Is A Man Entitled To Fathers Rights In A Pregnancy?

[malcom5]

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.

 

That there is the problem. In a lot of situations, communication hardly ever happens. For a lot of women, the baby is just a trap to get money out of the man. It's the truth. Men are forced by law to support children they were against having. We all know communication is sometimes useless.

 

For example, man wants child, woman doesn't, woman aborts despite the man's objections, and there's nothing he can really do. She's free in the clear.

 

But wait, what about a man not wanting the child, but the woman does? It's not about the "lesser of two evils" as I read in this thread earlier, this is someone's life, and it's a decision that will effect them for the rest of their lives. It should be something they BOTH agree on, not a one woman show. Women hold all the power, that's fact.

[Forever loving life]

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.

 

My feeling is that if you can't see having a child with someone, you shouldn't have sex with them. People need to be willing to take responsibility for their actions (even if the consequences are undesired)!

[Forever loving life]

That there is the problem. In a lot of situations, communication hardly ever happens. For a lot of women, the baby is just a trap to get money out of the man. It's the truth. Men are forced by law to support children they were against having. We all know communication is sometimes useless.

 

For example, man wants child, woman doesn't, woman aborts despite the man's objections, and there's nothing he can really do. She's free in the clear.

 

But wait, what about a man not wanting the child, but the woman does? It's not about the "lesser of two evils" as I read in this thread earlier, this is someone's life, and it's a decision that will effect them for the rest of their lives. It should be something they BOTH agree on, not a one woman show. Women hold all the power, that's fact.

 

IMO, if the communication isn't happening with something as important as the possibility of pregnancy, then the sex shouldn't be happening either!

[Taramere]

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.

 

You're going off on a different tangent here, because we're talking about babies that are given up by the mother voluntarily straight after birth. It's relatively rare for that to happen nowadays, in the Western world - and childless couples are queuing up to adopt in those situations where it does happen.

 

The situation you're talking about is where children are removed from their parent's care because the parents are deemed unfit. The freeing up for adoption process can take a long time due to both parents being given chance after chance after chance to improve their parenting - then fighting through the courts if the authorities decide that freeing for adoption is the way to go. It's the opposition of the parents towards freeing for adoption that results in children they aren't fit to care for languishing in care for a long time. The longer it takes, the more "unadoptable" the child becomes (which is why, in the UK at least, legislation has been tightened up to prevent children languishing in care in such situations).

 

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.

 

You're putting a positive spin on it. "She can choose what she wishes to do". The reality is that she's being left to make an incredibly difficult decision. Raise a child on her own, have an abortion (which she may regard as murderous - and whatever one's political or philosophical views on abortion are, it's hideous to expect a woman to have one if she's of the view that it constitutes murder of a child). Or free it up for adoption, which will be an extremely painful process.

 

The law places these obligations on men precisely because there are many men out there who wouldn't take responsibility in these situations if they didn't have to. Who would opt for the old "this woman got herself pregnant - she ought to have been on the pill. Not my problem, guv" argument.

 

 

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.

 

You're talking about the man giving up rights, but you're silent on the matter of responsibilities. This indicates to me that either you personally are skeptical that men truly do have responsibilities towards their children (though you're happy to accept the notion of them having "rights" that they can hold onto or relinquish at will). Or you'd prefer not to mention the word responsibilities in this context, because to do so makes what the man is doing (running away from a situation he took an equal share in creating) sound more negative.

 

Why does anyone have to take up the paternal role? Because you're talking about "equalising" the situation here....and from the perspective of legislators, that would mean putting the child in the same position (if the father decides to relinquish all rights and responsibilities) as it would be in were the mother to give up parental rights and responsibilities and consent to a freeing for adoption order. Which, is going to be far less simple in practice than it sounds in theory.

 

The child's rights and interests will always be given paramount importance by the courts. Courts can't permit men to simply walk away from their children at will without there being some system in place that looks after the children's interests and minimises the impact the father's decision to wash his hands of the matter has on the child. If you talk to a range of child care experts (doctors, child psychologists, social workers) about this, you'll tend to get consensus that ideally a child should be have access to a strong familial network rather than being raised by one very harassed person who's been left to deal with it by the other disinterested parent.

 

You might not be interested in what child care professionals think of the matter. You may well think that some of the men's rights forums out there are better places to decide on such matters. Good luck in convincing legislators of that. They'll put a child's rights first every time, and in deciding how best to promote child welfare they'll tend to listen to experts on child care rather than experts on what men want and how they think things should be.

 

Ideally, courts and laws would not have to intervene in these matters. Ideally, men and women would communicate well enough with eachother that they could work out solutions (eg to the problem of unwanted pregnancy) that while potentially either painful and distressing, or expensive, or both would be solutions that both had contributed towards and both could live with.

