Is A Man Entitled To Fathers Rights In A Pregnancy?

[clv0116]

Besides, men *do* have the possibility of having full control over a pregnancy.

 

Some control over conception, zero over pregnancy.

 

 

 

If they are not careful, women must undergo physical changes and be faced with the choice of either having a baby or having an abortion.

If they are not careful, men risk having to pay child support and have to accept whatever the woman decides to do with her body.

It actually sounds quite balanced to me.

 

Why should a man be forced to pay for a child he doesn't want? The woman doesn't have to bear a child she doesn't want.

[Adunaphel]

Some control over conception, zero over pregnancy.

 

Thanks for correcting, that was what i meant but I am not an english native speaker.

 

 

Why should a man be forced to pay for a child he doesn't want? The woman doesn't have to bear a child she doesn't want.

 

First, this is not an ideal world... and most laws are a compromise, whose result is meant to be picking the lesser evil.

 

Why should women be forced to choose between having an abortion or raising a child on their own if their partner does not want the child?

 

Ideally it would be great if a woman could sign papers where she declares she intends to have a child on her own...of course she'd have to be well off financially...but then, again, what if the father changed his mind again and decided he wants to be involved in his child's life? Then it would be within the mother's rights to deny him permission to see his child? He had her agree to raise the child on her own...

(just playing devil's attorney, here)

[clv0116]

Why should women be forced to choose between having an abortion or raising a child on their own if their partner does not want the child?

 

Lest we forget it, she also had full control over conception, the innocent little flower. With every right comes some responsability and the right to choose abortion is no different.

[Adunaphel]

Lest we forget it, she also had full control over conception, the innocent little flower. With every right comes some responsability and the right to choose abortion is no different.

 

Well, the woman is the one whose body undergoes deep changes. She is the one actually getting pregnant! So in case of an accidental pregnancy, she pays a price by default either way. It is right that she gets to be the one who chooses... since it is the man who could potentially walk away physically unscathed.

[clv0116]

Well, the woman is the one whose body undergoes deep changes. She is the one actually getting pregnant!

 

She's also the one to decide whether to abort or not, whether to put out for adoption or not. The man is essentially asking for the same right, to give the child away and absolve himself of any parental rights.

[Forever loving life]

When a man and woman have sex, pregnancy can occur. With both people knowing this is a possibility, they should both be willing to take responsibility for the pregnancy if it happens. I don't believe either person should be able to opt out, knowing about the possibility before they had sex. All forms of birth control can and sometimes do fail, therefore, If you aren't ready to be a parent, you shouldn't have sex.

[clv0116]

When a man and woman have sex, pregnancy can occur. With both people knowing this is a possibility, they should both be willing to take responsibility for the pregnancy if it happens. I don't believe either person should be able to opt out, knowing about the possibility before they had sex. All forms of birth control can and sometimes do fail, therefore, If you aren't ready to be a parent, you shouldn't have sex.

 

So to be clear, you're against morning after pills, abortions, etc?

 

 

EDIT:

 

 

ALSO against adoption just to be consistent?

[nittygritty]

As of yet, men can't get pregnant. So no, I don't think men are entitled to a weighted opinion as to whether or not a woman that he impregnated carries the fetus to full term and then sues him for support, even if he is dead set against having the baby.

 

Unless, of course, the man donated his sperm to a sperm bank for the use of anonymous recipients, then he should be absolved of all financial responsibility.

 

But that's not the case when a man and woman have sex, which carries the risk of pregnancy.

 

Unfortunately, the statistics on the number of women with children on welfare shows that men can and do "OPT" out of paying child support. It shouldn't be taxpayers responsibility to pay for deadbeat parents.

[Storyrider]

Requiring paternal support will always benefit the child. IMO, it is wrong to take that away just to punish the mother.

[Forever loving life]

So to be clear, you're against morning after pills, abortions, etc?

 

 

EDIT:

 

 

ALSO against adoption just to be consistent?

 

 

I am very much against the morning after pill! Abortions seem to be a way of avoiding parental responsibility in most cases. I am all for adoption, since it is a way that children can be placed in a loving home. There are so many people that want to be parents and can't have children biologically, at least thru adoption, that is made possible.

[Stockalone]

I don't see how allowing men to opt out and let the woman know up front she's not getting any help would be less fair or worse than the current situation.

 

I was referring to taking away the woman's right to choose entirely and instead placing it into the hands of the man.

 

Despite using protection, having sex can result in a pregnancy. That is why I find it disturbing when people try to dodge the responsibility when an unplanned pregnancy occurs.

 

If people don't want to take that risk, they shouldn't have sex. And if a man isn't willing to pay child support, he shouldn't have sex either. The law is what it is. So if we choose to play, we acknowledge those rules.

 

If you are arguing that the current system isn't fair, then I agree with you. However, if you make changes to the system, it would have to be better for all involved, and I just don't see that being the case if men get to decide about paying child support or not. I don't see how it can be implemented flawlessly, I believe there would be too many loopholes that could be exploited.

 

Right now, women have the far better options and are in a position to abuse the current system. But I also believe that more men than women would be inclined to abuse such a card blanche.

 

What you are proposing would also punish those who are against abortions, and I don't think that is the right thing to do.

[clv0116]

What you are proposing would also punish those who are against abortions, and I don't think that is the right thing to do.

