be a little biased. Also, I've learned that Illinois actually has rather good programs set up to help parents in need.
When I was looking for the numbers/cost of child support payments paid each year, I found a bill cutting funds for programs supporting single parents, because of the better collection of child support payments or something. Let me see if I can find it.
After thinking about it for a bit, if we're worried about poor guys getting screwed, then why not have the state just pay the child support for those under a certain income level?
When I went to grade school, and one of us got caught with something good to eat, we had to share it with the class.
We now live in an age where near total reproductive freedom is afforded one half our species. No woman HAS to have a baby any more.
They should share that freedom with the rest of the class, in the name of sexual equality. That's the only way not to discriminate on the basis of gender.
I don't think this is about pricetags, or how well off anyone is.
No man has to have a baby anymore, either. We have vasectomies now. What's your point?
No man has to have a baby anymore, either. We have vasectomies now. What's your point?
You know that statement is only useful if getting her tubes tied is the only choice you leave a woman to prevent children, right?
Right?
EDIT: Not that I'm against vasectomies, mind you. Given what I've read today, its the smart thing to do if you want to have sex at any point with anyone ever, without reasonably believing that your income thereafter is forefit.
People tend to be afraid of turning children in to meal tickets is the trick.
The only way to stop that without hurting the child is mandatory abortions for all and making people apply for parenthood.
Or the starving in the gutter thing.
Or mandatory reversible hampering of reproductive abilities as a requirement for government money with a freebie reversal coupon.
Vasovasectomy isn't always successful, and I can't imagine that the state would say "get a vasectomy and we'll pay for the vasovasectomy" if they can't guarantee that the man in question will be able to have children in the future.
Wiki doesn't have any numbers, but they agree that vasovasectomy isn't always successful and that patients shouldn't think of vasectomy as an easily reversible operation. Wikipedia - Vasectomy: Reversal
EDIT: Not that I'm against vasectomies, mind you. Given what I've read today, its the smart thing to do if you want to have sex at any point with anyone ever, without reasonably believing that your income thereafter is forefit.
It was never a good idea to have sex without considering what happens afterwards.
Hell, I'm all up for anything that will lead to less unwanted pregnancies or single parents. I firmly believe that "the shot" should be a mandatory requirement for going to public schools and should be freely available to anyone who wants it. If mandatory vasectomies were the other way to go, I'm all for that too. Anything that will keep people from raising fucked up kids.
Vasovasectomy isn't always successful, and I can't imagine that the state would say "get a vasectomy and we'll pay for the vasovasectomy" if they can't guarantee that the man in question will be able to have children in the future.
Wiki doesn't have any numbers, but they agree that vasovasectomy isn't always successful and that patients shouldn't think of vasectomy as an easily reversible operation. Wikipedia - Vasectomy: Reversal
Plus, its actually very difficult in practice for either gender to get their tubes tied if they haven't had kids already, or are under a certain age. Most doctors get all paternalistic and "you'll change your mind" on anyone who asks. Oh, and hospitals often still ask husbands to consent to their wives getting their tubes tied right after a birth :x
The Cat on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Vasovasectomy isn't always successful, and I can't imagine that the state would say "get a vasectomy and we'll pay for the vasovasectomy" if they can't guarantee that the man in question will be able to have children in the future.
Wiki doesn't have any numbers, but they agree that vasovasectomy isn't always successful and that patients shouldn't think of vasectomy as an easily reversible operation. Wikipedia - Vasectomy: Reversal
Plus, its actually very difficult in practice for either gender to get their tubes tied if they haven't had kids already, or are under a certain age. Most doctors get all paternalistic and "you'll change your mind" on anyone who asks. Oh, and hospitals often still ask husbands to consent to their wives getting their tubes tied right after a birth :x
I know of at least one case where the doctor asked the wife to consent to a vasectomy....not to mention the reaction I get from my friends' wives when I suggest it (I'm a big supporter of vasectomy after having a couple kids).
Vasovasectomy isn't always successful, and I can't imagine that the state would say "get a vasectomy and we'll pay for the vasovasectomy" if they can't guarantee that the man in question will be able to have children in the future.
