Rights of the father

[MickeyFinn]

I have a question about that taboo topic; women's rights. I'm going to circumvent it a little bit and ask the real question on my mind. Would you be against a law that allows a potential father to opt out of financial responsibility to a child if he should do so in the first trimester of pregnancy, thus giving the mother the option to abort in a healthy manner?

[Noleader]

As it stands today the State only considers the welfare of the child and thus it will require you to provide support for said child. There are a number of mens rights groups in this nation that are working on a abortion option for fathers but to say the least they have not gained much ground.

There is one option and that is the lady friend in question agrees not to put you on the birth cert and does not disclose you are the father. Outside that the state will come after you for support, directly for the child or to offset welfare payments.

[Post]

I don't consider a baby a baby until it's "un-abortable," and hence, I'm against the father being able to make that decision. It's one or the other: either the baby is a separate entity, and can't be aborted because it's considered a person, or it's not a separate entity and therefore wholly a decision of the woman.

I think they should be able to opt-out of financial responsibility, but having sex = taking that responsibility unless you make the contract beforehand, like a prenup.

Don't get me started about the lady that won the man's sperm donation in a divorce (he had cancer so he made a deposit), impregnated herself AFTER the divorce, and he was still financially responsible for the child.

[Noleader]

The abortion option I was speaking of is a financial opt out for the father. Basically as far as the father is concerned the child never existed.

[Allison]

Nope. It's not the child's fault it was born. You made it. You support it.

But I would support a law that would allow the father to prevent the mother from having an abortion if she didn't want the kid and he did.

[Hollus]

This is the way I'm reading it, correct me if I'm wrong.

The situation is a man can legally give up all paternal rights, visitation, and such in exchange for no financial responsibility?


First, it would never pass. The only possible way it would pass is if both parties were in agreement and the woman would rather raise her child alone.

Secondly, I'm not seeing what a guy giving up parental rights has to do with a woman getting an abortion.

To answer your question to the best of my understanding: No. I would not support that law/bill. That's just silly and leads to making it much easier for men to deadbeat it.

Along the same Lines of what Allison said, If you did the act of baby making and it happened, there is no reason a woman should be left a lone with a shared responsibility.

It's not like people don't know what causes babies...I mean...it is preventable.

[Noleader]

This is the way I'm reading it, correct me if I'm wrong.

The situation is a man can legally give up all paternal rights, visitation, and such in exchange for no financial responsibility?

That is correct.

First, it would never pass. The only possible way it would pass is if both parties were in agreement and the woman would rather raise her child alone.

Secondly, I'm not seeing what a guy giving up parental rights has to do with a woman getting an abortion.

*Not that I agree but explaining it
The idea is that a lady can end the responsiblity of having a child without consulting the father or even informing them so why should the father not be able to exercise the same ability? Basically the concept is that a guy can abort the responsibility, given some restrictions.

To answer your question to the best of my understanding: No. I would not support that law/bill. That's just silly and leads to making it much easier for men to deadbeat it.

That is true to a point Hollus... What if the girl claimed to be on birth control and you wore a condom (Basically playing it safe) and the result was a broken condom and she lied about birth control. Why should the guy that made it clear from the start, and via actions, be held responsible for a child because the woman defrauded the guy.

It is well known there are woman out there that use children and as means to trap a man so it is not to off that this could happen.

Along the same Lines of what Allison said, If you did the act of baby making and it happened, there is no reason a woman should be left a lone with a shared responsibility.

It's not like people don't know what causes babies...I mean...it is preventable.

If you partake in the act and do not use preventative measures then yes you should be held to bear when it comes time to care for the child... if you were mislead or defrauded then I do think there should be some recourse for a man to take.

[Hollus]

That is correct.


It is well known there are woman out there that use children and as means to trap a man so it is not to off that this could happen.



If you partake in the act and do not use preventative measures then yes you should be held to bear when it comes time to care for the child... if you were mislead or defrauded then I do think there should be some recourse for a man to take.


I can see your point. However, most of the population knows, regardless of how protected you are, there is a chance of pregnancy.

The only act of intercourse that is 100% not at risk of pregnancy is strict homosexuality on both partners parts.