 

In practice, left to their own devices many men would probably prefer not to bother getting into lengthy discussions with women they don't care about regarding matters like these. Preferring to take the "I don't want a child with you. It's up to you to decide what you want to do, but don't involve me and don't expect me to pay for it" approach.

 

Which is precisely why the law intervenes. It recognises that there are men out there who will pursue their own interests at all costs, while evading all responsibility. In many cases it is left to the taxpayer to shoulder the burden, and this causes the taxpayer no small amount of annoyance. So the pressure is on lawmakers to ensure that unwilling fathers meet their responsibilities, instead of lumping that responsibility onto the rest of society.

[Taramere]

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?

 

When I talk about bad luck, I mean a condom breakage or failure of the pill (eg if the woman got sick and it didn't work). Sometimes bad luck, sometimes a woman deliberately getting pregnant in order to trap a man who doesn't want to be with her. Or because she wants a child and she wants him to pay out for it. Which is also very bad luck for a guy who gets sucked in by a woman who has that mentality....but ultimately, he had the opportunity to prevent that Machiavellian scenario from playing out by using a condom - and by using one that wasn't past its sell by date.

 

Have so many people really lost sight of the fact that fun as it is, the primary purpose nature intended sex to serve was to make babies? Is it some kind of heinous burden to place on a man that if he doesn't want to become a father, he should take the readily available precautions to prevent unwanted fatherhood? What poor victim of evil women are we talking about here? A man who dislikes using condoms, and is therefore willing to take all the risks entailed in not using a condom?

 

It seems to me that the issue here is that women are regarded as having a great deal of power in the matter of pregnancy and child-care - and that men are expected to fork out, but not have much say in what happens. I'm extremely supportive of responsible men who want to have a full say in the care and upbringing of a child they've fathered, and who want to have regular contact with this child. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about men wanting the law to provide them with some guarantee that they can have sex without having to deal with the consequence of an unwanted pregnancy.

 

The law can't guarantee that any more than nature can (excepting situations where either the man or woman is infertile). So it's up to men who don't want to become fathers to use the means available to them to drastically reduce the odds of it happening.

[Woggle]

Why is it that feminists scream from the top of their lungs about how fathers are obsolete and not needed in a child's life but then throw a fit if a man wants to opt out? I am all for men being held responsible for the children they created because I do believe the role of the father is very important but let's not kid ourselves on what the real of the feminists is.

 

To them us men are nothing more than a sperm donor and a paycheck and for all the talk about deadbeat dads the system does nothing whatsoever to protect the rights of men who want to be a father to their children beyond just writing a check. Stop treating fathers as nothing more than sperm donors who are good for nothing but writing a check every month and you will see more men stepping up to the plate. Until more women start to value the role that fathers play I don't hear anything from them about how men need to take responsibility.

[Woggle]

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 the feminists could find a way to do that they would. They always find new ways to get their hands on what we earn.

[Jilly Bean]

Many people have made comment in this thread about what's "best for the baby", and that is forcing a father to pay child support, regardless if he wants the child or not.

 

BUT, can't we back that up a step and say that a woman who REALLY cares about her child, would NOT chose to bring a child into a situation in that a man wants no part of? Wouldn't a responsible and caring mother "opt out" of raising a child in a strife-filled dynamic with drama, and courts, and a knowing absent dad?

[Stockalone]

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.

 

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.

 

So what both of you are saying that it is okay to strengthen the rights of those men who don't want to pay and don't want the kid. You want to enable what otherwise would be deadbeat deads and give them the legal means to protect themselves for their spinelessness.

 

All that accomplishes is to enable irresponsible behaviour and to shift some power from women who might trap a man with a child to those men who refuse to take responsibility. I still don't consider that to be fair.

 

It also essentially places the sole responsibility for protection into the hands of women. Honestly, if a guy is that afraid of getting a woman pregnant he needs to get a vasectomy or keep his penis away from women.

 

 

To them us men are nothing more than a sperm donor and a paycheck and for all the talk about deadbeat dads the system does nothing whatsoever to protect the rights of men who want to be a father to their children beyond just writing a check. Stop treating fathers as nothing more than sperm donors who are good for nothing but writing a check every month and you will see more men stepping up to the plate. Until more women start to value the role that fathers play I don't hear anything from them about how men need to take responsibility.

 

Woggle, have you seen that demand in this thread so far, that fathers should have more rights to the children they financially support? I haven't.

 

I am all for real equality when it comes to custody and visitation rights. It must be made easier for men who want to embrace their role as a father. And that means they have to be allowed to be more than a paycheck.