Wiki doesn't have any numbers, but they agree that vasovasectomy isn't always successful and that patients shouldn't think of vasectomy as an easily reversible operation. Wikipedia - Vasectomy: Reversal
Plus, its actually very difficult in practice for either gender to get their tubes tied if they haven't had kids already, or are under a certain age. Most doctors get all paternalistic and "you'll change your mind" on anyone who asks. Oh, and hospitals often still ask husbands to consent to their wives getting their tubes tied right after a birth :x
I know of at least one case where the doctor asked the wife to consent to a vasectomy....not to mention the reaction I get from my friends' wives when I suggest it (I'm a big supporter of vasectomy after having a couple kids).
eh, its insulting both ways.
The Cat on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Posts
I actually like that idea, its just that no-one else who pays taxes would. "I ain't supporting no welfare queens!"
Yeah, but I say fuck them. We don't get to choose what our taxes go to. I certainly wouldn't choose to fund our war in Iraq or our detention center in Guantanamo. Or the War on Drugs. Or Faith Based Initiatives, for that matter. Or a ton of other things that often those same people favor.
EDIT: And really, I think my suggestion fits the "most fair" and "least harm done" criteria. Everything else seems to boil down to "men should just be responsible if they have sex!!!1!" Which, as I said before, is just another variation on "punish the slut."
EDIT: And part of that "most fair" part is the fact that a vast majority of people have had sex without the intention of having children...including protected sex. Just because one guy lost the lottery doesn't mean he should be fucked...he wasn't necessarily more or less responsible than most of the other taxpayers who would experience harm that is best described as negligible.
Responsibility to help make sure junior makes out okay. And the 'court bias' thing is a myth put about by angry abusive divorcees. At best, there was a kernel of truth to it 20 years ago in small regions of the US, but the pendulum's well and truly swung back since. Even so, you'll always have some jerkoff whining about their money while demonstrating a complete lack of concern for the children caught up in the crap.
No one would vote for it, but I think it would make the system much more stable and restore some personal freedom.
Yep. I'm sure Darrin White and Brian Armstrong do a lot of complaining. You know, considering they're dead.
The more I research this, the more cases I read, the more it seems you aren't right. That the pendulum isn't swinging. I'll see what else I can dig up when I get home.
$29 billion was supposed to be paid in 2005. And our defense budget could be used as a justification to spend money on anything, really.
And I'm not sure how that number would change if it considered need, and not the father's income (because it wouldn't need to, if we eliminated mandatory child support).
The number isn't as obscene as I expected it to be, though, so my opposition has dropped considerably.
Taking into account need would push the figure downwards slightly, since if below need is supplied, the state already tops that up with other benefits; whereas presumably in a lot of cases above need is taken since the father's income is great enough.
I would add to your idea if your are going to have society take responsibility for your actions than society should be able to control your actions.
Give the man a choice take responsibility for the kid or get a vasectomy. Though after reading this thread I would support castration in the case of anyone that doesn't get having sex means the possibility of pregnancy.
Seriously the court isn't forcing you to be a father or actually raise the kid, just write a check every month. It's the absolute minimum that you can do.
nah, you see... it didn't come out of his body and he doesn't want it so writing a check is a huge deal.
</snideness>
stout's Amazon Wishlist | my lastFM
You seem pretty desperate, there.
So I'm going to guess that you don't favor any other social welfare programs as well? Because that's all this would be: a safety net (for both parents) against unwanted pregnancies.
And based on the numbers Elkamil pulled up, it wouldn't even cost that much.
Sounds fair. Then we can do the same with hysterectomies and not have to worry about keeping abortion legal.
Hint: Everybody knows that sex means possibility of pregnancy. But pregnancy does not mean motherhood/fatherhood.
But why should you have to? Write at check or be a dad? If you made it clear you had no intention of having children before having sex (and really, that should probably be assumed in most sexual encounters and definitely if any birth control was used) then why should you have to deal with the child simply because she made the choice not to abort? Especially when we're talking about a check that may well be 25% to 50% of your income.
The father and mother are both responsible for their actions and neither can claim that they're a victim of the system as they both have choices open to them. These choices are as follows:
Shared Choices (pre-conception)
1) To have sex with a specific individual either knowing or not knowing what they will do in the case of a pregnancy
2) Discussing or ensuring birth control such as condoms, pills, etc. are used. For men, there is some trust involved here, but still goes back to their choice listed in #1.
