When one refers to "choice", does it means womens choice only?

I mean, is there a "choice" for a man in the relationship when the couple finds out the woman is pregnant? Does the man get to choose whether to have the baby or not?
Sure, in a perfect world, both people would discuss it rationally and come to a mutual decision, but in most cases, especially when the mans desire is opposite the womans, it is the womans decision.
As a pro-choice-er myself, I think thats the way it has to work, but what about when the woman wants to keep the baby and the man does not? That is a lifelong obligation that the man has no say in. Please dont give me the old "he should of thought of that before he had sex...." line, cause the last time I checked, it took two. (And Im not talking cases of rape or incest here, folks)

then he must sign off on his parental rights.

Even if he wanted to do that, the woman can still get child support.

The *child* gets child support. The non-custodial parent, whether male or female, makes thier payments and the custodial parent, whether male or female, is obligated to spend that money on the kid.

The child deserves support whether it was wanted or not, once it exists it has needs the same as any other kid.

"The child deserves support whether it was wanted or not, once it exists it has needs the same as any other kid."

Here's the crux of the issue, though--by that logic, it's okay to force the guy to pay up, even though he didn't want a child. How is that different from forcing a woman to bear a child she didn't intend on? Either way, you're imposing a burden on them that they did not want.

By that argument, one could assert that the only way to make it a fair choice for all would in the cases of disagreement, the baby must be kept. (NOT my opinion, by the way!)

It's one of those questions that, contrary to what the absolutists here would like to believe, doesn't have a simple answer. The only real answer is the same as it is for the larger abortion issue: people have to find their own answers case by case. There's no one-size-fits-all solution, despite the insistence of some.

You're looking at two different issues.

Jim and his girlfriend Jane have just discovered that Jane is pregnant. Both have right of input, but Jane gets to make the final decision to have the baby or not because that baby is resident in her body.

At the point that the child exists, it has a right to support whether it was wanted or not. At the point that the kid emerges from the vagina, it's officially no longer about the parents anymore. It doesn't matter who lied, who cheated, who messed up the birth control or who wanted the kid. At that point, the kid exists and the diaper service doesn't pay for itself.

"but Jane gets to make the final decision to have the baby or not because that baby is resident in her body." Yes, and I agree with you.

"At the point that the child exists, it has a right to support whether it was wanted or not." Only if the woman decides to keep it. This is where my question comes up.

"At the point that the kid emerges from the vagina, it's officially no longer about the parents anymore." Yes, but the decision was made 8 months earlier by only one person, yet it affects all 3.

Just as soon as men grow uteruses, they can have all the fun of unplanned pregnancies and abortions too. Until then, just be glad that the biggest effect an unplanned pregnancy is likely to have on you is cutting a check every month (provided anyone makes you bother, a lot of men still don't.) :shrug:

"just be glad that the biggest effect an unplanned pregnancy is likely to have on you is cutting a check every month"

WOW!!! Im flabbergasted! Thats the part Im talking about! Its not right! Its the way it is, yes, but its not right!

When you haven't had a free moment to shower for three days, you're suffering from postpartum depression, your tits hurt and you're wondering if you're getting mastitis, you're still passing clots, your kid's got colic and you're not sure if there's enough change around the house to buy another pack of diapers, that's not right. Having to pay out less than the payment on a cheap car so the child you fathered doesn't go without isn't "not right" that's just being an adult and taking responsiblity.

Cause thats where you are right now...off on a tangent! Im not questioning supporting an already born child. Read my original post, or better yet, read my replies to you thoughout the thread.

Do men get to force the women in thier lives to abort, or just abandon responsibility for thier children? Because those are the only other options.

Were damned if we do and damned if we dont! Dont want the baby? Were making her abort. Want the baby? Were making her keep it against her will. Is there a way for a man to atleast be on equal ground here? Maybe.

Woman wants baby and man does not, he should be able to opt out of responsibility. (If this option is exercised, the woman should understand the ramifications of her decision, ie. not financial support)

Man wants baby and woman does not, man is out of luck but can find a woman who wants to have a baby.

Seems like that the only fair way to me.

No matter what the circumstances of the child's conception, once it's born it deserves support.

For the last time. I AGREE!!! But we are talking about the circumstances of conception here!

responsibility for an unplanned pregnancy. Well, that means that a few months later there's a kid with no support, it's a lifelong decision and not a frozen moment in time.

But I also said the woman must understand the ramifications of attempting to bring a child into the world that only SHE wants. Giving birth is now, and always should be, the choice of the woman, no doubt about it. But if she CHOOSES to have a baby without a father, that too is her decision.

No matter what the circumstances of it's conception, the child is entitled to support. The opinions, wants, desires and future plans of the parents are secondary to the child's needs.

Any man who could even consider abdicating responsibility for his offspring or condone that behavior in others needs to turn his balls in at the front desk, because he's not an adult, not a father and not a man.

If you and I met in a bar, got drunk and had sex (comments not neccesary, its just hypothetical) and you found out 3 weeks later you were pregnant, REGARDLESS of what I wanted, you decided you were going to have the baby, would you would expect me to "be a man" and step up and take responsibility? If so, where does YOUR responsibility begin? You know nothing about me, whether I even have a job and can support a child, whether or I not I will be a good father, whether I will be ANY of the things "an adult, a father and a man" are supposed to be, and yet you still choose to bring a baby into the world. That doesnt sound very reasonable or responsible to me.

Both biological parents have a financial responsibility to the child absent any prior agreement to the contrary (as occurs with sperm donation, for example.)

Read my post again, please?

It's not to the guy in the bar, who is presumably an adult and can protect himself from the consequences of his actions.

Heres the question I posed to you...

"where does YOUR responsibility begin? You know nothing about me, whether I even have a job and can support a child, whether or I not I will be a good father, whether I will be ANY of the things "an adult, a father and a man" are supposed to be, and yet you still choose to bring a baby into the world. That doesnt sound very reasonable or responsible to me."


Can you respond to this, please?

Of course that's your hypothetical scenario and not entirely realistic as most unplanned pregnancies are the result of sex within relationships and not drunken one night stands.

Two to make the pregancy in the first place.

And two to rear the baby.

Your baby (DNA), your responsibility as well as hers.

Once the pregnacy is an established fact, it is too late to say you don't want to play.

because you could CHOOSE to wear a condom and not face financial liability for producing a child you did not want.

Once that child has been produced, you are liable. Suck it up.

Oh, and stop whining about wearing condoms. It's better than 18 years of child support payments should your one night stand or casual fling decide to go through with it when your selfish disregard for her health creates a pregnancy.

baby is a person in his/her own right and both parents have the responsiblility to give that child the best he/she can give. Whether you wanted a child or not.

Do you really believe that the woman most in cases like this who decided to go through with the pregnancy really wanted to be tied down by a child?????

Get real. In most cases, the woman is conflicted about abortion, while believing in choice would need a very compelling reason to opt for abortion.

The fact that daddy might be inconvenienced by having to cut a check every month or even by giving time to the child doesn't weigh very heavily against ones convictions.

Let's face it, MOST of the world's children were unplanned. And I doubt if the news of a majority of those pregnancies was welcome.

Once the decision to carry a pregnancy to term is made, the adult and mature thing to do is to put aside resentments about being tied down and welcome your new son or daughter into the world.

You'll grow to love them very quickly, I promise.

And what if the new daddy doesnt grow to love them. You promised they would! What id they grow to resent the child and the mother? You promised it wouldnt happen! What now?

That baby didn't ask you to be irresponsible with your procreative powers.

If you don't want a baby, then take matters in hand, so to speak, and stay away from situations that can create a baby.

Or get a vascetomy.

How about getting to know a woman, and her intentions, before getting intimate. When in doubt, use a condom. "Choose" to use a rubber.

Of course, condoms are fallible, also (as are most things in life).

Wow, this uncertainty is scary for guys isn't it? Reproduction Worries are what fertile, sexually active women deal with regularly. In real life, not just hypothetically, as I suspect of the OP.

(edited for boldness)

You feel that just by being a woman, you got the short end of the stick (I don't agree and have a big problem with this).

So you think that men DESERVE to pay a monetary penalty for having sex, to justify the pregnancy issues??

What petty bullcrap.

have to monitor their cycle every month, sometimes worrying if they might have gotten pregnant, then being thankful when their period comes around, and, repeat....

What LeftyMom said is true: ...be glad the biggest effect an unplanned pregnancy is likely to have on you is cutting a check every month....

rd_kent, Have you ever wondered what you would do if you were a woman? You obviously have no fucking clue.

of the father. Bringing a child to term does put the life of the mother at risk. The "burdens" imposed are not the same.

Only a tiny, miniscule fraction of pregnancies are dangerous. You're trying to dodge the question. If the burden were greater on the man, would it then be okay for him to require the woman to bear the child? How much money would that cost? You wouldn't accept the "greater burden" argument if the roles were reversed, but you find it perfectly okay as long as it favors your viewpoint.

You wouldn't accept the "greater burden" argument if the roles were reversed, but you find it perfectly okay as long as it favors your viewpoint.

Sez who?

You?


Only a tiny, miniscule fraction of pregnancies are dangerous.

Not so, friend.

Only a small fraction of pregnancies result in immediate, serious physical injury or death.