 

But that is not what most people seem to be concerned about. All you hear is that a man shouldn't have to pay for his kid if he doesn't want to.

 

What we have in this situation are two extremes. You have what you call the feminists who like nothing better than to bleed a father dry and give him nothing in return on one side.

 

And on the other you have the guys who want to f*ck around but can't be bothered to man up when they get a woman pregnant.

 

Do you honestly think it is better to shift power from the feminists to those irresponsible man-childs?

 

IMO, this can't possibly be a good, much less a fair solution.

 

 

BUT, can't we back that up a step and say that a woman who REALLY cares about her child, would NOT chose to bring a child into a situation in that a man wants no part of? Wouldn't a responsible and caring mother "opt out" of raising a child in a strife-filled dynamic with drama, and courts, and a knowing absent dad?

 

Women already have the option you are talking about. That doesn't mean that "opting out" is actually an option all women would consider to be an option.

 

And you would have to be on the same page as far as the definition of "REALLY caring" about a child is concerned? Does an abortion qualify as caring or not? Does adoption? I don't want to turn this into a pro-life vs. pro-choice debate, but I certainly think that the individual POV does play a role in this.

 

Why don't people talk about the possible consequences before they start screwing?

 

What would "we" (I say we because both are responsible) do when we get pregnant? Abortion, adoption, keeping the baby? What if the child would be handicapped?

 

As a man, I have to deal with the fact that the woman will make decisions for me. I don't like it but I still don't see a better option. It would be worse if I could force a woman to have a child she doesn't want or to abort one that she wants but I don't.

[sally4sara]

I understand that but so far, I haven't seen compelling arguments to change the status quo.

 

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?

 

In this case (and if the window for opportunity is to be had) the guy says "no thanks" and the woman then decides alone to raise the child, abort, or put up for adoption.

The simple fact of the matter is that despite how smart or preventative it would be to promote less promiscuity among men, our society seems content on sex (just sex!) being the most easily attainable measure for a boy to prove he is a man. If said man gets a woman pregnant and she wants to keep it while he doesn't, none of the laws we have in place can really resolve this. If he doesn't want to pay - he just won't. Window of opportunity for abortion or OPT out, missed or not; once the child arrives he can change his mind about contributing. Courts are really only able to make a portion of his life difficult over it, but none of the ways actually help the child. So I see nothing wrong in the guy stepping up early and saying he isn't interested. He can fill out papers that state he has no rights to the child and take a walk. At least this way, the mother has all the info she needs to make a choice she can honor ALONE.

 

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?

 

Any law proposed to force a woman to appease a man desiring to do this would be unconstitutional. He can always go on to find a partner willing to help him create a child to raise if he wants one. Why on Earth would we entertain the possibility for casual sex partners who are male to hold their temporary partner hostage for 40 weeks just because one of the sperm he'd gladly waste into his hand, turned into an under developed organism inside a woman he found appealing for sex? Any law like this would be ignorant to the fact that the woman is an equal human being and not an incubator.

 

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?

 

Well its an easy thing for a man to be against abotion; He WILL NEVER HAVE ONE!

This would just be complicating the first scenario with all the crap reasoning of the second scenario. If he doesn't want the child - he should take a walk and let the people who are left to make the grown up decisions, make whatever decisions must be made to clean up the mess he walked away from.

If I adopt out a child, I must accept that whoever takes the child may or may not be a blessing to that child's life. So to be hypocritical, and say you care too much to allow a child you don't want, to be aborted is just a d!c& move IMO.

 

Men who are against abortions irritate me. It doesn't matter if they are for choice; its a choice they will never have to make. It doesn't matter if they are for carrying the child to term; they will never be pregnant to do so.

 

It isn't a competition. Its not something that is being perpetrated against men. Its just a biological fact.

[sally4sara]

If the feminists could find a way to do that they would. They always find new ways to get their hands on what we earn.

 

The feminist movement was for women to be able to earn the same wage a man would earn in any job they both worked.

It was not a movement geared towards women being more able to access the bank accounts of men.

What you prattle on about has nothing to do with the ERA, or equality for women, or even custody issues seen to via the court system.

You don't even have children to feel deprived of while being financially obligated to them.

You are upset about INEQUALITY and con artistry; crazy people who have lead impulsive and over indulged lives.

[sally4sara]

Why is it that feminists scream from the top of their lungs about how fathers are obsolete and not needed in a child's life but then throw a fit if a man wants to opt out? I am all for men being held responsible for the children they created because I do believe the role of the father is very important but let's not kid ourselves on what the real of the feminists is.

 

I am a feminist. I am not bothered by the option of a guy opting out in the first trimester.

