A non-inflammatory question on paternal rights:

If a woman is pregnant should she have a legal duty to notify the father (or suspected father(s))?

I don't believe that there is currently such a legal requirement anywhere that I know of -- however, in light of some of the discussion on some of the other threads it seems like mandatory notification may be a good idea.

I'll give my opinion first:

yes, I think there should be. Obviously the provision would be hard to enforce and it shouldn't carry extreme penalties, but I basically think a man should have the legal right to know soon after the pregnant woman finds out. There is certainly an ethical duty for a pregnant woman to inform, but I think it would be good to back this ethical duty up with a legal duty so that notification occurs more often.

There should be an exception for men with a history of violent abuse, too so that nobody gets beaten up.

but how about a moral right to know. If you are old enough to perform the act, you should be old enough to do the right thing. and I think the right thing is to let all parties to the act know about what happened.

That's kind of the point, I think. Freedom of choice means the freedom to make bad decisions. There should be no mechanism in place that allows the government to restrict your ability to make bad decisions "for your own good."

should be a legally enforced. I feel that morality in no circumstances should be legally enforced.

You didn't say.

I think there may be a legal duty there. Assuming that there is, why is it okay to back up this moral / ethical duty with force of law? Or would the AIDS notification law be bad, too?

You have just possible infected someone with a deadly virus. this is in the public interest ot let him/her know.

a person's right to life --an actual "right" unlike the imaginary "right to know" some self-entitled men think they possess-- has been damaged

it is insightful to mention this. It is also in the public interest for a man to know about a pregnancy so he can plan financially to support the child. The man also may want to plan for custody or partial custody, especially if he is the better parent.

All of this is in the interest of the child and the public interest. It is a different public interest than AIDS, but it is a real public interest nonetheless.

I have seen far too many women get away from abusive men they were in relationships with and discover they were pregnant. The pregnancy is THEN used as a CONTROL issue on the woman.

BTW, define VIOLENT abuse...there are many ways to be sadistic that don't involve violence.

I would just import the definition from spousal abuse law. Since spousal abuse is already a crime set up, there is a ready made definition just waiting to be exploited for our present purposes.

The reason that I use this definition is because I would be concerned that some people might try to set up a standard that says "if the woman says she is abused then she is." There needs to be some objectivity in application of the abuse exception.

Also, let me try to anticipate one objection:

I am not saying that the abuse needs to be complained of (to the police) or prosecuted -- I am only saying that the definition of what behavior constitutes abuse by the man against the woman should come from our spousal abuse laws.

if it can be proven to benefit the child.

That's a terrible assumption.

Many times the fathers are not good guys to begin with, and the "ethical" duty of all of us is to protect the rights and freedom of the woman to make the choices about her body that she feels are safest and best, INCLUDING who she tells.

How about this: Should men be given a certain amount of time...say, three months after notification of pregnancy...to have to make a declaration on their intent of parental rights? If they choose to give up their rights as a parent permanently, then they don't pay child support.

A symbolic Roe vs Wade for men: If women shouldn't be forced to bear children because they decided to have sex (and I am pro-choice without exception) should men have a way to "opt out" also?

Fair, or not?

but loaded still.

Pro choice means that a woman has a right to do with her body as she sees fit. A man has a right to know and should be in the descision making process.

That's a new one for me. Could you tell me where in the Constitution it refers to such a right "to know"?

You could say that a planter has a right to own slaves, and a slave has a right to know he's a slave. See you need balance.

rights the mother has. Men simply need to exercise caution in their affairs and too often the sole responsibility is with the woman.

They have minds and choices and this whole OPT OUT conversation is simply a ruse to suggest that they don't.

There are a WHOLE host of risks and responsibilities that accompany being sexually active for BOTH sexes.

Justice isn't fair...and if this were "fair" to the men, it would end upp being "unfair" to the child. Once a child is born, they have a right to live as well as their wealthiest parent.