All pregnancies are risky. (And many pregnancies lead to circumstances in which women's lives are shortened, or perhaps just women made unhealthy and unhappy, as a result of poverty and isolation and other disadvantages they would not have suffered had they not had an unwanted child, but we'll leave that aside for now.)

Like my sister's famous pregnancy. "Normal" and very healthy all the way through, attended by doctors and midwives at every step of the way. Not the tiniest indication of problems on the horizon, other than a touch of gestational diabetes. (Oh, that's right; some women do acquire rather serious medical conditions during pregnancy that sometimes do have lasting effects on their health, not to mention life expectancy.) Too healthy perhaps; it turned out the fetus was humongous and just wouldn't come out, despite hours of hard labour. A century ago, my sister would have been dead, and there would have been no baby. In the dying years of the last century, the doctors had a vacuum thingy that got it out when she'd turned down forceps and they were just about to do a caesarian section. (Oh, that's right, you know: major surgery, with all the attendant risks of infection and what not.)

No one could have predicted in a million years that my sister's pregnancy would become life-threatening in its last hours. Nor could anyone have predicted that the woman in the next room would come close to bleeding to death when she haemorrhaged after a routine episiotomy. Nor did my friend's niece in Africa expect to die of a post-partum haemorrhage around the same time. But she did.

So we have miraculous modern medicine, and if she'd had that haemorrhage in Toronto instead of in the back woods of Cameroon, she would probably have lived. I wonder what circumstances you might like to have forced on YOU against your will that might land you up in a situation in which it takes a good helping of modern medicine to keep you alive ... and it just might not.

So I wonder what you might have had in mind when you said that stuff about "If the burden were greater on the man". I wonder just what such a burden might be. Maybe compelling him to donate part of his liver to save his child's life once it's born? That might be approaching comparable. But oh, that's right; we don't do that.


I do hate to come late to these discussions, but they're just so damned much fun I can't resist.

These are potentially real scenarios being discussed.

Here's the crux of the issue, though--by that logic, it's okay to force the guy to pay up, even though he didn't want a child. How is that different from forcing a woman to bear a child she didn't intend on? Either way, you're imposing a burden on them that they did not want.

Uh huh.

And if I force you to eat Cheerios for breakfast, and you force me to work 12-hour days in the fields six days a week for no more payment than the food and water I need to stay alive, well how is that different?

The burden that is imposed on an unwilling father is a financial one, and yes, that does amount, in a sense, to compelling him to work. Although, strictly speaking, where I'm at in any event, no one is ever compelled to work in order to pay child support -- precisely because that would amount to slavery or indentured labour. A child support debtor can be imprisoned for failing to pay amounts s/he has been determined to be capable of paying or failing to disclose assets or income, but not for not working.

The burden that is imposed on an unwilling pregnant woman is a physical and mental one; it involves risks to her life and health, and forcing her to accept those risks is a violation of the right to life and the right to security of the person, in addition to a violation of the right to liberty. And the consequences really are at least somewhat more severe than the consequences of a child support order, if not actually fatal.

There is no point of reasonable comparison between prohibiting a woman from acting on her wishes about whether to continue a pregnancy and prohibiting a man from acting on his wishes about whether to be a father.

Both may have similar reasons for their choice -- but the consequences of disallowing the choice are vastly different.

And it is the consequences of the state action, not the motivation for the individual action, that are relevant in deciding what the state may and may not compel individuals to do. An individual could have absolutely no good reason at all for doing something, and that would not mean that the state could compel him/her not to do it; and vice versa. Similarly, an individual could have very good reason for doing or not doing something, and the state could still compel him/her to not do or do it.

I happen to think that there is a strong argument for not compelling unwilling parents to pay child support -- whether it be a woman who relinquishes a child for adoption or a man who wishes not to be a father. And the very fact that the issue comes up in one of those cases and not the other illustrates the good grounds for that argument: a woman may relinquish a child to the state and have no further financial obligation, but a man may not do the same if the woman chooses to keep the child.

It's a strong argument to be made by anyone who also argues that there should be a guaranteed minimum income for children. The problem is that there isn't, and abandoning mandatory child support would kind of leave a lot of children in the lurch.

Children and fetuses are not the same thing. No one owes a duty to a fetus, and no pregnant woman owes a duty to any man in respect of her fetus. Parents, however, have, across times and places and cultures, been held to have a duty to their children.

So at present, it really isn't all that unreasonable to say that men are on notice that if they engage in sexual activity and father a child, they will be liable for its support. Is there a man alive who doesn't know this? The possibility of that liability exists every time a man has sex.

No undertaking by a woman to terminate an unintended pregnancy (or to act to prevent pregnancy) can be enforced against her by compelling her to terminate the pregnancy: that would be a violation of fundamental rights, and no rational and decent person would consider such an approach. And certainly no such undertaking can be enforced against a child, who gave no undertaking at all.

It's a complex matter, basically because people are doing things that result in a duty being owed to a person who does not exist at the time they do them, and when they have committed no wrongdoing of the kind that is ordinarily needed if they are to have liability to someone. Nobody can be "liable" for having sex they way one is liable for driving a car -- having sex does no one any harm; driving a car can and often does.

Paternal support obligations have historically been how the welfare of children, and thus the survival of the species, has been ensured. Is there a better way of doing that? I certainly think so. And actually it was practised in early cultures where the product of individual effort -- hunting and gathering -- went toward the general welfare of the group and not just to nuclear family units. Economic diversification, labour specialization and capital accumulation put an end to that.

So we're really not about to go back to providing cradle-to-labour-market food, clothing and shelter for children at public expense in the near future. It does really take a village, but the village isn't interested right now.

Y'know what men should really be clamouring for while we're waiting? All the things that women need in order to be personally, socially and economically successful and still have kids. Good basic education, job training and opportunities for advancement, child care, jobs that pay decent wages, health care, maternity leave for childbirth and a reasonable period thereafter (and, importantly, paternity leave so that the entire burden of time-outs from the labour market does not have to fall on women), job security ... all the things that make a society livable and its members healthy and productive. Give a woman equal pay for work of equal value, and the supports that are needed for child-rearing, and you'll have more successful women, healthier and more successful children, and fewer whining men.

Well, of course you'd still have all the whiners who think everybody should pay for the roads they drive on and all the other public services they use daily, but they shouldn't have to pay for anybody else's kid to eat. Which is of course the bulk of the population in the US these days.

Meanwhile: no. To compare mandatory child support with mandatory pregnancy and childbirth is to make one's self look just a tad silly at best, and even more nastily self-centred than somebody whining about taxes.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

So I would think that she has the upper hand in deciding whether or not she wants to terminate the pregnancy or even allow the pregnancy come to full term, it is her body and she should be allowed to make any decisions what to do with it.
I do think that both should talk about and try to come to a reasonable decision, though it would be hard to do so.

Blue

The woman SHOULD have the final say so, but what if the man does not want to have it? The decision she makes affects just more than her and the baby, it affects HIM for the rest of his life.

her life too.

I've known too many women who have had children with the men never once suggesting abortion who have then or later been abandoned by the dear daddies of their children. Unfortunately, the dear daddies also abandoned their children. Trying to get child support out of a person who is determined not to pay is an experience that people who have not been there or who haven't been close to the process probably wouldn't believe. It's pretty futile.

If you don't want the baby, don't do the deed or make damned sure that the deed will not result in a pregnacy. Using more than one type of contraceptive can decrease the odds of birth control failure astronomically.

Bottom line, the child carries your DNA, you pay (and not always in monetary ways), whether you are male or female. Whether you or she wanted an abortion or not.

I'm assuming these are your sentiments: The woman SHOULD have the final say so, but what if the man does not want to have it?

Well, if this were a real-life decision, you would hopefully be working it out with the pregnant partner. It's clear to me that you have never been in this situation.

or shave your back? How about get a vasectomy? Better yet, can your government tell you when you can and can't do these things?

that a man should be able to force a woman to have an abortion against her will, and if she refuses then the consequence is that he gets to walk away scott-free from his obligation to support a child he fathered?

I'm just concerned mostly about when a woman wants to keep the baby but a man does not, he has NO choice in it and yet is responsible nonetheless.

Be Prepared!

If the man is serious about wanting to avoid a pregnancy then he needs to make sure he has a condom available, and not totally depend on the woman to have all the bases covered.

But what about when it fails to do its job?

Condoms can and do fail. It's better to be sure, e.g., vasectomy or non vaginal sex, if abstinence is not an option (and for most people it isn't, but it is 100% effective against pregnancy). I know that is not what you want to hear. Unfortunately, it is the cold fact. :nopity:

While women can have sex all they want and have abortion as a fallback option, men should suck it up and have SURGERY if they want to have sex and not have a kid.

who haven't wanted to become moms have been doing for years. Provide your own reliable birth control or practice abstinence.

Bottom line, the woman gets to make the choice because it's her body that has to carry her baby or not and she's the one who is most likely going to take the primary parenting role if the choice is made to carry a child to term. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Ma Nature, 'cause she only saw fit to bless half of us with the equipment to carry and feed babies.

Better yet, go read this post, because 1. It's from a guy who gets it and 2. As usual he explains things better than I do. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=611066

While the post you pointed me to does have its merits, the gist seems to be that all the responsibility is the mans job. That when a man has sex, he should be prepared to have a child. I say BS to that!