 

To them us men are nothing more than a sperm donor and a paycheck and for all the talk about deadbeat dads the system does nothing whatsoever to protect the rights of men who want to be a father to their children beyond just writing a check. Stop treating fathers as nothing more than sperm donors who are good for nothing but writing a check every month and you will see more men stepping up to the plate. Until more women start to value the role that fathers play I don't hear anything from them about how men need to take responsibility.

 

YOU only see men as sperm doners an paychecks. That is why you won't have a child with your own wife. YOU think of men this way.

Its just like a man saying "a woman should know her place" and the woman he says it to gets upset. SHE assumes the man means something low in that statement because SHE thinks women are lesser.

[norajane]

Which is precisely why the law intervenes. It recognises that there are men out there who will pursue their own interests at all costs, while evading all responsibility. In many cases it is left to the taxpayer to shoulder the burden, and this causes the taxpayer no small amount of annoyance. So the pressure is on lawmakers to ensure that unwilling fathers meet their responsibilities, instead of lumping that responsibility onto the rest of society.

 

Yes, what many are talking about in this thread - men opting out - is precisely why laws were put into place relatively recently to compel men to, at the very least, be financially responsible for children born out of wedlock.

 

It wasn't that long ago that women had no power at all. Abortions were illegal and men could disappear with no consequences and women were left with babies they had to raise on their own or give up for adoption. Over time, as societal mores changed about premarital sex and more women were left pregnant and on their own, laws were put into place so men couldn't just walk away and leave their children on welfare.

 

Do we now want to turn back the clock and hold women solely responsible for children again? Are we willing to increase our taxes to cover the increased burden on our welfare system? Do we want to condemn more children to poverty?

 

Why would we expect society and women alone to bear the burden rather than expecting men and women to be more responsible about their use of birth control??? Any man that does not want to be a father and does not want to pay the costs can use a condom every time.

[Stockalone]

Any law proposed to force a woman to appease a man desiring to do this would be unconstitutional. He can always go on to find a partner willing to help him create a child to raise if he wants one. Why on Earth would we entertain the possibility for casual sex partners who are male to hold their temporary partner hostage for 40 weeks just because one of the sperm he'd gladly waste into his hand, turned into an under developed organism inside a woman he found appealing for sex? Any law like this would be ignorant to the fact that the woman is an equal human being and not an incubator.

 

Have you even bothered to read my other posts?

 

 

 

The simple fact of the matter is that despite how smart or preventative it would be to promote less promiscuity among men, our society seems content on sex (just sex!) being the most easily attainable measure for a boy to prove he is a man.

 

...

 

Well its an easy thing for a man to be against abotion; He WILL NEVER HAVE ONE!

 

...

 

Men who are against abortions irritate me. It doesn't matter if they are for choice; its a choice they will never have to make. It doesn't matter if they are for carrying the child to term; they will never be pregnant to do so.

 

It isn't a competition. Its not something that is being perpetrated against men. Its just a biological fact.

 

Let me just explain where that, IMO, could very well lead to.

 

It is the woman's fault if she gets pregnant. Women are solely responsible for avoiding a pregnancy. After all, since men are inherently incapable of forming opinions about abortion, why should they be concerned with, much less be held responsible for things they can't possibly understand or for things that can't ever happen to them. Like becoming pregnant.

 

How does that not mean that men are considered to be nothing more than sperm donors who have to be excused for being irresponsible because the can only think with their wrong head...

 

Last but not least, men should thus be encouraged to lead a promiscuous, care-free life. Should we also consider to pat them on the back for knocking up a woman and then leaving her to deal with the consequences? I don't even want to imagine what kind of men the coming generations will produce.

[clv0116]

It wasn't that long ago that women had no power at all. Abortions were illegal and men could disappear with no consequences and women were left with babies they had to raise on their own or give up for adoption. Over time, as societal mores changed about premarital sex and more women were left pregnant and on their own, laws were put into place so men couldn't just walk away and leave their children on welfare.

 

Do we now want to turn back the clock ....

 

Not at all. The world has moved on and we no longer believe meat turns to maggots and that a pregnancy must in the course of time result in a baby. Women have a choice they never had before and this obsoletes some of the measures we had to put into place before more choices were available to women.

 

It's time to turn the clock forward.

[sally4sara]

Have you even bothered to read my other posts?

 

Oh I have. Our views are not very different. The only difference I can see is you would find it more fair if a man could take legal action to force a woman to carry a child for him. I'm not sure how you think that is more fair than the laws we have now and perhaps an early window where all the options can be had by both.

 

MY personal opinion about men who don't support a woman's right to choose has very little to do with any law designed to benefit men who are unwilling to become fathers while all options are available to him and the woman in question.