I agree with you. I was curious to see how other DUers felt.

men have the choice made for them by the woman.

and resentment there? If you're a father, I hope you don't take it out on the kid like a lot of parents (women as well as men) do.

they are my world now. Sorry I'm not the characature you seek.

Women have the babies. That's just the way things are.

-- Allen

The womb is one tiny corner of the world they CAN'T control and it disturbs them to NO end.
They DELIBERATELY muck up the conversation by collapsing the CHILD's rights with the MOTHER'S rights, and pretending since they don't control what goes on in the woman's body, it removes all choice from them.
PURE PRETENSE. There are vasectomies that are reversible and sperm banks where they can store their sperm until needed. There are condoms and conversations that can be held in advance.

What's your point?

that is, what if the man changes his mind later on and decides he wants to be a father and to be a part of his child's life? But because he signed a piece of paper during a time of emotional confusion and turmoil, it's now permanently denied to him. Men are often very confused and emotionally upset the first several months after learning about a pregnancy that wasn't planned, and they may think and do things that, later on, they very much regret and wish they hadn't done. I think it would only be fair to leave some kind of opening to deal with that.

after having an abortion either, can they?

Again, I will state that for the time being, I happen to agree with NSMA. The courts have to put the welfare of a child first....However, when you start thinking about the implications of a "level playing field" in terms of men's rights...kinda weird, eh?

I would say more reasonable would be the following

The man has 3 months or until the end of the second trimester to make such a declaration, which ever comes first, minus some slack time to permit an abortion should the mans decision affect her desire to complete the pregnancy.

If the woman fails to notify the man before the end of the end of the second trimester, minus some slack time to give the man time to respond, she waives all claims to child support on her behalf and that of the fetus.

Thereafter, all parental responsibility is deemed to be freely accepted and vigorously enforced by society.

Would a pregnant woman before being aborted be required to tell someone who she has recently, within the time frame, had sex with? Who would she tell? Who would enforce this? What if they barely know each other and he does not want her to abort it? What then? I would say no, the woman loses in every situation.

my proposed law isn't to protect the interests of the woman.

It is designed to protect the prerogatives (rights?) of the future child and also the man. I have seen situations where a woman appears out of nowhere with a child and suddenly wants support. This isn't good for the child and it isn't good to the man.

Also, I am not for allowing a man to prevent or force a woman to abort his offspring. However, I think he has an ethical right to know ahead of time and to make his opinions known (with words, not fists).

What is this "right to know" and where in the Constitution is this right referenced?

how often does this happen to how many men out of a hundred? Why am I not surprised that your proposed law doesn't protect the interests of women? Does it even protect the interests of girl children?

No one is saying the father shouldn't be informed. Back in the Jurassic before Roe vs. Wade many things happened that aren't considered ethical today. Many teen agers were wisked off to unwed mother's homes and coerced into giving the baby up for adoption because neither family wanted a scandal.

Many women opted not to tell the father because they knew he wouldn't care or would attempt to get out of paying child support by claiming he was only one of a gang bang that happened at that time.

For the few brave women who attempted to get child support from the courts, a string of men witnesses were paraded in these civil suits saying they had all had sex with that woman and anyone of them could be the father. Fortunately DNA testing today can pinpoint the genetic father.


Gimme a break. Giving life is a huge responsibility, but the fact is even in the best of marriages, the women will be giving 60% and more to the nurturing of a child. For this reason they need control over whether they will chose to go through with a pregnancy or end it. I even put more thought into adopting a kitten, examining whether or not I can give this little life a good home than many people do to having children.

to call this a "non-inflammatory question" and the only reason that adjective is there is because cbo KNOWS it is inflammatory.

cbo has been on a number of the women's issues threads, and each time s/he claims to have an open mind, but takes an inflammatory position.