Once the kid's born it's needs are primary over the wants of the parents. If you don't understand and accept that, call up a clinic because you really ought not to be running the risk of fathering a child you aren't willing to care for.

I agree that once the child is born, both parents need to be responsible. Im talking about when the decision to keep the child is made after conception.

support. Whether the father is ready for daddyhood or not, whether he has better things to do with his money or not. Because he's an adult and as a society we need to protect the needs of children over the wants of adults.

I already agreed with you, numerous times already, on this point.

Lets talk about my original question......the inequality between men and women on the choice issue.

Trying to make it more fair for men would hurt women and children. So men have to be, well, men and suck it up and deal.

By that rationale, I should be able to say women should be, well, women and do what they are told.

:rofl:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You want to focus on the "wronged" man but not the consequences of his legally sanctioned irresponsibility toward his pregnant partner or thier child. I'm not going to let you look at part of the issue and restrict the debate to that tiny sliver, no matter how much you want to or how much it serves your argument to do so.

Welcome to DU. :D

"...the inequality between men and women on the choice issue."
:rofl:

(self edit)

further funding and on the market.

:toast:

That you can **** anyone, anytime, with no chance of pregnancy or disease, no disrupted social standing?

Good luck in fantasyland. Please, for everyones' sake, stick to porn.

Get cut, turn gay, or become a priest.

Otherwise, you are--as they say--asking for it. The laws and the current societal norms are stacked against men in this area. The woman has more rights than the man when it comes to deciding on whether or not to become a parent. The man has seconds to make that decision; the woman has months.

There are many women who see child support as a man's punishment for leaving or as payment for sex. I don't like either, but that is the way it is and if you are going to go out sport-fucking, you gotta look out for number one.

Sport-fucking!!! Havent heard that term in a while!
Yes, men who are casual about sex (and most of us are ;) )they should be looking out for #1. Ensure that you use BC (properly) and maybe be a bit more discriminate in choosing a partner. But what you said makes my point. The cards are stacked against men! Thats just not right!

Note I did NOT say "No sex."

If not becoming a father is that important to you, it should be important enough for you to take personal responsibility and prevent it from happening. It's up to you.

In life in general? I feel so bad for you. :cry:

Then they would never **** you. Problem solved.

:spray:

"The man has seconds to make that decision; the woman has months."
The man has had DAYS to purchase a condom and take it with him, just in case. A man who is caught in a bad situation will blame the heat of the moment. A woman caught in a bad situation will often also blame the heat of the moment. It's true.

"..the woman has months."
Well, I suppose the woman has months to make the decision, IF she has already conceived, and IF she might consider abortion. For some individuals, abortion is not an option.

"gotta look out for number one."
Good advice for men or women in non-committed relationships. The guilty partner will likely leave you holding the bag, so-to-speak. Don't count on anyone to be there the next morning.

STDs and being viewed as a sleazy individual are also hazards of promiscuous behavior. (Not judging, it's true.)

(edit for spelling)

You're going to get the crap flamed out of you by the reactionary screamers here--the people who go nuclear if you don't conform to their every little nugget of dogma. There's a crowd on our side that's nearly as bad as the Freepers when it comes to reasoned debate.

TMI ALERT.
Almost was in that situation meself (test was negative) but realized that if I chose to have and keep the kid, I would be ON MY OWN.
Prospective dad wasn't ready, willing or able to take responsibility.
Yes, there are legal ways to obtain material support (and for him to weasel out of providing it), but do you want your kid having a father who resents his/her very existence?
Probably better no father at all, IMHO.
(ended THAT relationship right there...:eyes: )
Again, TMI...this very situation happened with ex-partner...his ex-wife (not moi this time) wanted a child, and it was a unilateral decision. He doesn't dislike the boy...
but a love/resentment relationship is not what I would call healthy.
Yes, the kid has Issues. :shrug:

Don't want the risk of having to TAKE CARE OF THE CHILD (which support payments are), then ultimately, don't have recreational sex with strange women that you don't intend to support. Bottom line.

Unless you are infertile, have your tubes cut, etc., if the WOMAN decides to carry the fetus to term, then the focus is on the CHILD until that child is old enough to fend for itself.

Sorry if some don't like it. That's reality.

"Don't want the risk of having to TAKE CARE OF THE CHILD (which support payments are), then ultimately, don't have recreational sex with strange women that you don't intend to support. Bottom line."
So, the choice to have sex is the mans and the choice to have babies is the womans? Is that right? Cause last time I checked, a woman had alot to say when it came to having sex, even those who have recreational sex with men. Matter of fact, except in cases of rape, women have the final say so when it comes to sex.

Kent, you're right. It's monumentally unfair. Furthermore, for a woman to flippantly say; "Tough! He should have kept it in his pants!", is bullshit. In all fairness, if SHE wants to carry the child to term, over the strenuous objections of the father, then it should be HER problem, not his. If she wants a kid, then let HER support it.

Unfortunately, there's no way around the basic problem here. No matter how much of an manipulating bitch or irresponsible asshole the parents are, the kid is stuck here, THROUGH NO FAULT OF HIS/HER OWN.

Life isn't always fair. In fact, it's hardly ever fair. It'd be great if there was a way around this dilema, but there isn't. And yes, Men get the short end of the stick, because it's entirely possible for a man to be denied any visitation rights and STILL have to pay child support, along with a host of other unfair consequences of human biology and the realities of civilized societies.

So basically, you're absolutely correct and it absolutely doesn't matter.

the ultimate responsibility for one's behavior is with oneself. I just posted the non-vaginal sex option that a man could take if he didn't want a vasectomy.

We are supposed to all be big grown ups here. Taking personal responsibility for prevention of a pregnancy means just that. And it is truly up to the individual, when you get right down to it. Whatever else the woman does, or society says, or the courts, the bottom line is always with the person engaged in a behavior that puts him at risk of an accidental pregnancy. Yes, it takes two to tango but if the woman gets pregnant, she must either undergo an abortion (not without pain and expensive) or have the baby which entails 9 months of pregnancy, labor and delivery and a child to care for. What you and the OP are suggesting is that she gets one of those consequences and the man just, well, walks away.

You said:

"What you and the OP are suggesting is that she gets one of those consequences and the man just, well, walks away."


Your statement is factually incorrect. I did not suggest any such thing.

and I think you'll see my point.

The bottom line is that you and the poster feel that the situation is "unfair" to quote you. But if you REALLY didn't want to be a parent, you wouldn't put yourself in a situation where that could happen. You would take every precaution not to be a potential parent. The woman won't get pregnant. There will be no problem with child support because there won't be a child resulting from your behavior. THAT is what is fair.

No... I don't think I will EVER see your point, because your point is based on something I never said.

and "bullshit" that men should have to take responsibility for a pregnancy they never wanted (but helped produce)then I presume you would like a man NOT to be forced to pay child support or have anything to do with the raising of the child. To me, that pretty much suggests being able to just "walk away."

But I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Tell me what IS the man's responsibility?

You're going to give me the benefit of the doubt? Gee. Mighty caucasion of ya'. :eyes:

I'm always so grateful when people generously offer to not hold me responsible for their own mistakes.

Here's the problem Yankee...

When I made my original post I explained my position clearly. Unfortunately, while I can explain it for you, I cannot understand it for you.

Given that there is nothing particularly obtuse about my post, I suspect that your consistant misinterpretation of it is not entirely accidental.

Or to put it differently... Have you READ my post?

Then I guess we can't discuss the ethical side of this problem.

That is too bad. I really believe in everyone taking personal responsibility for their behavior, whether it is overeating, smoking, drinking or sexual behavior. I am not a prude. Sex can be joyful and wonderful while taking personal responsibility for what happens as a result.

I have taken your post, and that of the OP, on their face. You have denied that. Fine. In my life, I took responsiblity for the lives of 3 children I helped create. I know what that feels like.

I can't tell you more than that.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"It'd be great if there was a way around this dilema, but there isn't."

Well, I have been trying to point out that there IS a way around this dilemma. You don't want to be a father, then you don't engage in behavior that would put you in the "dilemma" as you put it.

Now, I have quoted your words and explained my opinion about what you have said. How is that my "reading comprehension" problem?

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

for being a reasonable adult man, who can see the woman's side.

Some guys get laid.

OhioNerd, have you ever been in this situation, just asking....
I'm suspecting there has been a recent talk radio discussion regarding bitches being ho's. I'm thinking Tom Leikis (sp)....

If you dance to the music, you must pay to the piper.

It's a fact of life.

Despite your agreement that the woman should make the ultimate decision, you seem to be saying that if you don't want the responsibility of fatherhood, then the mother of the child should either have an abortion or set you free from that responsibility.


Frankly, your arguments leave me feeling a bit :puke:

I guess it is true that women, in general, are more mature than men, in general.

"you seem to be saying that if you don't want the responsibility of fatherhood, then the mother of the child should either have an abortion or set you free from that responsibility."
I couldnt have summed it up better.

BTW - I love the puking smiley!!! How does one get those things to come up?

you must see that new life through to the point where he/she is old enough and competent enough to care for him/herself.

I sincerely hope that you do not father any children. You posts color you as too inately selfish to be even an indifferent father.