Male Choices (pre-conception)
1) To have a vasectomy - cost $400-$700 dollars - choice of reversing it later
Female Choices (pre-conception)
1) To have her tubes tied - cost $1000-$3000 - to my knowledge, this is not easliy reversed if at alll possible
Female Choices (post-conception)
1) To have an abortion - cost ~$400 - irreversible and with the risk of psychogical impacts (my personal belief is that the mother should not abort if the father wants to keep the child and that she should be just as financially liable in these cases as he is)
Shared Choices (after birth)
1) Keep the child
2) Put the child up for adoption
With all the choices available to each party that I've listed here, I think that each bears responsibility for the child regardless of the woman's choice with regard to abortion. As far as the state goes, even if both parents end up supporting the child, the state may still provide funds. That the choice society has made if not individuals on this thread.
I want to thank the OP for opening this up - previously I hadn't been decided on this issue as far as what rights should be, but now I am.
Well, sure. If research = desperation.
But to be honest I'm drifting away from the topic of this thread. I'll start a new one if I gather enough evidence to warrant one on whether or not family court needs reform.
Because stating your desire for a consequence not to happen shouldn't absolve you of responsibility in the event that it does happen.
I'd always be wary looking at extreme cases in order to judge any sort of system. It's usually impossible to place them in any sort of context to see how frequent they are - particularly with child payments, where you're probably going to have a lot of outraged male writers covering it, moreso than they would cover other injustices.
Legally mandate that $man pays for woman's $procedure and call it even there.
It would still be a safety net. Just like unemployment benefits often times require the receiver to be putting in a certain number of job applications each month or to take an available job. Why not make an requirement of having to get a vasectomy in order to enjoy this benefit?
Thank you Jclast.
Because it's an invasive procedure with possible complications that isn't necessarily reversible? Also, you know, it's his body. Same reason we allow abortions.
Your right, I'll drop it. My main problem with your original idea remains, the abdication of the man's responsibility for his own choices.
Pretty much.
By the way, ladies, I am now financially capable of supporting a child. :winky:
It'd depend where you set that level. But in principle, I see no problem here.
I care about the former, but its probably the best solution.
Also, sorry for the off topic, but HOLY SHIT, ANOTHER PERSON WHO'S PLAYED PSYCHONAUTS!!!!!
But, seeing how my sister is currently going through a rather nasty crippling divorce that involves her 3 under 5 year old kids, I may be a little biased. Also, I've learned that Illinois actually has rather good programs set up to help parents in need.
The only way to stop that without hurting the child is mandatory abortions for all and making people apply for parenthood.
When I went to grade school, and one of us got caught with something good to eat, we had to share it with the class.
We now live in an age where near-total reproductive freedom is afforded one half our species. No woman HAS to have a baby any more. And if no woman should have to, no man should have to either.
Women should share that freedom with the rest of the class, in the name of gender equality. That's the only way not to discriminate on the basis of gender.
I don't think this is about price tags, or how well off anyone is.
Or the starving in the gutter thing.
Or mandatory reversible hampering of reproductive abilities as a requirement for government money with a freebie reversal coupon.
When I was looking for the numbers/cost of child support payments paid each year, I found a bill cutting funds for programs supporting single parents, because of the better collection of child support payments or something. Let me see if I can find it.
No man has to have a baby anymore, either. We have vasectomies now. What's your point?
You know that statement is only useful if getting her tubes tied is the only choice you leave a woman to prevent children, right?
Right?
EDIT: Not that I'm against vasectomies, mind you. Given what I've read today, its the smart thing to do if you want to have sex at any point with anyone ever, without reasonably believing that your income thereafter is forefit.
Not really. You said "No woman HAS to have a baby any more" and this is also true for men.
Now you have to tell us why we should make a drastic change, besides the one I suggested.
Vasovasectomy isn't always successful, and I can't imagine that the state would say "get a vasectomy and we'll pay for the vasovasectomy" if they can't guarantee that the man in question will be able to have children in the future.
Wiki doesn't have any numbers, but they agree that vasovasectomy isn't always successful and that patients shouldn't think of vasectomy as an easily reversible operation. Wikipedia - Vasectomy: Reversal
It was never a good idea to have sex without considering what happens afterwards.
Plus, its actually very difficult in practice for either gender to get their tubes tied if they haven't had kids already, or are under a certain age. Most doctors get all paternalistic and "you'll change your mind" on anyone who asks. Oh, and hospitals often still ask husbands to consent to their wives getting their tubes tied right after a birth :x
I know of at least one case where the doctor asked the wife to consent to a vasectomy....not to mention the reaction I get from my friends' wives when I suggest it (I'm a big supporter of vasectomy after having a couple kids).
eh, its insulting both ways.