 

Your little scenario where you claim a man cannot be held responsible for the act of conception is flawed because a man does have (and therefore can comprehend) a role in conception. Does a man have a role in pregnancy or birth or abortion? Not really. His interest and participation are not required for her to remain pregnant to birth or go through the procedure of aborting. Its nice and helpful if he does. He can witness the events leading up to birth and/or be in the delivery room, But it doesn't hinge on his involvement.

 

The arguments going back and forth here seem only to lend to the already sad perception than men are only concerned with their wallets when it comes to fatherhood. It is kind of silly to suggest it is women causing men to be sperm doners or walking wallets while men continue to worry first about money and responsibility above the joys of having a child in their life. And as I pointed out, it serves what purpose to allow a man action against a woman where he can force her to have a child by him? Like she is the only woman alive he can establish this with!

Someone many posts back pondered "how many women would go ahead and have the child if the man expressed no interest in being involved or contributing to the care and needs of the child while she still had the option to abort?"

Well it goes both ways. I'm sure some women who do not wish to be mothers might CHOOSE to have the child for the father who wishes to raise it alone. But it would have to be a choice, not a court order, to remain constitutional. Others might not agree and abort the kid anyway.

The only way to make any fair change to this "crime against men" is to allow them to take a legal preemptive pass in the first trimester. NOT to also allow them to own the woman's body for 40 weeks. He cannot fully comprehend that experience and that is not something any law can change. Why it is taken as a knock against men, I'm not sure as it is simple biology. The only thing they can factor is how a child will effect their time, money, and life. Perhaps THAT is why we see men much more upset over the possibility of a woman having an unplanned child by them when they cannot prevent it after conception but can be held accountable to support the child.

They always jump to this issue BECAUSE they cannot understand what it is like to have a kid grow inside them and without even wanting to or planning to - feel compelled to protect and sustain that child. That happens certainly. But then we are speaking of men who planned a pregnancy with someone and look forward to a life with that child. The bonds strengthen after birth for them.

 

Which brings us to the lat bit you tried to toss at me as a cautionary. I wonder if you even read my posts because I already addressed it on....page two I think....

The entire attitude of men who complain about being trapped into financial obligation to kids they didn't plan by the courts and women they only found suitable enough to have sex with is a result of our society teaching boys that sex turns them into men. If men desire to not fall victim to courts, feminists, crazy baby mama women or whatever - stop being so promiscuous because if all it took to be a man was to have sex, we wouldn't see so many of then devolve back into boys when faced with unplanned fatherhood and child support.

 

You're trying to pretend we don't already have this happening so you can suggest potential flaws. I know you don't really believe only women are at fault when they get pregnant. I know you don't think men are incapable of being responsible or thinking with their brains. So go ahead and re read what you posted AFTER reading this...

 

Let me just explain where that, IMO, could very well lead to.

 

It is the woman's fault if she gets pregnant. Women are solely responsible for avoiding a pregnancy. After all, since men are inherently incapable of forming opinions about abortion, why should they be concerned with, much less be held responsible for things they can't possibly understand or for things that can't ever happen to them. Like becoming pregnant.

 

How does that not mean that men are considered to be nothing more than sperm donors who have to be excused for being irresponsible because the can only think with their wrong head...

 

Last but not least, men should thus be encouraged to lead a promiscuous, care-free life. Should we also consider to pat them on the back for knocking up a woman and then leaving her to deal with the consequences? I don't even want to imagine what kind of men the coming generations will produce.

[sally4sara]

It would be the men opting out in the first trimester that consider themselves to be nothing more than sperm doners and walking wallets. They see nothing else out of fatherhood. That is why they want the ability to opt out.

A woman who wants to give it a go with the guy is hoping he would wish to be MORE than a doner and wallet. To make it very clear to her what kind of man she got pregnant by, he can make an early legal declaration of disinterest.

[Stockalone]

Oh I have. Our views are not very different. The only difference I can see is you would find it more fair if a man could take legal action to force a woman to carry a child for him. I'm not sure how you think that is more fair than the laws we have now and perhaps an early window where all the options can be had by both.

 

True, our views aren't very different. A woman's right to choose it is the best option, but it certainly isn't fair. And I think that is were we don't agree. You do think it's fair where I don't. But that is because there is no fair system. There can only be one person to ultimately decide.

 

It is true, that if I could decide, then yes, I would not support an abortion as long as there is no danger (aside from the normal risk) to the mother or the child. I certainly don't think it would be better if men could make the final choice. It would be better for me, but it wouldn't be a fair system either.

 

I fail to see the benefit of such an option where the man can avoid paying child support. I think it would do more harm than good. That is why I am against it.