I've known plenty of guys who got a girlfriend/one-night-stand/casual sex partner pregnant. They didn't like it much. They lived up to their responsibilities by either marrying (almost always ended in divorce) or arranginge child support and visitation schedules and found that the unwanted pregnancies resulted in something irreplaceably precious. (In one family members case, twins that he didn't find out about until they were six months old. He now has custody of them.)


The smilies: on the post form in the upper gray area there is a hyperlink that says Smilies lookup table
( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=emotion_table )

Click on that when you want to add an emoticom (smilie), then click on the smilie you want to add. It will show up in the body of your post where you want it.

My posts about "walking away" were just vindicated.

What's it to you anyway, buddy?

If a couple has sex, and the man wore a condom, he condom fails, and the man does not want the baby, could he sue the condom manufacturer and make THEM pay the child support? After all, he used the condom on the basis of the condom's claim of contraceptive effectiveness. Or do you then have to determine if the condom was used correctly, and fits into the 85-97% effectiveness rate? Would the manufacturer only have to pay 15% of the child support, since that would be the amount of their liability?

But how would one PROVE the condom failed?

That was about 10 years ago, and I am no longer up to date on the law in that area. I recently heard reference to a claim for "wrongful life" where a vasectomy failed, and the child was born with a serious inherited disease.

Sex is a crapshoot when it comes to how partners will react to unplanned pregnancy. Some people who thought they didn't want to have a child discover that they now do - and vice versa. As long as abortion is legal, one partner can try to persuade the other to have one. But it will ultimately be the woman's choice. Absent a vasectomy , you cannot eliminate the risk of impregnating someone, and you will not be able to predict with certainty how your partner will react to becoming pregnant. In other words, there are some very enjoyable activities from which risk cannot be eliminated. For example, I scuba dive. I enjoy the thrill of occasionally encountering a shark. I would love a guarantee that I will never encounter bull, white or tiger sharks (the 3 deadliest), or that if I do, they will not harm me. But my choice is, to accept the risk or give up diving. I'm still diving. (Next trip, Montserrat).

I hike, and understand the risks of falling off a cliff or getting eaten by a cougar. I also kind of get annoyed when people quote statistics about this kind of risk - they'll say "well, you're more likely to get in a car accident on the road going to the trailhead than get attacked by a (insert dangerous wild animal here). But I have to wonder - among HIKERS, the risk is actually much higher. For example - I don't scuba dive. i don't go in the ocean at all. My risk for getting bitten by a shark is 0%. but you - you have a different statistical category than me. So for you, depending on where you dive...maybe you have a greater risk of shark bite than car accident. Know what I mean? Anyway, quite a tangent. Have fun in Montserrat. I'm off to Zion in a few weeks to hike the Narrows. Hope I don't get caught in a flash flood...

I can only assume you didn't really mean to ask a question. You seem to have meant to make a statement. I think what you meant to say in your OP was "The man doesn't get to choose whether to have the baby or not and that's "not right"."

Why bother asking a question when it's clear you believe you already know the answer? Kind of passive-aggressive if you ask me. Why not come right out and bitch about how unfair it is to men that women have the final say when it comes to whether or not a pregnancy will result in a baby? (I know that whole women having the final say really makes a lot of people nervous. It's a power thing.)

If I wanted to just post my rants and bitches without feedback, I put it on a webpage. I wanted to know how others feel about it.

Because my sovereignty over my checkbook isn't as important as my sovereignty over my body, basically. The state has not been granted the power to tell someone what to do with their body, but we have granted the state some power to tell us what we can do with our money.

No one can force me to stay with a woman I got pregnant, or be a father in the child's life. They can just force me to pay to support the child. Incidentally, if a mother runs off and leaves her husband and kid, she can be forced to pay child support too.

It can be uncomfortable to talk about responsibility because that's often a club anti-choice people bash women over the head with, but men and women have a responsibility A) not to have unwanted pregnancies in the first place and B) to care for children they create.

Freedom of choice does not imply that responsibility doesn't exist, just that government enforcement of it would be simply too intrusive to be tolerable. Since that intrusion only affects someone with a womb, it doesn't apply to men (I'm reminded of "The Life of Brian" here).

You make it sound like terminating a pregnancy and carrying it to term are two choices like turning right or turning left at an intersection. The woman is pregnant. She and the father have had sex. In that sense, they have already chosen (leaving aside rape) to have a child. The woman *may* choose to terminate that pregnancy, but that's a separate issue. They are both already responsible for the child, but you cannot force a woman to keep a baby inside her without making her a slave. You can, however, force either a man or a woman to financially support a child they had without making him or her a slave.

nt

Gotta say I love it here, though I've already been consigned to the Gungeon for some of my views :) I can't believe I never heard about this site until now.

I wish I could recommend just this post!

If you are cohabitating or in a relationship then there is an implied agreement/responsibility. Your example of a one night stand should free you of any financial obligation. This is only my opinion of course. I do not think this is a question of choice in the way you framed it, but a legal matter for the courts to decide.

I have seen too many men get trapped and too many women and children be abandoned by irresponsible men to think there is simple answer to your question.

"Your example of a one night stand should free you of any financial obligation."

If the woman gets pregnant, why should the man not be held responsible? Was he incapable of making a rational, ethical response to his situation? Are men not to be held as responsible as women? If so, why not? Are not both partners in a one night stand to be held equally responsible? And if equally responsible means the woman has to endure an abortion or 9 months of pregnancy, childbirth and the raising of a child, what is the responsibility of the father?

Please explain your rationale.

that sex between adults is not only for procreation.

don't want it to happen. You cannot ignore that reality. Undertaking sexual intercourse involves that risk.

All I am asking is that men, as well as women, look at their actions in a realistic, and mature, way. If you want to have sex, fine, but just understand that there are consequences which you might not wish to face, but that are there nonetheless. That is what mature adults should be about, IMHO. Childish avoidance is not acceptable.

that tries to say that not having sex is the most responsible. Perhaps we should all have to sign a contract first.

Don't get me wrong, I think deadbeat dads are the scum of the earth, but if we are to say there is no such thing as casual sex then the sexual revolution was a waste of time and ALL women become potential ball and chains to men. It also makes prostitution the most viable option for men who want casual sex and again sets us back to the days of labeling women--good girls(potential mothers/wives)and bad girls(prostitutes/whores).

Thats a great way to put it. Casual sex can end up with very non-casual consequences. My original question is about just that. How can a man have a choice in the very non-casual consequences that arise from casual sex?
Thats the question Im trying to get answered.
In my mind, with the system we have in place today, men do not get a chance to make a choice. Men are only allowed to give their input and hope for the best.

that is sucks not to have choices. How long were women "only allowed to give their input and hope for the best?"

Our system today is a lot better than it was, but is not perfect. Ironing out the wrinkles is what progress is all about. Unfortunately, some want to throw away the shirt.

it can still involve the risk of an unplanned pregnancy. All I am saying is if a man knows he does not want to be a father, he knows (or should know)what to do about it. But barring abstinence, which I agree is highly unrealistic (altho 100% effective), you then have to look at risks involved in other forms of contraception. That is where you have to take a brutally honest look at your own behavior: are you doing everything in your power to prevent your becoming a father inadvertently. If not, why not? Isn't that what you want NOT to happen?

" That is where you have to take a brutally honest look at your own behavior: are you doing everything in your power to prevent your becoming a father inadvertently."

While youre statement is true, the only way to do EVERYTHING in your power to prevent it is not to have sex. That is not an acceptable option for 99% of the human race. I think that if you do take precautions before having sex, such as using a condom and/or utilizing female contraception, THAT should be enough to tell your partner that you do NOT want a child. If said partner agrees that the current amount of protection being used is adequate then that partner cannot "change their mind" when they find out a child has been concieved and want to keep. If said partner WANTS to keep it, then said partner should fully expect to bear ALL of the responsibility.

"the only way to do EVERYTHING in your power to prevent it is not to have sex." Now c'mon, you know all about vasectomy and sex that doesn't involve sperm meeting ovum. You can't leap over those options to abstinence only.

Look, I am not advocating anything more than complete honesty with oneself, man or woman. That's it. I know that is not what you want to hear, but there it is.

and their sex educators were brutally honest with teens about risk taking (a lot of these kids were badly informed about sex or not informed at all). I know what I am talking about. The sex educators I interacted with (I was in Development and passionately raised money for their work)talked about abstinence, non vaginal sex and contraceptives and their relative effectiveness in preventing pregnancy. They also talked about removing any stigma about masturbation. They did NOT introduce shame, repression based on religion, prudery or any of the other unhealthy attitudes about sex.

So you can rest assured that I am not against people having sex. I am saying that any sex you have can involve risk of disease or unwanted pregnancy. That is not the same thing as saying (to quote you)"not having sex is the most responsible." Yes, abstinence is 100% effective, but it is unrealistic to think that healthy individuals will be abstinent all of the time. I am pleading for people to inform themselves about risk and take the proper precautions. Get medically accurate information and act like a responsible adult. And what is "casual sex" to one person, may not be for another. I am not making judgments, just saying "look at the facts and be a responsible human being." That goes for women and men equally in my book.

both males and females make. I think both parties are irresponsible if no birth control/protection is used. Still, we hear about cases where BC does fail for one reason or the other.