Other than that, not dipping your doodle is the only way to prevent your gf from getting pregnant absolutely.



*This is considering that both man and woman have healthy reproductive systems.

[Post]

Absolutely? Hello, Mary of Nazareth?

In all seriousness, I feel if you can prove there was purposeful misleading or fraud, then no, you shouldn't be responsible.

[Hollus]

[quote=Post;175172]Absolutely? Hello, Mary of Nazareth?

heh...divine conception excluded.

[Allison]

Okay, I can see an argument if a woman lies to you about being on the pill AND you were using a condom that happened to break. But good luck proving she wasn't on the pill at the time of conception. And even if she hadn't lied, there still would have been a chance that a baby would have resulted from your actions. So now there's a kid out there with your eyes and hair and personality who needs to be fed and clothed and cared for. And I think the general consensus of society is "Man up!"

[MickeyFinn]

It's interesting to me to see the people who are so very pro-choice (of which I am one) consider the proposition to be disgusting. We are so quick to allow a woman to not only decide to kill the child and give up the responsibility of motherhood without even having to consult the father, and yet somehow the travesty here is allowing a man a much less consequential version of the same thing because "you dipped your doodle". Men aren't the only ones who got laid in that situation.

[Hollus]

Oh...I didn't way in with the abortion thing as far as the father goes. If such an act is going to be done, it should be consensual on both parts. Both father and mother should agree on the decision as it's just as much his child as hers.

To that end, I agree with you that it should *not be up to just* the woman. Both partook, both have a child on the way, both should be adult enough to discuss it.

"it's my body" doesn't fly with me. It's not a cyst or a tumor. It's both partners' child, and as such, should be made mandatory that if possible, both people consent to an abortion.



*Denotes edit

[MickeyFinn]

I didn't mean to sound presumptuous, I was actually unaware of your stance on the issue. I do know how the majority of our more liberal board users feel though, I just find it to be an interesting double standard.

[Post]

"We are so quick to allow a woman to not only decide to kill the child and give up the responsibility of motherhood without even having to consult the father, and yet somehow the travesty here is allowing a man a much less consequential version of the same thing because "you dipped your doodle"."

Realize, though, the important principle in abortion is that at the time of the abortion, it's not a child. The woman nor the man NEVER can be allowed to kill the child (barring circumstances where the woman's life is in danger).

At that point, then it's entirely up to the woman because it falls back to be entirely her body if the fetus isn't considered a separate entity. Just as you don't have to consult with your partner if you want to donate a kidney, she doesn't have to consult with her partner if she wants to do something with her body.

The responsibility of the father comes only after the fetus is recognized as a separate entity. At that time, neither the woman nor the man can decide to abort.

[MickeyFinn]

That's where the argument lies for pro-choice; whether or not it is a human being. Some people choose birth, others choose conception, etc. From a scientific (and emergency medicine) perspective, what makes a being human for me is at about 11 weeks when there is strong brain activity. That's the part where, to me, that is a person with rights.

[Post]

And that's your prerogative. I don't know the technical term of where I put it, but I would guess it's pretty much right there.

It doesn't matter where it is, though, just that it "is." If it's a human being, then neither can make the choice. If it's not a human being, it fits entirely in the realm of the would-be mother.

I think the issue is brought about because the "contractual decision" (having sex) doesn't coincide with the "contractual obligation" (the fetus becomes a child). That is a weird thing in the legal world... It happens, though. I'm assuming even the people who are for forcing the woman to consult the man before an abortion, aren't for a pre-morning-after-pill consultation. I'm curious as to what's the difference? Does this third phase of the fetus being somewhere between part of the woman and a separate entity have some sort of beginning that's after conception?

And that doesn't even get into the key reason abortion was upheld by the USSC in the first place: privacy. Just as it's illegal to have pot but the government can't freely take it from someone while they're in their home, it could conceivably be wrong to not consult the would-be father, but it can never get that far because it breaks the would-be mother's right of privacy.

[Allison]

I just find it to be an interesting double standard.

There's no double standard. Reverse the situation. A woman can't financially opt-out either, unless she opts-out for both parents with an abortion. You're trying to resolve an inequality in one area (the fact that women are the sole deciders on abortion) by creating an inequality in another area (making it so men are the sole-deciders about financial responsibility).

