Is A Man Entitled To Fathers Rights In A Pregnancy?

[Storyrider]

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?

You're the one who is arguing one parent should be exempt from caring for his offspring. In this example, whether you chose him or not, a child is now in the world. You'd rather he weren't. So therefore, you are going to refuse him support. The fact that you believe the mother made the wrong decision, again, does not diminish the value of the child.

[Taramere]

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?

 

I'm with Story and Stockalone on this. It's not the child's fault that its parents were irresponsible enough to create a child they didn't both want. Neither is it the child's fault that the mother didn't believe in abortion and couldn't face giving it up for adoption. That child deserves the same chance every other child gets...ie for both of its parents to do what they can to promote its welfare.

 

If the mother decides to give her child up, adoption agencies will find a family or a childless couple who want to raise someone else's baby. If the natural father doesn't want the child to be freed up for adoption, he has the option of contesting the freeing up process and putting himself forward as proposed carer for the child.

 

What you're talking about (in terms of equalising the situation between the mother and father) would involve the father having the option of putting the child up for adoption so that he can give up all parental rights and responsibilities. Presumably the natural mother would then have the option of contesting the freeing up process and saying "no it's okay - I'll take sole care of the child."

 

That would completely ignore the fact that during the course of a pregnancy a mother is forming an increasing bond with her unborn child - that will, in the majority of cases, make it incredibly difficult for her to voluntarily give that child up once its born. The father isn't carrying the child, and he isn't forming that same bond with it. Particularly not where he doesn't want it to be born and isn't retaining any kind of relationship with the mother.

 

So in that situation, he shouldn't have the same right as the mother to decide to put the child up for adoption by another family or a childless couple. In view of the bond that develops between a mother and her unborn child, it would be barbaric to pass a law saying that biological fathers could consent to their unborn children being freed up for adoption - and that the mother carrying that child would have to fight to prevent that process.

 

The only alternative I can see would be that the father would somehow transfer his rights and resonsibilities to another man who was willing to take up the paternal role in respect of another man's child. Which may be the case if the mother has formed (or is already in) another relationship. It's possible, but I don't think it would be a very common scenario. Certainly I can't envisage adoption agencies ever being able to select from a list of suitable, vetted single men who were prepared to take up fathering responsibilities in respect of a child born to a woman they weren't in a relationship with.

[clv0116]

You're the one who is arguing one parent should be exempt from caring for his offspring.

 

I'm saying it's wrong to give 50% of the population the ultimate choice of being a parent or not and then force the other 50% to accept that choice and be responsible for it. Your body, your choice, your responisility. Much more fair to give 100% of the population the choice and let them live with the outcomes that stem from that choice.

 

Again, if we accept the right to choose we should as responsible adults take on the obligations that choice carries with it.

[clv0116]

I'm with Story and Stockalone on this. It's not the child's fault that its parents were irresponsible enough to create a child they didn't both want. Neither is it the child's fault that the mother didn't believe in abortion and couldn't face giving it up for adoption.

 

It's not the childs fault his parents are unskilled and unreliable and earn nothing either. Everyone has a different situation and it's the responsibility of the those who have the choice to consider things like this.

[Storyrider]

and let them live with the outcomes that stem from that choice.

 

The child lives with the outcome if the man refuses to step up. At least he saves his own arse, though.

[Taramere]

It's not the childs fault his parents are unskilled and unreliable and earn nothing either. Everyone has a different situation and it's the responsibility of the those who have the choice to consider things like this.

 

Yes. If a guy is having sex with a woman and he doesn't want to get trapped into unwanted fatherhood, he wears a condom. If he's unwilling to take that level of responsibility, so be it.....but I don't see why family law should be changed to accommodate his refusal to take responsibility.

[clv0116]

The child lives with the outcome if the man refuses to step up. At least he saves his own arse, though.

 

The children live with the outcome if the parents have more offspring than they can care for also. Shall we begin drafting surrogate man-wallets off the street for the sake of the children?

[clv0116]

Yes. If a guy is having sex with a woman and he doesn't want to get trapped into unwanted fatherhood, he wears a condom.