What other options does a man or a woman have? Now you have to confront other risk factors. It isn't what a lot of people want to hear. They want to hear they can always, in everything, have their way. You know and I know that is not possible!

I dont know if there is a websters entry for it, but I think most adults can agree just what is meant by "casual sex." And having said that, having casual sex, while a very risky behavior, should not incur a lifetime of burden just because one person feels differently from the other AFTER the casual sex took place.

that we can all agree on what is "casual sex". Not after reading this thread.
(I would hope that guys use condoms while soliciting hookers).

EEEEEWWWWW!!!!!!
Do you guys listen to Rush and/or other gross talk radio vomit hustlers? That's gross.

Men, do yourself a favor: try to be appealing to women. And to women: try to make yourselves appealing to men.

Like the truth, or don't like it, it's still true.

That's why family planning and ALL forms of birth control need to be available.

..birth control, contraception, family-planning is a necessary part of the sexual scenario. Sometimes the woman can't/won't do it, and in that case, the man needs to take reproductive control.

(I like that phrase...REPRODUCTIVE CONTROL...for men and for women! Not just for women anymore, it's for men, too.)

He can give advice, but in the end, it is her body and the final decision ultimately rests with her. She is risking her health and her life. He is not. The pregnancy is in her body.

In a perfect world, all men and all women would have perfect communication and both would feel the same about a pregnancy. In that same perfect world, no woman would ever conceive if she didn't want to. In a perfect world no woman would ever be raped, no child would ever be molested, no boyfriend would ever dream of hitting the woman he loves.

We don't live in a perfect world. We do have rapists, we do have child-molesting relatives, we do have abusive husbands and boyfriends, we do have untrustworthy people that there are people trying to legislate that we trust.

No law should ever be passed that dictates who you turn to in times of trouble. If you DON'T turn to your boyfriend/husband/parents, there is most likely a damn good reason.

Life's not fair. In the case of a disagreement, someone has to "win" and the woman gets to "win". Only in a heavily patriarchal society is this hard for many people to take and really digest.

This is about equality, not winning. I would just like for men to have the same opportunity to have an equal say about the "choice" of bringing a child into the world. A mans choice should not begin and end at sex.

choice has to prevail. And it's the woman's choice who prevails. Would you rather they flip a coin?

"A mans choice should not begin and end at sex."

I just don't understand your point.
What do you propose for 'man's choice'?

(edit for clarity)

You sound "intellectually dishonest", as the phrase goes.

Having a pregnancy is the not the same thing as having a child. If an individual does not want to have a CHILD, they need to make sure that they use the birth control available to them so that the pregnancy never occurs, or is not carried to term. Right now, women have five types of BC: abstinence, various contraceptives, female condoms, surgical sterilization, and abortion. (As ugly as it is to think about it, abortion is basically a form of birth control...it controls the likelihood of a baby popping out of a woman's vagina in a few months.) Unfortunately, men only have three types: abstinence, male condoms, and surgical sterilization. If men want more control on whether or not they have an unwanted CHILD, they need to lobby for more male birth control.

Once the birth of the child occurs, it's no longer a matter of choice for the woman or the man. The child is there, and needs care and support.

If you don't like the fact that men have less options for contraception, lobby for more...but in the end, the women will always have the final say because she is the one that is going to have to carry the physical responsibility of the PREGNANCY.

"...but in the end, the women will always have the final say because she is the one that is going to have to carry the physical responsibility of the PREGNANCY"

I understand and agree with that, but if she chooses to carry out the pregnancy against the wishes of the man, the man should have recourse.

Women do all of the physical work in a pregnancy...that's not fair for her. Men have less options in contraception....that's not fair for them. It's unequal in it's very nature, and will continue to be until a man can successfully carry and pregnancy to term and deliver. The only responsible recourse is for each person in the relationship to make sure that they use the contraception available to them if they don't want a child to take care of in the future. Sorry.

they would have them by now? Of course they would. They got Viagra, and that's fine since I think every person should be able to enjoy sex as long as they possibly can in their lives. But men have largely been in control of pharmaceutical industries and so there has to be some suspicion about why this kind of R & D into male contraception hasn't been vigorously pursued.

Kinda makes ya wonder, doncha think?:shrug:

You might want to do some research before you spin conspiracies. They've been testing products like that for years. But it's not nearly as easy as you make it out to be, since you can't just turn male fertility on and off like a light switch without potential long-term repercussions.

And exactly what the hell are you trying to imply here? That there's some massive male conspiracy to make sure that only women can get contraception? Are you actually suggesting something that silly, or are you just throwing out allusions and innuendo in order to make men seem somehow nefarious.

Gee, I don't know, we can send a man to the moon...

I am sure that there is difficulty in finding the "right" male contraceptive. I am just wondering that with all of the advances in technology, especially in the area of the human reproductive system, we haven't made this "breakthrough."

No conspiracy here, just common sense. No I don't think that the pharmaceutical companies have an incentive to do this, frankly. They operate on a profit motive. If they sensed that a new male contraceptive would be a big seller, how much do you want to bet that they would find that contraceptive? Business is business in our capitalist system.

Just specticulatin' here, but maybe there's a sense that since women have all these options, why bother?:rofl:

Then there would never be another child born ever again! OK, thats a reach, but the birth rate WOULD drop dramatically, say down below 50%. Of that I have no doubt.

Ever seen that bumper sticker? Not to be flippant, but there is a grain of truth there.

This is just another reason why men should be just as proactive with birth control as women. Men have a lot at stake in an unwanted pregnancy. I wish men would be as active in demanding access to birth control and family planning options.

We women can't win the fight alone. Indeed, we are losing the fight for reproductive rights.
Guys, if you care about family planning, let your voices be heard!:pals:

EVERY person should have the choice to determine what happens to their own body, regardless of gender.

EVERY person has the choice to donate blood, or not donate blood
EVERY person has the choice to have surgery or not have surgery
EVERY person has the choice to take a prescription or not take a prescription
EVERY person has the choice to use birth control, or get sterilized, without needing permission from someone else.

Pro-choice means you believe the individual has the right to make their own choices, their own medical decisions, and should not be forced to surrender that decision to another individual.

and the issue here is what happens when an individual causes the creation of another person. The examples you listed are those that affect the individual's body and I agree with those examples. However, this whole argument is about child support (or, perhaps in some cases, whether a child should be born --- I suspect it is more about men having to pay child support, tho!).

As you can see from my posts, I am advocating personal responsibility in sexual acts and that makes some people here crazy.

I too, advocate personal responsibility, and that plays right into what Im concerned with. If, after conception, a woman wants to KEEP the baby but the man does NOT want to, why is the man still held accountable for something the woman only gets to decide. What id the woman wants to abort but the man want to keep the baby?
Sure, we can discuss all day about ways to prevent getting to this scenario in the first place, but thats not why I posted the question in the first place. Its about the inequality between what "choice" means when dealing in the context of abortion. I feel that in THIS context, "choice" applies ONLY to the woman.

for many men is paying for child support when they did not want the pregnancy to continue, not if they wanted the child but the woman didn't (especially in the context of casual sex, which has been addressed exhaustively in this thread). In a conservative, right wing forum I can imagine there would be men who would never consent to a partner's abortion, but not likely here.

However, because men do not share the equal burden of pregnancy and birth -- and never will -- we must grant choice to the woman. We can get to equality where we weren't before in many things -- such a the draft (I favor drafting women if we ever have a military draft again, on the grounds of equality), and job equality such as entrance requirements to nursing school. But we can't do that with pregnancy. Women alone experience it. Men don't.

So we're back to the child support issue. As other posters have pointed out, there is now a 3rd person that must be considered, a child who needs support. There we can have, and should have, equality of the sexes in providing that support. Women as well as men should be subject to child support laws.

Again, I know this is not what you want to hear, but when you get right down to it, it is the reality.

It is the reality and it sucks! We must take care of our children, no doubt. But that still chaps my ass that when a couple is at the point of deciding whether to have a child or not, only the woman gets to decide, yet the man has to live with and pay for that decision.
AT this point, I think we have both made our points and are beating a herd of dead horses right now. So, unless you feel we need to continue? Thank you for your time. Have a nice day!

In the context of THIS discussion and topic, we are referring to the choice of continuing with a pregnany or aborting it.
My original question asks that (in the context of this discussion) choice applies only to women and not to the man who bears the other half of the responsibility.
Read through the first post and maybe a few more, then lets talk.

not choice as to whether to support a child once reproduced.

See post 115, I dont feel like typing it all again

is that life isn't fair. In most cases, women get the short end of the stick. You can't take away the risk of pregnancy, the stretch marks, the morning sickness, the engorged breasts, etc. And in this case you get the short end of the stick. The fetus is in a woman's body, therefore she gets the choice.

And "life isnt fair" is not an answer.

Only she has say over what happens to her body - whether or not she continues a pregnancy, whether or not she has a medical procedure such as an abortion.

BUT if a child is created, then both parents have an obligation to financially support that child unless they agree together to place the child for adoption. Any dispute between the parents isn't the child's fault, and the child shouldn't suffer financially because of choices beyond his/her control.

So he is accountable because he is a father and there his child needs financial support.