 

The proposal in this thread is about affording men the option of essentially putting an unwanted child up for adoption, which is something women have availed themselves of for a very long time.

[clv0116]

There are so many people that want to be parents and can't have children biologically, at least thru adoption, that is made possible.

 

So a woman surrendering her rights and responsibilities as a parent is OK but a man cannot do the same?

[clv0116]

Requiring paternal support will always benefit the child. IMO, it is wrong to take that away just to punish the mother.

 

Giving the child a $100,000 a month tax funded stipend would also "benefit the child", let's not be disingenuous here.

[clv0116]

Just to be clear, my understanding is that this is not something that would alter divorce law or anything like that, it's just about establishing "ownership" during the pregnancy.

[Storyrider]

Giving the child a $100,000 a month tax funded stipend would also "benefit the child", let's not be disingenuous here.

 

A woman decides to bring a child into the world. To deprive that child of paternal support is to take something away from the child, not the mother. I'm not talking about "giving" the child some random extra thing.

[clv0116]

A woman decides to bring a child into the world. To deprive that child of paternal support is to take something away from the child, not the mother. I'm not talking about "giving" the child some random extra thing.

 

You're assuming this is some sort of punishment for bearing a child, which seems a strange point of view. Think about it; you absolutely ARE talking about giving the child something. We routinely take from the father and give to the child whether the father wants the child or not. It's not taking from the child, it's NOT GIVING to the child.

 

Why not take from some other person(s) and give to the child instead? How is the fathers responsibility undischargable but the mothers is not?

[Storyrider]

You're assuming this is some sort of punishment for bearing a child, which seems a strange point of view. Think about it; you absolutely ARE talking about giving the child something. We routinely take from the father and give to the child whether the father wants the child or not. It's not taking from the child, it's NOT GIVING to the child.

 

Why not take from some other person(s) and give to the child instead? How is the fathers responsibility undischargable but the mothers is not?

 

 

Imagine a child born to unmarried parents and brought up by a single mother. The child was not wanted by the father. The mother insists on having the child anyway. So when the child is born the father refuses support, giving the argument, "Why should I be forced to pay for someone I never wanted. I'm having nothing to do with that kid."

 

Who bears the emotional and financial brunt of the father's denial of the child? The answer is so obvious it isn't even worth asking the question.

[clv0116]

Unless, of course, the man donated his sperm to a sperm bank for the use of anonymous recipients, then he should be absolved of all financial responsibility.

 

But that's not the case when a man and woman have sex, which carries the risk of pregnancy.

 

I'm no expert but I'd bet that donating sperm carries a higher chance of resulting in pregnancy, that's the idea after all. Is paternal support punishment for having sex? What is the difference?

[clv0116]

Imagine a child born to unmarried parents and brought up by a single mother. The child was not wanted by the father. The mother insists on having the child anyway. So when the child is born the father refuses support, giving the argument, "Why should I be forced to pay for someone I never wanted. I'm having nothing to do with that kid."

 

Who bears the emotional and financial brunt of the father's denial of the child? The answer is so obvious it isn't even worth asking the question.

 

Seems like it's only fair that the one or ones who decided to have the child should bear the financial brunt. Only fair.

[Storyrider]

Seems like it's only fair that the one or ones who decided to have the child should bear the financial brunt. Only fair.

The CHILD bears the brunt by only receiving half the financial and emotional support that children with two parents receive.

[clv0116]

The CHILD bears the brunt by only receiving half the financial and emotional support that children with two parents receive.

 

Some families have more, some have less. It's right that those who choose to bring a child into the world would think about and deal with it don't you think?

[Storyrider]

Some families have more, some have less. It's right that those who choose to bring a child into the world would think about and deal with it don't you think?

Certainly, but the fact is, once the child is there, that child needs a father. The man can choose to pretend the child does not exist, but that doesn't change what the child needs.

[Stockalone]

The proposal in this thread is about affording men the option of essentially putting an unwanted child up for adoption, which is something women have availed themselves of for a very long time.

 

Adoption already is an option in which case the father is off the hook. I don't see how it is fair to have women choose to either have an abortion or to give up their child when it is born.

 

I think it is fairer to let them keep the option to make a father pay for his child. After all, it's his kid and it is only money. I don't have much sympathy for guys who value their time and money more than their own child. Maybe men should be more picky in choosing whom they have sex with instead of looking for an easy way out in case of an unplanned pregnancy.

 

If you would change the status quo, that would only benefit guys who want to fu*k around and will run from their responsibilities if the woman gets pregnant.

 

If a guy is man enough to create a child he should also be man enough to accept responsibility for his actions and his child.

 

I can already see how guys would use such an option to bully and intimidate women into having abortions. Or hypocritical pro-lifers who will argue that even though they themselves can't possibly be held responsible for the their own child, someone else would be happy to have it and pay for it. Making the women keep the baby only to give it up for adoption. That way, they can remain one of the good guys while more and more kids would need to find people who are willing to adopt them.

[clv0116]

Certainly, but the fact is, once the child is there, that child needs a father. The man can choose to pretend the child does not exist, but that doesn't change what the child needs.

 

Children need mothers too and yet we have orphans and adoptions. That's a whole different discussion, you're promoting the idea that every child should have a court enforced father.

 

The fact is that those 'needs' are really nice to haves and again, the person who has the choice is responsible for thinking about those things. Right? Or should it be OK for people to just procreate without concern for caring for their offspring, like spiders do?