And once again, we have a Republican policy (ie "personal responsibility") promoted, while the liberal policy (ie. "the equal protection of individuals rights" - and notice how there's no mention of how this protects anybody's rights) is ignored. This propoganda tactic is called "framing the debate"

obs will reply that this proposal would protect the father's right "to know" he's a father, but obs will never indicate where in the Constitution such a right is identified and protected.

or conservative advocating the legislation I am now proposing.

As far as the Constitution goes, I am asking if it should be a right, not whether it is already recognized as a legal right. I think my question is pretty clear on that point.

Oh, and hi again sang0. Nice to see you again.

Is that how it works?

Reoukes HAVE advocated the exact kind of legislation you are promoting here.

Also, you are being dishonest, again, when you say "As far as the Constitution goes, I am asking if it should be a right". You did no such thing. You asked if there should be a law, answered "Yes", and based your support on an imaginary "right to know". You asked nothing about the Constitution. Maybe you're just confused, but it was I that asked about the Constitution.

that required women to have to publish in the newspaper - in the area where they were residing at the time of getting pregnant - some kind of add to advertise the birth to see if a 'father' came forward? Did they have to do this if they sought welfare assistance or something?

I hesitated to reply but stuck my 2 cents in anyway. It is inflammatory. If the fetus could be transplanted into the mans body and the woman was free to go then we could discuss this.

Having gone through an unplanned pregnancy where the father decided he simply didn't want to deal with it and threw me out of the house (I didn't want to deal with it either but, as a matter of biology, I had to whether I wanted to or not). I've often wished I could have made him me just for one day, preferably toward the end of the pregnancy when it was the worst.

I LOVE it when men weep and wail and piss and moan about how their "rights" are nonexistent next to the woman's and how she has all the power and control, how the entire burden and fault should be the woman's when THEY also chose to have sex knowing the possible consequences, etc., etc., yadda, yadda, yadda. BULLSHIT!

I'm always surprised at the hidden misogyny in many DU men, this is the last place I'd expect to find it.

Excellent!

-- Allen

best of luck to you though.

based on current fact and law. The father usually has little protection on paternal rights and can't opt out if someone else decides not. The interests of the child is foremost and laws usually go this way because of the assumption the father makes more money. But other than that, the law considers the male less of a parent, good or bad.

and it's absence of reason is revealed by the need to invent a "right to know".

Though your other points about how the law treats men, they have nothing to do with mandatory notification or the imaginary "right to know"

over a child even if the father didn't know ahead of time about a child's existence? That was my point.

what the possible consequences of that are, doesn't he? I'm so SICK of men placing all the fault and burden on women. NEWSFLASH: we don't get pregnant on our own, fellas, we do have a little bit of help, you know.

are that if women decide to have unprotected sex, they should not be forced to carry and raise a child.

Should men be forced to pay child support just because they had sex?

(I think "yes" by the way, because of the welfare of the child. I keep adding that so I won't have to tell someone to go read my other posts.)

don't know where you get that from.

even if he didn't know he was a father.

Q: Now how does that create a father's "right to know"?

A: It doesn't. Constitutional rights, and the protections afforded them, do not come from other laws. They come from the Constitution, and the Constitution is silent on the issue of a person's "right to know"

but I can point out the lack of legal protection or power of parental choice.

but irrelevant to the issue this thread raises. Since this thread seems designed (by a poster who has since been tombstoned) to confuse the issues, I would appreciate it if you didn't contribute to the confusion. May I suggest that you start a new thread?

to my posts. I was a little surprised since I wasn't trying to stir the pot that much.

> There is certainly an ethical duty
> for a pregnant woman to inform,

Really? There is? WHOSE ETHICS might those be? Yours? === How nice that we get to create LAWS and PUNISHMENTS based on your high ethical standards.

> There should be an exception for men
> with a history of violent abuse, too
> so that nobody gets beaten up.

I don't think you've thought this through very well. What kind of "exception" is that? By the time the woman has been arrested for "failure-to-notify" and by the time the prenatal-police get around to determining whether the daddy qualifies as being violent... word is already out.