There is no answer that would make you happy, short of "yes, men have just as much right to control a woman's reproductive choice as the woman does."

Unfortunately, since men can not become pregnant, they don't get to decide whether to carry to term or abort. It isn't a personal choice that will fall on your shoulders.

No one is saying that you can not share with the woman you impregnated your thoughts on carrying to term or aborting, but in the end, it is the woman's body. The final decision rests with her.

Nothing I've said here is original and can't be found in this thread already. But perhaps it bears repeating. I know you don't like "life isn't always fair..." but there is no other answer that can satisfy the question at this point in time. Sometimes the final decision doesn't rest on us. We may not like the situation, but we can not always change the way things are.

Are you pro-choice and do you respect the concept of a woman's right to her reproductive choices? If you do, then your question and the following statements seem to be contrary to your pro-choice beliefs. If you're not pro-choice, and are pro-birth, then you need to state so up front and honestly so that the responses you get are more tapered to what you actually believe.

I didn't say all this to start a flame war with you. In fact, I have a policy that I don't respond to flames any longer. They take up space and are generally pointless. However, I do believe your question was already answered by you before you typed the first word.

The current system IS sexist against men. IMO, if they guy doesn't want the child, and the woman can get an abortion and she refuses, the women shouldn't be getting child support. Men have just as much right to not be parents as women. It seems like all that is said is bashing men about not keeping it in our pants and yet there is no similar statments towards women about not sprading thier legs, it's hypocritical.

It is the child that gets the support. And the responsibility falls equally on women and men (women can be "deadbeat parents"). Both the man and the woman played a part in creating the child, and both must support that child. That is not a male bashing argument.

In addition, unless the woman gives the child up for adoption, in which case the child support issue is moot, that woman is raising a child, day in and day out. What is REALLY sexist in our society is the devaluation of the work of raising children and that is primarily because women to a large degree are the child raisers (although there are some inspiring and outstanding examples of men raising children alone). Raising kids as a single parent is not easy. I believe raising children is the most important job in the world. After all, look at the consequences to society in the nurturing (or not!)of the next generation!

So, this is not a "flame" to you. It is, however, a slap on your wrist and a "shame on you" for not seeing the big picture. Think bigger.

"It is the child that gets the support. And the responsibility falls equally on women and men (women can be "deadbeat parents"). Both the man and the woman played a part in creating the child, and both must support that child. That is not a male bashing argument."

But the big difference is that the legal standards that apply to the mother and father in this case are completely different.

That is, the mother is allowed to parent the child as she sees fit without the intrusion of a third party for the most part, while the father's is regulated by both the mother and the government. Also, her parental rights are Constitutionally protected while his are for the most part contractual.

Second, the mother has financial freedom to make choices in her life. That is, if she feels it's best to vary her income -- like making significantly less to work a job that's better for her personally or to go to school, that's her choice and she and the child adjust accordingly.

The father on the other hand has to basically get permission from a court to make significantly less and while the question is being avoided here, it is extremely difficult to get downward modifications in child support. Usually cases of trade workers such as in construction are allowed to vary their income seasonally.

What is your interest in this matter? Of course, you don't have to answer, but just the fact of your asking draws attention to you.

The intent of child support is not to pay for the daily needs of the children (in most states), but to raise the standard of living of the children in the custodial household. That's why things like daycare and school tuition are added on in addition to the standard guideline.

Of course many mothers receiving it will sacrifice any personal comfort for themselves and put it all toward the child, others may use it greedily. To simply hold the belief that all child support goes right to children, to me smacks of a belief in the moral superiority of women which I don't believe. Women as a group are wholly more complicated than that.

Also, If a man with grown children is in arrears the arrearage is paid to the custodial parent, not to the grown children who by your argument are then owed the money.

I noticed you haven't bothered to respond to any of my posts. I'm having mildly hurt feelings after having my insightful posts ignored. Could it be that I'm just too reasonable?

I think not! None of your posts dealt with the question posed in my OP.

Ah....well, I am apparently wasting time by being involved in this conversation. You obviously know everything about reproductive choice.

1. JUST SAY NO TO SEX WITH PRO-LIFERS.
2. Get to know a woman and her reproductive intentions before having unprotected sex.
3. Read #2 again
4. Read #2 again, then read #1 again.

Basically, that's what I posted.

what woman of sane mind would want to keep a baby whose own father doesn't want it? What sane woman would want a baby with an A-Hole of a father?

#1. JUST SAY NO TO SEX WITH PRO-LIFERS. (bumper sticker truth)
#2. Get to know a woman and her reproductive intentions before having unprotected sex.

I've struggled with this question for a very long time and still have not reached a stance.

I can understand both sides of this argument.

to abort or not should be curtailed in the name of 'fairness' to men. That the whole child support argument is a red herring in this discussion. Otherwise, your argument that men should be able to opt-out of child support is unnecessary. Some men don't pay, and every woman who has faced pregnancy has (or should have) considered the idea that she may be the sole financial responsiblity for that child, given that life is unpredictable.

The title of your post suggests that you believe that having the right to choose is unfair to men, no matter what her choice is, simply because men don't have an equal say in the decision. The only 'fair' answer to your argument that excludes all the points given that you didn't want to hear, is to disallow women to choose. If we can't make the choice a win/win solution for both parties, by focusing exclusively on fairness to both parties, the only reasonable solution is one that is 'lose/lose' and that serves no one.

Take your anti-choice crap elsewhere. Your idea of what's fair compromises my sister's health.

:applause: :woohoo: :patriot:

I couldn't agree with you more. See response #137 above. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=217x3924#4075

:bounce: :applause:

Very well put.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

when he has the baby.

I'd like to start by saying first that I am pro-choice.

And second, as the father of a little girl I find the debate to be a tragic one in a way.

But that said, I think there are some important points being missed here, though I haven't had a chance to read every post.

First the argument isn't really about abortion per say -- it's about children who've already been born.

Second, women actually do have the right to sever parental ties and responsibilities after the birth of a child, no questions asked. According to Safe Haven laws which nearly all states have (44 I think) a woman has the right to drop of a baby at designated dropoffs like hospitals and fire stations no questions asked. So women do have a legalized opting out in a given timeframe. Now I understand that it's not most women's first choice, but it is in fact a legally sanctioned option to deny parental responsibilities. So this isn't really how men's choice compares to women's choice as much as it is a men's version of Safe Haven laws.

Third, many here are mentioning how many men still don't pay child support and that simply writing a check in no way compares to the responsibilities and hazards of motherhood. That's true to a point, but I also think there's something else at play here.

Over the last several years, the child support enforcement system has become incredibly brutal and in fact, most who aren't paying child support aren't because they live below the poverty level. The left truly has a split personality when it comes to this issue since we so quickly embark on a mission to give voice to the poor and people of color -- that is except when it comes to this issue in which case we have about as much compassion for the poor as Ronald Reagan. Any coincidence that he coined the term "Deadbeat Dad?"

Add to that the fact that the law hardly enforces any non-custodial parents' rights -- male or female, but mostly male -- and you end up with a situation where men are arguing to opt out of their childrens' lives financially.

It's just like most other trends in history where people begin to get desperate and ugly. it's usually a reaction to being brutalized in some other way.

Whether or not one agress with Roe v Wade for men or not, I think that the one-sidedness of the dialogue and the utter absence of the slightest compassion for the plight of men and fathers in our society in a way creates the environment where someone argues this case.

The original question was, as follows:
When one refers to "choice", does it means womens choice only? I mean, is there a "choice" for a man in the relationship when the couple finds out the woman is pregnant? Does the man get to choose whether to have the baby or not?


According to Safe Haven laws which nearly all states have (44 I think) a woman has the right to drop of a baby at designated dropoffs like hospitals and fire stations no questions asked.
The Safe haven Laws also had much to do with young couples (both the male and female) dumping the baby in dumpsters and other locations. Yes, since women are the ones that actually give birth, there are more women than men who have dumped their baby. However, there ar plenty of young teenage boys who have also been a part of dumping their baby. The Safe haven Laws has no gender attached. If a woman abandoned her baby with the father, he could use the Safe haven Laws. If a mother left her baby under the Safe haven laws and the father found out and wanted to claim the baby, he could.



Third, many here are mentioning how many men still don't pay child support and that simply writing a check in no way compares to the responsibilities and hazards of motherhood. That's true to a point, but I also think there's something else at play here.
Writing a check in no way compares to the responsibilities and hazards of mother or fatherhood. However, in the end, simply because of biology, women tend to form a bond with their born baby that makes it harder to walk away. That is not saying that fathers can not form equally strong bonds, but there is something about having something in you body that makes the body more immediate.



Over the last several years, the child support enforcement system has become incredibly brutal and in fact, most who aren't paying child support aren't because they live below the poverty level.
Ok, I'm going to need a link to prove this theory. If you can prove it, then that is another discussion, but I don't know this statement to be a fact. When I have the statistics from an unbiased source, then i can comment on... The left truly has a split personality when it comes to this issue since we so quickly embark on a mission to give voice to the poor and people of color -- that is except when it comes to this issue in which case we have about as much compassion for the poor as Ronald Reagan. Any coincidence that he coined the term "Deadbeat Dad?"