 

And more importantly, for me personally, without having a say about the child's life, not all options are available to me. I respect that this choice will be made for me by the woman, but I certainly don't like it or think it is fair.

 

 

Your little scenario where you claim a man cannot be held responsible for the act of conception is flawed because a man does have (and therefore can comprehend) a role in conception. Does a man have a role in pregnancy or birth or abortion? Not really. His interest and participation are not required for her to remain pregnant to birth or go through the procedure of aborting. Its nice and helpful if he does. He can witness the events leading up to birth and/or be in the delivery room, But it doesn't hinge on his involvement.

 

I fully believe that men are responsible for their part in the conception. But because of that I also believe he is responsible for what follows after the conception. His responsibility doesn't end there, so neither should his rights.

 

If it ends there, then that is what I consider to be the role of a sperm donor.

 

 

The arguments going back and forth here seem only to lend to the already sad perception than men are only concerned with their wallets when it comes to fatherhood.

 

On this, I agree.

 

 

It is kind of silly to suggest it is women causing men to be sperm doners or walking wallets while men continue to worry first about money and responsibility above the joys of having a child in their life. And as I pointed out, it serves what purpose to allow a man action against a woman where he can force her to have a child by him? Like she is the only woman alive he can establish this with!

 

It would allow the man to have a real choice in deciding what happens to his child, to decide over life and death. But it could come at the expense of the mother's wishes and potentially her well-being. So there is no reason to support such a system.

 

 

Well it goes both ways. I'm sure some women who do not wish to be mothers might CHOOSE to have the child for the father who wishes to raise it alone. But it would have to be a choice, not a court order, to remain constitutional. Others might not agree and abort the kid anyway.

 

Constitutionality is of little concern to me, as I am not a U.S. citizen nor do I live in the U.S.

 

But that doesn't matter. With the same argument, it would be never allowed in all countries that acknowledge women's rights.

 

Maybe there are woman who would consider that. But I doubt it.

 

 

The only way to make any fair change to this "crime against men" is to allow them to take a legal preemptive pass in the first trimester. NOT to also allow them to own the woman's body for 40 weeks. He cannot fully comprehend that experience and that is not something any law can change. Why it is taken as a knock against men, I'm not sure as it is simple biology. The only thing they can factor is how a child will effect their time, money, and life. Perhaps THAT is why we see men much more upset over the possibility of a woman having an unplanned child by them when they cannot prevent it after conception but can be held accountable to support the child.

They always jump to this issue BECAUSE they cannot understand what it is like to have a kid grow inside them and without even wanting to or planning to - feel compelled to protect and sustain that child. That happens certainly. But then we are speaking of men who planned a pregnancy with someone and look forward to a life with that child. The bonds strengthen after birth for them.

 

As I said, that legal preemptive pass doesn't make it fair to me. All it does in my opinion is to enable or even reward irresponsible behaviour from men.

 

 

Which brings us to the lat bit you tried to toss at me as a cautionary. I wonder if you even read my posts because I already addressed it on....page two I think....

The entire attitude of men who complain about being trapped into financial obligation to kids they didn't plan by the courts and women they only found suitable enough to have sex with is a result of our society teaching boys that sex turns them into men. If men desire to not fall victim to courts, feminists, crazy baby mama women or whatever - stop being so promiscuous because if all it took to be a man was to have sex, we wouldn't see so many of then devolve back into boys when faced with unplanned fatherhood and child support.

 

In your first post, you mentioned nothing about that. Or at least, I didn't understand it. You brought the promiscuity up in your reply to me though.

 

Which is why I don't understand why you want to let those guys off the hook.

 

If men face no consequences for getting a woman pregnant, what is the lesson?

 

That it is no big deal, that safe sex (who also helps to prevent STDs) is now less necessary? That a man is not responsible for protection? That it is okay or should be desired to become an irresponsible man-child who runs away if there are problems?

 

I think that child support serves also as a deterrend, to encourage people to use at least some common sense, as much as it is supposed to help create a better life for their child (if only financially). Why should we let those men have a legal option to not pay child support?

 

 

You're trying to pretend we don't already have this happening so you can suggest potential flaws. I know you don't really believe only women are at fault when they get pregnant. I know you don't think men are incapable of being responsible or thinking with their brains. So go ahead and re read what you posted AFTER reading this...

 

Sorry, I don't get it. What should I read again? I am honestly confused.

 

The flaws I see with the current system is that a man has no say about his unborn child, whether it lives or dies. That is unfair.

 

Secondly, I believe that men should have more opportunities to embrace their role as a father. Visitation rights and custody are usually in favour of the women, there is something that could be made more equal.