I realize it doesn't seem fair that a woman has an out if she wants it, and a man is kind of stuck with whatever the woman decides. But it's monumentally more unfair to make a child do without and make the state pick up the slack. If you want things to be more fair, advocate for men's rights in the early decision-making process. But don't advocate for state-sponsored child abandonment.

[Noleader]

There's no double standard. Reverse the situation. A woman can't financially opt-out either, unless she opts-out for both parents with an abortion. You're trying to resolve an inequality in one area (the fact that women are the sole deciders on abortion) by creating an inequality in another area (making it so men are the sole-deciders about financial responsibility).

There has been cases when the mother puts the child up for adoption without the father ever knowing because she did not put the fathers informaiton on the birth cert. Between adoption and abortion the woman has two ways to exclude herself from financial responsibility.

I realize it doesn't seem fair that a woman has an out if she wants it, and a man is kind of stuck with whatever the woman decides. But it's monumentally more unfair to make a child do without and make the state pick up the slack. If you want things to be more fair, advocate for men's rights in the early decision-making process. But don't advocate for state-sponsored child abandonment.

The question I have is why would we ever get into a scenario which there is a child and one parent did not want it? I suspect the biggest problem is that people are not evaluating their boyfriend/girlfriend properly before hand then reacting when they realise they are 'stuck' with this person.

This is the biggest issue with the Welfare system... It puts a safty net in place for people so it removes the need to do real soul searching on the merits of your partner.

In short the state should not be picking up the tab... People should have to live with the fucked up decision making process they employed when they slept with some loser.

[Hollus]

In short the state should not be picking up the tab... People should have to live with the fucked up decision making process they employed when they slept with some loser.

That's my inherent response as well. I'm trying hard not to come across too smart assed though.

And to the end of "the guy was lied to and tricked" scenario, the fact remains that pregnancy results from normal hetero intercourse. As Slicks said, we've had enough sex ed and/or common sense, we know there is a possibility of pregnancy during sex.

[Post]

That's how fraud works in general, though. Just about any case of fraud COULD have legitimate outcomes (charities, sold property, something advertised that it isn't), but if you can prove it's fraud, you're not responsible. Even if the charity does some good. Even if the sold property has some value. Even if the advertised property works some of the time. And even if you could have impregnated the woman regardless of the steps taken not to.

[MickeyFinn]

Ali I'm not sure why you don't believe it is a double standard. A woman can opt out of financial responsibility at any time without any consequences. Abort, give the kid for adoption, you name it. If a father misses on child support payments he goes to jail.

Nowhere does my question force the female do do anything. In fact, it would help her to make a more informed decision. Lots of men just sort of walk away from the family they created; at least this way the mother knows what's going on up front when she has a say in her future.

[Allison]

Ali I'm not sure why you don't believe it is a double standard. A woman can opt out of financial responsibility at any time without any consequences. Abort, give the kid for adoption, you name it. If a father misses on child support payments he goes to jail.

If a mother misses child support payments, she goes to jail too.

I don't want to get into a semantic argument, but you have to have identical situations before you can claim a double standard.

You're saying that a woman getting an abortion is the same thing as a man not paying child support, and that if you're okay with one, then you should be okay with the other. But the two aren't the same. It's apples and oranges, and that's why it's not a double standard.

[Post]

He kinda has a point with adoption, though. I don't know the legalities of it, but if a woman can give her child up for adoption without consulting the father, then that's crap.

I agree with abortion being different for the reasons I gave above, but in my opinion, no abortion = equal rights to the mother and father as far as custody (and adoption) goes.

[Allison]

I don't know the legalities of it, but if a woman can give her child up for adoption without consulting the father, then that's crap.



Agreed.

[MickeyFinn]

Most fire departments have a station for infant surrender. Anonymous, no questions asked, and used frequently.

[Hollus]

How often is frequently?

[MickeyFinn]

Maybe once a year where I work, feels like way too much to me

[Tammarion]

Infant surrender falls under the range of "harm prevention". Its still wrong, but child abandonment being preferable to homicide. Although I'm curious as to if a father has ever shown up for such a child, and if so, what his rights are to the child at that point.