 

Ah, so if it was a condom failure then he should be able to opt out? What if the woman didn't insist on a condom? Is a condom the only approved method of contraception?

[Storyrider]

The children live with the outcome if the parents have more offspring than they can care for also. Shall we begin drafting surrogate man-wallets off the street for the sake of the children?

If you stick your penis in a woman's vagina, you are not just some anonymous person who happened to walk by.

[clv0116]

If you stick your penis in a woman's vagina, you are not just some anonymous person who happened to walk by.

 

Ah so this is a punishment for having sex. It sounded like it but I wasn't sure until now. Is sex something we punish for?

[Taramere]

Ah, so if it was a condom failure then he should be able to opt out? What if the woman didn't insist on a condom? Is a condom the only approved method of contraception?

 

If there's condom failure, then that's really bad luck on both of them. I'd hope to God that even if she was a strong pro-lifer, she'd be sensible enough to take the morning after pill.

 

The woman might not insist on a condom/fail to take the pill because she's feckless as regards the consequences, or because she actively wants to get pregnant. One of the dangers out there that men have to be aware of. All the more reason to stock up on condoms.

 

Unless the man has such severe learning difficulties that he doesn't understand how babies are made (in which case he probably wouldn't have the income to contribute towards child support anyway), he should be refusing to have sex without a condom. Unless he's okay with the idea of her becoming pregnant. Anyone who doesn't want to become a parent is responsible for taking the necessary steps to avoid it happening.

[Storyrider]

Ah so this is a punishment for having sex. It sounded like it but I wasn't sure until now. Is sex something we punish for?

Ha ha, no it is not punishment, it is taking responsibility for something that couldn't have happened without your participation.

[clv0116]

Ha ha, no it is not punishment, it is taking responsibility for something that couldn't have happened without your participation.

 

So it's true that those who have the choices DO have the responsibility then. After a pregnancy has started a woman has a choice whether or not to bear a child. Where is the mans choice?

[clv0116]

If there's condom failure, then that's really bad luck on both of them.

 

Ah yes good old bad luck. Well really I guess it's just bad luck that unprotected sex causes unwanted pregnancies really isn't it? I mean it's not like it happens every time after all, it's just bad luck.

 

Right?

[clv0116]

Ha ha, no it is not punishment, it is taking responsibility for something that couldn't have happened without your participation.

 

Ah, so humans are personally responsible for everything they contribute towards even if they have no say and actually oppose the choices made by those who are the final arbiters of that choice? Or does resposibility hinge on the choices one controls in a matter?

[Storyrider]

The reason that hetero men are attracted to women is because they are female. By definition, a female has breasts. Hm. A woman has a vagina. Hm. Men like those things. And, what do you know? Those traits exist because the woman....drum roll.....has the ability to get pregnant.

 

Men and women also play different roles in sex and reproduction. Seems you like the vagina and the breasts but you don't like the uterus, but the fact of the matter is, the uterus does stack the deck in favor of the woman's right to determine the fate of the baby.

 

Your control, and where you get to choose, is whether or not you plant the seed in the first place.

[clv0116]

The reason that hetero men are attracted to women is because they are female. By definition, a female has breasts. Hm. A woman has a vagina. Hm. Men like those things. And, what do you know? Those traits exist because the woman....drum roll.....has the ability to get pregnant.

 

Men and women also play different roles in sex and reproduction. Seems you like the vagina and the breasts but you don't like the uterus, but the fact of the matter is, the uterus does stack the deck in favor of the woman's right to determine the fate of the baby.

 

Your control, and where you get to choose, is whether or not you plant the seed in the first place.

 

 

So you're against abortion then?

 

 

PS: No need to make it personal, I have never fathered a child and if I was ever fortunate enough to do so I'd never abandon it. This isn't about me, it's about what's fair and what is wrong.

[Stockalone]

This isn't about me, it's about what's fair and what is wrong.

 

I understand that but so far, I haven't seen compelling arguments to change the status quo. Believe me, I am not happy with the way things are either, but how do you intent to reach a consensus when the positions leave little to no ground for compromise.

 

Also, with the way things are today, a woman knows that if she ever gets pregnant, willingly or by accident, the law is on her side to make sure that she gets child support (if possible) from the father if she wants it. And she has the last say in what happens to her body, including the unborn child. It's a bit of a legal safety net because women are the ones who will get pregnant and have to make the decisions.