 

I want to see people who want to be involved in their child's life given the opportunity to just do that. Instead, what does get proposed here is to make it easier for those men who want nothing to do with their kids. Basically, it says that deadbeat dads had the right idea in the first place and now we give men the legal backup so there won't be consequences if they walk away from a woman who they got pregnant.

 

That's insane.

[clv0116]

It would be the men opting out in the first trimester that consider themselves to be nothing more than sperm doners and walking wallets.

 

Actually it is the current state of the law that sees them as such. Opting out let's them not be a two legged ATM.

[clv0116]

So the idea of a man legally compelling a woman to take a pregnancy to term is silly, but what about compelling an abortion? Women have those options available and men have to live with that unilateral choice, which is fundamentally unfair.

 

It's slightly humorous how no one really claims with a straight face its fair but most women are unable to promote the idea of cutting off the cash cow that is paternity.

 

I'm so damn glad I have a vasectomy.

[clv0116]

The flaws I see with the current system is that a man has no say about his unborn child, whether it lives or dies. That is unfair.

 

Secondly, I believe that men should have more opportunities to embrace their role as a father. Visitation rights and custody are usually in favour of the women, there is something that could be made more equal.

 

I want to see people who want to be involved in their child's life given the opportunity to just do that. Instead, what does get proposed here is to make it easier for those men who want nothing to do with their kids. Basically, it says that deadbeat dads had the right idea in the first place and now we give men the legal backup so there won't be consequences if they walk away from a woman who they got pregnant.

 

That's insane.

 

To me the phrase 'deadbeat dad' is more about a man who divorces and refuses to support kids he fathered and was participating in raising. Using it in this discussion is wrong, since the discussion is about men who would like to NOT be dads. At all.

 

The rest of your suggestions are also good but off topic. It's true that childrearing is grossly slanted in favor of woman and that should be addressed in all it's facets.

[sally4sara]

It might make it clearer for me to say I feel a parent who has no interest is a huge detriment to a child regardless of the monetary situation. If it were not the case we wouldn't see worthless rich brats with both parents in their lives. We wouldn't see single parents with meager means ever rearing capable members of society. Money is not the make or break factor for every situation. We also are not disqualifying the possibility of contacting the parent who wanted out should the child fall on financial hardship. My uncle has a daughter he knew nothing about till she was fifteen. He never wanted children. He does not tolerate small children well. He got a casual partner who knew this about him, pregnant. He didn't know and went on to marry another woman who also knew she never wanted children.

The girl's mother never told my uncle and went on to marry someone else and have two other children with him. Her husband died and they went through financial hardship in the wake of his death. Children's Services contacted my uncle about the girl. He has happily been a father to the much more self controlled older child she was at the time of discovery.

 

And nothing that a parent can choose to do (other than abortion) to dodge parental rights or responsibility before birth, are not possible after the child is born. One can stand by a woman with child and still walk off and offer nothing at any point in that child's life at a later, less adjustable time. I just feel it damages that child less to not have to know and grow to depend on that person before that happens. If a man really feels he has nothing to offer as a father, what way does it benefit a child to try and force him to be a part of that kid's life? Also, to that point, we are only really looking a the first trimester for viability here. There after, a man who had not opted out, would be held as accountable as any man already is today.

My father disappeared before I was born and paid nothing towards my care. It was a fact I had to accept from birth. I have never been as upset by it as everyone expects me to be. I'm confident that if he were someone I could've found benefit in knowing, he perhaps would've been more willing to stick around.

My brother was three years old. His father barely paid anything till my brother was almost in his teens. He would breeze in for a day or send a letter. My brother experience his rejections over and over again.

I do not envy him for what little a father he had in comparison. He does not feel he got the better deal either.

That is why I don't see it to be a big deal if we let these kinds of men opt out from go. They would be asked to forfeit rights completely in exchange. They could not ignore these kids for X amount of time and then disrupt the child and mother's lives when and if guilt ever caught up with them.

 

In another thread, I advise men bank their sperm and get a vasectomy in order to take control of their own reproductive rights making condoms the use to prevent STDs. Then they will never have to worry about what laws are in place in whatever country they reside in because they would have to actively CHOOSE to be a father rather than feel "forced" to be one. A vasectomy is a much less intrusive procedure than a tubal ligation or even an abortion.

Your comment about a lack of concern for STDs is unwarranted. That is not the topic of the thread and I consider it to be a separate issue.

[Taramere]

Many people have made comment in this thread about what's "best for the baby", and that is forcing a father to pay child support, regardless if he wants the child or not.

 

BUT, can't we back that up a step and say that a woman who REALLY cares about her child, would NOT chose to bring a child into a situation in that a man wants no part of? Wouldn't a responsible and caring mother "opt out" of raising a child in a strife-filled dynamic with drama, and courts, and a knowing absent dad?