Must they have a document history? Who's to say whether they are legally violent or not? Maybe the pregnant woman knows better than what had (or hasn't) been documented.

Would the man have to show a propensity to violence BECAUSE she actually got pregnant? Or because she wants to terminate the pregnancy?

Who are you to make these types of decisions BY LAW for these women? What nerve! What gall!

This reminds me of all the bigoted and myopic right-wing fundamentalist Christian inspired laws that attempt to define and enforce their perception of "morality" on people.

How nice that we have such well-meaning people to do our thinking for us.

-- Allen

nor against Roe v. Wade. If reversed, you could see the quandry. However, men help shape the law and male judges as well as female judges rule against the male. So there you go. Having someone determine your rights with no say from you is never easy.

I've read (and re-read) your message and I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say.

I'm assuming that you meant to reply to MY message... but I could be wrong. If you meant to reply to someone else's contribution to this contentious thread, then your reply might make more sense (in that context.)

> If reversed,
> you could see the quandry.

If WHAT were reversed? The situation of the man not being informed, or if Roe v Wade were reversed?

I'll assume you're implying that if Roe v Wade were reversed then there would be some additional circumstances contributing to the 'quandary' of whether or not the father has the 'right' to be informed.

Quite honestly, I don't see the quandary. But Okay... I'll take you at your word... I'm willing to hear more. Can you elaborate, please?

> However, men help shape the law and male
> judges as well as female judges rule against
> the male. So there you go. Having someone
> determine your rights with no say from you is never easy.

I don't really know what to make of this either. I'm normally pretty smart and can figure things out... but clearly, you are expressing yourself at a level that's much higher than anything I can comprehend.

Could you elaborate on what your message was here? Also, can you tell me if it has anything to do with a woman's right to privacy and whether or not a man's so-called "right-to-know" is provided for constitutionally and whether or not it overrides a woman's constitutional right to privacy.

-- Allen

concerning an imaginary "right to know" or women's privacy. If you think men should have no rights in this regard, that's fine. They don't and my point was that men have been part of the decision making process which leaves men with little or no rights. If men don't like it, they should come up with solutions.

I understand the right of privacy if the woman doesn't want the father to know.

The whole point is that a father is not determined to be a father unless others want him to be or not.

I don't agree with you. Arguing at this would be pointless. But I understand your frustration.

-- Allen

in your pants if you don't want to hear the pitter patter of little feet attached to someone calling you daddy!

LOL! I love that, what an image that conjurs up! Sounds like a repuke's wet dream.

Right wing argument number one.

The men chould NOT have to pay child support because the woman gets the choice to carry or not.

Right wing argument number TWO:

My taxes should NOT go to pay for a procedure I am morally against.


BOTH OF THESE ARGUMENTS WERE USED BY REAGAN AND THE FAR RIGHT to underund AIDS treatment ala THEY HAD THE choice and acted IMMORAL.

We have some VERY regressive progressives on this board.

It APPEARS that almost every one of your threads or posts for the last 3 days has been on this topic. One that you started this morning was locked as flamebait, yet you come back with yet another. I am NOT saying this one is meant to incite, but I get a FEELING that you wouldn't mind if it did degenerate. I especially feel this way after reading your posts in the Editorial thread.

Mods, I don't think I'm personally attacking this poster, just making an observation/offering an opinion. If I'm wrong, please delete this post and accept my apologies...

what we're talking about. Maybe an ex is pregnant, he didn't know, and she's demanding support, or maybe his SO is pregnant and wants an abortion and he doesn't, etc., etc. If that is the case, I do feel bad for him and maybe if he opened up we could try and help him.

God knows none of us want to exclude the opposite sex from the discussion but every time they come in we lose, well some of them anyway. This is a horrible thing to live through or even contemplate but none of us would be so callous as to not help someone going through this, even if they did not agree with us. Pain is pain.

s/he seems to be tombstoned now.

I still see his/her posts...

Never mind, I see it!