 

How (if at all) would you want to change that?

 

 

Also, there are different scenarios to consider:

 

Situation A:

 

The man wants nothing to do with the child because he considers it an accident.

 

The woman wants to keep the baby.

 

Who gets to decide and how does your solution look like?

 

 

Situation B:

The man doesn't want to abandon his child and would want to raise it himself if necessary.

 

The woman doesn't want the child.

 

Who gets to decide and how does your solution look like?

 

 

Situation C:

The man doesn't want the child, but he is against abortions. He thinks the best solution would be to give the child up for adoption.

 

The woman doesn't want the child either but she would rather have an abortion because she thinks it will make it easier for her and she won't feel as much anguish (at least she hopes so) compared to going through the whole pregnancy, having it grow inside her for nine months for the sole purpose of giving it up to strangers.

 

Who gets to decide and how does your solution look like?

[Storyrider]

So you're against abortion then?

 

 

PS: No need to make it personal, I have never fathered a child and if I was ever fortunate enough to do so I'd never abandon it. This isn't about me, it's about what's fair and what is wrong.

Take the "you" in my last post as the general "you".

 

Abortion: I think abortion is a last resort and at times a necessary evil, but i don't think it should be illegal.

[Thornton]

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.

 

But you're not talking about giving the child paternal support, you're talking about giving it money. A man can refuse to see the child, can refuse to be a parent and refuse to have a relationship with it, but even if he never meets the child he is still forced to pay for it. In the case where the man definitely does not want the child, nobody can force him to see it or be a father to it, but they can force him to pay for it.

 

Women are able to give up parental responsibility during the first few weeks of pregnancy via abortion, so men should also be entitled to give up parental responsibility via some legal means. There is a time frame during which a woman can walk away from parenthood, so a man should also be able to walk away from parenthood during the same time frame.

[Thornton]

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.

 

If that's the case, why are there already so many unwanted children? Supply of children for adoption already exceeds demand, hence why so many kids are never adopted and live out their entire lives in foster homes and orphanages etc. The last thing we need is more kids in the care system... abortions actually reduce the number of unwanted children in an already overburdened care system.

[Thornton]

If the mother decides to give her child up, adoption agencies will find a family or a childless couple who want to raise someone else's baby.

No. Adoption agencies will put the child into care, where it is likely to remain for several years, possibly for its entire life. A huge percentage of children in care are NEVER adopted.

 

What you're talking about (in terms of equalising the situation between the mother and father) would involve the father having the option of putting the child up for adoption so that he can give up all parental rights and responsibilities.

No. We're talking about letting the man opt out of parenthood during the early stages of pregnancy, leaving the mother as the sole parent. She can then choose what she wishes to do: continue the pregnancy and be a single mother, have the baby and put it up for adoption, or have an abortion.

 

The only alternative I can see would be that the father would somehow transfer his rights and resonsibilities to another man who was willing to take up the paternal role in respect of another man's child.

Why does anyone have to take the paternal role? Lots of kids are raised in one-parent families. The man can give up his paternal rights without having to transfer them to someone else; he would simply transfer all rights to the mother, leaving her as the sole parent.

[Thornton]

Also, there are different scenarios to consider:

 

Situation A:

 

The man wants nothing to do with the child because he considers it an accident.

 

The woman wants to keep the baby.

 

Who gets to decide and how does your solution look like?

 

 

Situation B:

The man doesn't want to abandon his child and would want to raise it himself if necessary.

 

The woman doesn't want the child.

 

Who gets to decide and how does your solution look like?

 

 

Situation C:

The man doesn't want the child, but he is against abortions. He thinks the best solution would be to give the child up for adoption.

 

The woman doesn't want the child either but she would rather have an abortion because she thinks it will make it easier for her and she won't feel as much anguish (at least she hopes so) compared to going through the whole pregnancy, having it grow inside her for nine months for the sole purpose of giving it up to strangers.

 

Who gets to decide and how does your solution look like?