 

If she is strongly against abortion, then abortion just isn't going to be an option for her. I personally take a pro-choice view....and that means I give equal weight to a woman's right to have an abortion and to her right to say "I regard abortion as wrong, I won't have one and nobody will pressurise me into having one."

 

So if you rule that option out for a pro-life woman, the only one left is adoption. Requiring a woman to separate, permanently, from the child she's given birth to on the basis that this is best for the child. If she's a drug addict, or has an abusive personality, a chaotic lifestyle or severe mental health problems then it's pretty clearly going to be in the child's best interests to be freed up for adoption by people who can provide it with stability and a safe environment.

 

In a situation where you're asking "can an affluent, responsible couple provide a better quality of life to a child than its healthy, responsible but single and not very well off birth mother?" then yes - they may well be able to provide for the child better. On the other hand, adopted children will often grow up with abandonment and betrayal issues. This may well be more severe where they discover that their birth mother was capable of raising them - but decided to give them away so that they'd grow up in an affluent 2-parent home and have wider opportunities in life.

 

I really don't think it's an easy decision to make. If a woman goes through with the pregnancy, keeps the child, does the best she can for it in difficult circumstances and provides a safe, warm and loving home for it, then I think she's being responsible. Certainly more responsible than the guy who says, at some point in the first 3 months of pregnancy, "this is your issue to deal with, I want nothing to do with it, and I won't be paying any aliment if you decide to have the child."

 

The problem with supporting a man having the right to detach himself from the situation in the first 3 months of the pregnancy is that this presupposes that abortion is an option for the woman - and I'd reiterate my view in the first paragraph that if she's very strongly against abortion, then it isn't an option for her. Nobody has the right to tell her otherwise.

 

As it is, there is very strong, ardent pro-life lobbying in our society that would seek to remove a woman's right to choose abortion in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. I think that permitting men to make a choice to make a clean break from any parental responsibilities within the first 3 would result in pro-life groups gaining a great deal of support in their campaign from some unexpected quarters. If they were ultimately successful in having abortion outlawed (and I don't think even in this day and age it's unfeasible that this would happen)....where does that leave the man, woman and child who are involved in an unwanted pregnancy?

[clv0116]

If she is strongly against abortion, then abortion just isn't going to be an option for her. I personally take a pro-choice view....and that means I give equal weight to a woman's right to have an abortion and to her right to say "I regard abortion as wrong, I won't have one and nobody will pressurise me into having one."

 

So if you rule that option out for a pro-life woman, the only one left is adoption.

 

She still has choices after conception unlike men, who do not. How is forcing paternal support fair in that scenario? She has decided she won't have an abortion, she has decided she wants to keep the baby. What if the man wants the baby, can he take it? We're saying it's just as much his as hers, right?

 

Actually all those measures seem fair but I'm not sure if the OP would consider them on topic.

 

What if the guy is married and his wife is infertile and they would LOVE to take and care for the baby. Clearly they have a better situation, and he has just as much right to the child right? So maybe the father should get custody and the woman should pay support? What do you think? I mean men are not just wallets you know?

[Stockalone]

In another thread, I advise men bank their sperm and get a vasectomy in order to take control of their own reproductive rights making condoms the use to prevent STDs. Then they will never have to worry about what laws are in place in whatever country they reside in because they would have to actively CHOOSE to be a father rather than feel "forced" to be one. A vasectomy is a much less intrusive procedure than a tubal ligation or even an abortion.

 

Not every father who has to pay child support will show up and create drama. Some never want to meet their kid. I think that money benefits the child, even if the mother never touches the money. She can set up an account for her child to use it when it turns 18 for college or the kid can donate it to charity if it doesn't want anything from an absent father.

 

I don't think of child support as forcing a guy to be a father. He is the biological father either way, and child support is due to that fact. Nothing more, nothing less. If he chooses to meet or even take part in his child's life is an entirely different matter.

 

And a vasectomy is the way to go if the guy knows he never wants kids. Some frozen swimmers in different locations (just in case) would be enough if he ever changes his mind.

 

And there is even a change to undo a vasectomy, though I don't know how often that is a success.

 

 

Your comment about a lack of concern for STDs is unwarranted. That is not the topic of the thread and I consider it to be a separate issue.

 

I brought it up because no responsibility for a potential kid would be one less reason to use a condom. Especially in a monogamous relationship. I am sure there would be guys who will pressure the woman to be okay with her using the pill while they don't have to use condoms. Granted, not all men would do that, not even the majority, but I am convinced that some would be less careful than they are now.