Add to that the fact that the law hardly enforces any non-custodial parents' rights -- male or female, but mostly male -- and you end up with a situation where men are arguing to opt out of their childrens' lives financially.
Can you reword this or say it in a different way. Perhaps it's just because it's Friday afternoon, but I'm not sure what you're saying here.


It's just like most other trends in history where people begin to get desperate and ugly. it's usually a reaction to being brutalized in some other way.
I don't find wanting reproductive rights to my body getting desperate and ugly. Perhaps I misunderstood your meaning. Again, it is Friday afternoon. I've been in a classroom all day calming kids with severe Spring Fever and counting the days until school is out.

Whether or not one agress with Roe v Wade for men or not, I think that the one-sidedness of the dialogue and the utter absence of the slightest compassion for the plight of men and fathers in our society in a way creates the environment where someone argues this case.
Roe v. Wade for men? When men get pregnant, abortion will be a sacrament (ok, not an original . Thank you national organization for Women!)

You asked for an unbiased link for the claim that most parents who aren't paying child support live below the poverty level. Well, given that unbiased sources on the subject are few and far between, it's actually taken me this long to track down some source information. Anyway, here's the link and you'll need to scroll down the page to find the claim:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2003/reports/arrears/

From the report:

"Preliminary Data Results
The final report that summarizes California's Collectability Study has not yet been released. However, some preliminary findings have been made available, courtesy of the Urban Institute. Highlights of the findings are as follows (1999 and 2000 data):

CA's caseload represents 12% of the national caseload.

CA's arrearage represents 20% of the total national arrearage.

Out of 834,000 NCPs, 22,000 were incarcerated (State prisons only.)<1>

70% of arrears is owed to the State.

70% of arrears is owed by NCPs whose income is less than $10,000.

25% of NCPs who owe arrears had no recent income (2 years back.)

The average arrears amount is $17,000.

For NCPs with an income between $1,000 and $5,000, the average support obligation was $280.

For NCPs with an income between $25,000 and $30,000, the average support obligation was $360.

One-third of NCPs who report no income nonetheless paid some support (evidence of the underground economy?)

27% of the arrears total represents interest due on principal.

70% of debtors have wage withholding in place.

The median annual earnings of employed debtors are $14,110, compared to other State workers whose median annual earnings are $16,635.

The study's underlying data, and most critically the actual NCP income data, was applied to a microsimulation model to reach the key conclusion that California is not likely to collect more than $3.8 billion over the next ten years towards the $14.4 billion that was owed as of March 2000. The Urban Institute indicates that better results are doubtful even under an aggressive enforcement plan due to the fact that a relatively small number of low-income NCPs (earning less than $10,000 per year) owe more than $10 billion of the total debt. The Urban Institute also suggests that the factors sharing responsibility for the current crisis (among them the high default rate, inadequate modification services, retroactive support and the multiple orders issue) will, if not resolved, continue to advance the ongoing explosion in the overall arrears amount."

There was also a very similar study done in Michigan which came up with strikingly similar data. Unfortunately for some reason they've decided not to publish it to the web since I can't find it. Could it be that it's not in line with their plan to throw so-called "deadbeats" in jail when they fall behind a whole $500?

How many of these are men who wanted the children and how many are men who didn't? The OP was about men having a say in abortion rights of women. How many of these men really didn't want the child to being with and how many said they did and then, when the reality of a child became all too real, suddenly disappeared?

That is the question.

Yes. There are many who are poor and incarnated. But, how many knew they would have trouble paying and wanted the abortion and how many simply looked at the child as another notch in their ego belt at how good "their boys" could swim but never had any intention of assisting with their child after the child was born? This is the real statistic that matters. How many economically poor men would have supported the abortion rights of the woman and how many encouraged the birth, merely to take off after wards?




However, due to your response to me in post #163, I will no longer be responding to you. Refer to my responding post (#171) for further clarification.

Fair's fair. You asked me for an unbiased source on my claims, now I ask you for one for this one:

"The Safe haven Laws also had much to do with young couples (both the male and female) dumping the baby in dumpsters and other locations. Yes, since women are the ones that actually give birth, there are more women than men who have dumped their baby. However, there ar plenty of young teenage boys who have also been a part of dumping their baby. The Safe haven Laws has no gender attached. If a woman abandoned her baby with the father, he could use the Safe haven Laws. If a mother left her baby under the Safe haven laws and the father found out and wanted to claim the baby, he could."

From what I can tell there's been no follow up studies of the Safe Haven Laws and their effectiveness so if there has been, please back up the claim that many men are also involved in dropping these babies off. Next I'd like to see even a single occurrence of a man taking advantage of a safe haven law by himself. I'd argue that he'd be arrested on the spot for trying such a thing. But go ahead and please support the above claims. So far it's just hypothetical.

Another:
"Add to that the fact that the law hardly enforces any non-custodial parents' rights -- male or female, but mostly male -- and you end up with a situation where men are arguing to opt out of their childrens' lives financially.
Can you reword this or say it in a different way. Perhaps it's just because it's Friday afternoon, but I'm not sure what you're saying here."

What I'm trying to say here is that the NCP in a case like the Dubay case has basically no rights other than those contractually defined by the mother and by the state. We're not offering him some protected right to parenting and family (automatic in the mother's case) and through which he financially supports the children. We're saying here's the bill, and that's about it.

This test case and this attitude is occurring because in a situaiton like this, the father is given a Draconian enforced bill and pretty much nothing else. This attitude is the end result of 20 some years of total disregard for fathers' rights.

change that and the attitude will go away.

Do you think there are going to be news reports invading the privacy of parents who have abandoned their babies and then those who return to get them? That is all private. The most you will find are the laws stating who is protected under the Safe Haven Laws and the waiting period they have to change their minds. When these laws were first being enacted, did you ever read about the cases that led to them in the paper or watch reports on the television? Stories were all over about unwed teenagers and frightened women abandoning their babies. And there were also several young girls and young teenage couples charged with infanticide (or whatever the charges were called in their particular region of the country.) Naturally the majority will be women. We’re the ones that give birth. But you don’t honestly think that no men have ever abandoned their babies, do you?

"The Safe haven Laws also had much to do with young couples (both the male and female) dumping the baby in dumpsters and other locations. Yes, since women are the ones that actually give birth, there are more women than men who have dumped their baby. However, there are plenty of young teenage boys who have also been a part of dumping their baby. The Safe haven Laws has no gender attached. If a woman abandoned her baby with the father, he could use the Safe haven Laws. If a mother left her baby under the Safe haven laws and the father found out and wanted to claim the baby, he could."

Safe Haven Laws:
When the law first became enacted in California, I was quite interested because two couples at my university had abandoned their baby recently. One couple dumped their baby in the garbage dump in my apartment building. It was the one baby that survived. The news cameras were all over campus. As a journalism student, I was interested in following the story all the way to the conclusion. There were stories all over our local broadcasts about the mothers and young couples who had abandoned their babies in California in the recent past.

However, I knew that wouldn’t be enough for you. So, I called the district attorney’s office and asked them if a man took a baby into the fire department and left the baby, under the Safe Haven Laws, what would happen. I was told that he would be asked if the baby had any medical conditions and that would be all. I also called a family friend who is an attorney. They agreed with the response from the DA’s office. You can choose to believe me or not, but there it is. However, in the verbiage of Safe Haven Laws, all but 4 states recognize the fathers are entirely capable of using the Safe Haven Laws without the mother needing to be present.

I am puzzled, however, that you seem surprised that men also take part in abandoning their babies. Is this solely a female crime?

http://www.karisable.com/amybrian.htm
Brian Peterson and Amy Grossberg went off to a motel to give birth to a baby boy and kill it. The baby suffered multiple skull fractures caused by blunt trauma and shaking.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/27/killed.babies/index.html
Nearly 5 babies killed weekly, FBI data show
The number of infants killed has remained relatively constant since 1990, ranging from a high of 304 in 1991 to 249 in 1995, according to a CNN review of FBI data for the past six years.

Granted, this is an old article, but do you really think all these instances of infanticide were committed all by women , all on their own? Don’t you think some of these fathers knew the mothers were pregnant and that some of these fathers may be part of killing and dumping their babies?

From 2001:
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/547/context/archive
Across the country, mothers, many of them distraught teen-agers, abandon their babies with some regularity because they cannot or will not care for them. In a famous New Jersey case, Amy Grossberg and Brian Peterson were charged with slaying their newborn son in 1996--they tossed him into a garbage container.

This article brings up a very important issue. By abandoning the baby, does it allow the mother to keep the pregnancy hid from the father? Utah is attempting to solve this problem.

UPDATE: SAFE HAVENS FOR ABANDONED INFANTS
October 21, 2003
Utah has taken into account the father’s right to be a father if he so chooses.
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/ailaws.htm#Policymakers
Father's Rights
A few states require a check of the putative father registry and include provisions to contact the putative father, but most do not contain provisions to address notification of fathers who may not be aware of the child's birth. Critics contend that denying notification unfairly presumes that these fathers do not want to care for their children. Utah's legislation addresses this concern by requiring a search of the confidential registry for unmarried biological parents and requiring that notice be sent to each potential father identified in the registry. The termination of parental rights hearing must be scheduled as soon as possible if no one has identified himself as the father (or if the mother has not identified herself) within two weeks after notice is complete. If a non-relinquishing parent is not identified, the surrender of the newborn shall be considered grounds for termination of parental rights of both parents.