 

My solution is as follows: the man should have the option to decline all parental responsibility during the first weeks of pregnancy. If he does so, he dosn't have to pay for the child but neither can he see it, he has legally given up all rights and obligations as a parent.

 

In Situation A the man can choose to walk away or stay... he would choose to walk away. The woman has the choice whether to keep the baby, abort it or have it adopted. She would choose to keep it, but as the man has walked away she would be a single mother with no financial support.

 

In Situation B the man can choose to walk away or stay... he would choose to stay. The woman has the choice to keep, abort or adopt... if she doesn't want the baby she would choose abortion.

 

In Situation C the man can choose to walk away or stay... he would choose to stay. The woman has the choice to keep, abort or adopt... she would choose abortion.

 

So as you can see, what I'm talking about is giving the man and the woman an independent choice about whether they wish to be a parent to the child. The woman has the choice about whether to carry the child to term, while the man has the choice about whether he wishes to be a parent if the child is carried to term. Situations B and C remain the same as they are now, only Situation A changes... if the woman decides to keep the baby against the father's wishes, he would be free to opt out of parenthood.

[Forever loving life]

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

 

It is something that should ultimately be decided by the man and woman together. This is the kind of thing that should be considered when two people choose to have sex. I believe that whatever is done should be in the best interest of the child! Too often, people just have sex for satisfaction and don't consider the responsibility involved.

[malcom5]

I understand that but so far, I haven't seen compelling arguments to change the status quo. Believe me, I am not happy with the way things are either, but how do you intent to reach a consensus when the positions leave little to no ground for compromise.

 

Also, with the way things are today, a woman knows that if she ever gets pregnant, willingly or by accident, the law is on her side to make sure that she gets child support (if possible) from the father if she wants it. And she has the last say in what happens to her body, including the unborn child. It's a bit of a legal safety net because women are the ones who will get pregnant and have to make the decisions.

 

How (if at all) would you want to change that?

 

 

Also, there are different scenarios to consider:

 

Situation A:

 

The man wants nothing to do with the child because he considers it an accident.

 

The woman wants to keep the baby.

 

Who gets to decide and how does your solution look like?

 

 

Situation B:

The man doesn't want to abandon his child and would want to raise it himself if necessary.

 

The woman doesn't want the child.

 

Who gets to decide and how does your solution look like?

 

 

Situation C:

The man doesn't want the child, but he is against abortions. He thinks the best solution would be to give the child up for adoption.

 

The woman doesn't want the child either but she would rather have an abortion because she thinks it will make it easier for her and she won't feel as much anguish (at least she hopes so) compared to going through the whole pregnancy, having it grow inside her for nine months for the sole purpose of giving it up to strangers.

 

Who gets to decide and how does your solution look like?

 

 

Situation A:

Man doesn't want the baby, the woman knows he doesn't want the baby, then has the baby anyway, then tries to force the man to support the child he didn't want, a child she knew he didn't want, how is that fair to the man? It's not. Same old story. A woman basically controls the entire situation after conception, a man basically has to take it and shut the hell up.

 

Situation B:

Man wants the baby, woman doesn't want to carry it to term, wants to abort or place it up for adoption(seeing as how that could go either way), then one of the two should happen, based on her decision. If she's okay with carrying the baby to term, then signing over her parental rights, fine.

 

Then you're looking at the man wanting the baby, and the woman wanting to abort. It's very similar to situation A. But I continue to stand by what I've said in situation A. If a man knows the woman doesn't want the child(wanting to abort), then that's simply how the story ends. Fair is fair. No one should be forced to have a child they don't want.

 

That's the worst thing you could do to a child, imo. Bring a child into the world, and eventually that child will know that one of his/her parents didn't want them, doesn't love them, and wants nothing to do with them. My own brothers and sisters to this very day(in their late 20s, early 30s) still have massive issues with this very situation. Dealing with the fact that their own father didn't want them.

 

A man and a woman should both have equal rights during pregnancy. It's completely screwed where the woman completely controls the show. You can't expect a man to pay for something he doesn't want, especially if he's made it known as soon as he was aware of the child's existence and the option to abort or adopt is still on the table. If a woman is so adamant on carrying the child despite the father's objections, she should be prepared to fully support the child alone.