However, there are many states that have made their Safe Haven Laws gender neutral. There is an exception of 4 states that stipulate the mother must also be there.

http://naic.acf.hhs.gov/general/legal/statutes/safehaven.cfm
Infant Safe Haven Laws
State Statutes Series 2004
Author(s): National Adoption Information Clearinghouse
Year Published: 2004
Who May Leave a Baby at a Safe Haven
In most States with safe haven laws, a parent may surrender the baby to a safe haven. In four States (Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, and Tennessee),3 only the mother may relinquish the infant, while Idaho specifies that only a custodial parent may surrender the infant. Other States allow either parent of the baby, an agent of the parent (someone who has the parent's approval),4 or another person having custody of the child5 to take the baby to a safe haven. Five States6 do not specify the person who may relinquish an infant.

So, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota and Tennessee don’t allow the father the sole option, but Idaho, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, Wyoming California, Kansas Delaware, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, and New York do allow the father to choose the Safe Haven Laws.

Protections for the Parents
I pasted this section because it directly referred to his/her in reference to the parents.

Anonymity for the parent or agent of the parent may be expressly guaranteed in statute,10 or the statute may state that the safe haven cannot compel the parent or agent of the parent to provide identifying information.11 Some States provide an assurance of confidentiality for any information that is provided.12

In addition to the guarantee of anonymity, many States limit prosecution13 or provide that safe relinquishment of the infant is an affirmative defense14 in any prosecution15 of the parent or his/her agent for any crime against the child, such as abandonment, neglect, or child endangerment.

The privileges of anonymity and immunity will be forfeited in most States if there is evidence of abuse or neglect of the child.

Safe Haven Providers
I also pasted this section because it referred to the relinquishing parents, not necessarily the mother.

Safe haven providers include hospitals, emergency medical services, police stations, and fire stations. Generally, anyone on staff at these institutions can receive an infant, and the provider is authorized to provide any care and treatment the infant may require.

In many States, the provider is required to ask the parent for family and medical history information. In some States, the provider is required to attempt to give the parent or parents information about the legal effects of leaving the infant and information about referral services. In all cases, the relinquishing parent may not be compelled either to provide personal information or to accept the information offered.

The focus of these laws is protecting newborns, and in approximately 16 States,7 infants who are 72 hours old or younger may be relinquished to a designated safe haven. Many other States accept infants up to 1 month old,8 while North Dakota's safe havens will accept a child as old as 1 year.9


And are they working?
Well, I guess that is up for you to decide.

http://www.house.gov/ed_workforce/hearings/107th/sed/capta101701/weaver.htm
Debi Faris, Founder of the Garden of Angels in southern California, a cemetery for abandoned babies found in Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, believes the reported number of fatal abandonments is much too low. She says the number of babies found is just the "tip of the iceberg. Just think about how efficient the trash services are and how many trash bags never open." In the past four years she has buried 46 babies from those two counties alone. Since California’s safe haven law was passed, Debi has buried only three babies in the past eight months, which reflects a significant decline in fatal abandonments.

Of course, this is only the number of babies found. So, either they are hiding them better or less are abandoning them and more are seeking the Safe haven option.

From the same website as above:

A LOOK AT ONE PROGRAM - A HAND TO HOLD - A SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM

Our Belief

We firmly believe that if we provide safe, legal, acceptable, well-publicized places to drop off unwanted newborns quickly and anonymously -- just like foundling homes -- we will receive babies. That is essentially what we are trying to do and the concept seems to be working.

Background

Our organization started on August 23, 2000 with the help of Pittsburgh Mayor Tom Murphy, Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen Zappala, numerous volunteers and the participation of four Pittsburgh hospitals. Over the past year our organization has grown to serve three counties (Allegheny, Lawrence and Fayette) with a network of 19 hospitals.

EVERY YOUNG PERSON NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT NEW SAFE HAVEN OPTIONS

In the past two years, 35 states have passed safe haven laws. These laws have a variety of designated safe havens, drop off requirements and expectations for prosecution. Some states specify hospitals as drop off sites, others specify fire stations. Some states require the baby to be dropped off within 24 hours, others have 72 hours, and yet others have 30 days. Some states require the mother to drop off the baby, others allow a responsible person. Some state provide freedom from prosecution for the drop off of an unharmed baby, other states provide a defense of prosecution. Every young person needs to know about her/his state law and new options in order to make responsible choices for their infants. If they are unfamiliar with safe haven options we will continue to see babies abandoned.

Private non-profit safe haven programs to address the baby abandonment issue have only started emerging and many times these programs have initiated the new state laws. At this point some of the programs are expanding, collaborating, and sharing resources and ideas. These private programs are publicizing safe haven options passionately, efficiently and in some cases more effectively than state run programs (Texas). However, with limited funding the private programs have not been able to reach every young person.

If the private programs had better funding, they would be better equipped to provide the manpower and materials to reach and educate more young people that there is a safe, legal, and anonymous way to give their babies a future. Better funding would enable private programs to get the word out faster, reach more people and ultimately save more lives.

This states “young person,” not mother. They are including men in this issue as well. Why would they be including them? Well, because the law is gender neutral and because men have also abandoned their babies.



Notice the language- “parents”… not “mothers.”
http://www.robynsnest.com/safehavenupdate.htm

Parents will now be able to leave unwanted newborns at hospitals, police departments and staffed fired departments without fear of legal repercussions under legislation signed into law on Friday, four years after it was first proposed.
<snip>

The bill, which takes effect in 90 days, was proposed in response to tragedies involving frightened parents who have left children in secluded spots to die rather than risk punishment by delivering them to the authorities.



This is the best information I could acquire quickly. However, you are asking me to prove that men abaondon their babies and are covered under the Safe Haven Laws. Do a quick search on Safe Haven Laws are there is a myraid of information available, some biased, some not. This is from the most unbiased sources available. Since most of the programs are not fully funded (like most givernmental programs and private ones) there isn't the bredth of research to check it's full effectivness.

However, due to your response to me in post #163, I will no longer be responding to you. Refer to my responding post (#171) for further clarification.

First let me start by saying that I wasn't calling you a racist. Sorry if it came off that way. What I was pointing out is that as liberals we work hard to point out where racism, sexism and classism victimize segments of our society. The child support "crisis" as the numbers point out is largely created out of classism and racism since the great majority of those in arrears for child support are black men who come from a background of poverty with hardly a hope of ever keeping up or paying it back. So why the lack of compassion here? That's all I'm saying.

Second, you said:
"Do you think there are going to be news reports invading the privacy of parents who have abandoned their babies and then those who return to get them? That is all private. The most you will find are the laws stating who is protected under the Safe Haven Laws and the waiting period they have to change their minds. When these laws were first being enacted, did you ever read about the cases that led to them in the paper or watch reports on the television? Stories were all over about unwed teenagers and frightened women abandoning their babies. And there were also several young girls and young teenage couples charged with infanticide (or whatever the charges were called in their particular region of the country.) Naturally the majority will be women. We’re the ones that give birth. But you don’t honestly think that no men have ever abandoned their babies, do you?"

I didn't ask you to invade anyone's privacy. I asked for a source for the idea that you presented a couple of posts up regarding Safe Haven laws. I asked for a study that looks at it and if a child has ever been dropped off by a man. You still haven't answered that and if I'm correct, I gather from your response above that you don't plan on backing up the assertion meaning that it doesn't have a basis other than that you believe it.

Of course I know men have abandoned babies. That's not what I was asking. There's a difference between abandoning a baby illegally and abandoning a baby with the sanciton of the law. It's the latter I was asking about.

Rather than allowing men to opt out, how about this:

Let him opt IN!

Like I said above, I think the Left has a split personality where it comes to fathers' rights.

It seems so often that women's groups and the government want on the one hand for men to step up and take responsibility both financially and practically, yet at the same time demand to define pretty exactly on what terms that will take place.

Margaret Mead once said, "Motherhood is a biological fact. Fatherhood is a social invention."

I think a big part of this is as a reaction to having others define fatherhood without much input from the father himself. The other part of it is that yes, motherhood is a biological fact for the first couple of years, but in a species with a big brain and a childhood that now stretches about 20 years, most of the course of motherhood is also socially invented.

Think for a moment the difference between Cindy Sheehan camped out in Crawford and the Greek mother sending her son out telling him "Either come back with your shield or on it!"

What most parents do is a social invention that arises from time and place.

And what's so bad aboput social inventions? Medicine is a social invention too, isn't it?

Perhaps it was a social invention created by men in order to skip out on their responsibilities.

:shrug: Just a thought. :evilgrin:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I would say that fatherhood IS a social invention (a wonderful one). I would argue that human males have a social reason, and not much else, to stick around for childrearing. They got their DNA seed in place. What else do they care about? Well, for starters, human males should also care about the survival of their young, since they have the mental capacity to do so.

A LOT of human fathers are around to raise their offspring. These guys dedicate themselves as dads, partly because they know it gives their kids some advantages over fatherless kids.

Thanks for hearing me out. I think I'm being misunderstood here and I'd like to summarize some. Here's what I think:

1. No a man should not simply be able to opt out of taking care of the kids either financially or otherwise

Bu,

2. Neither should the government or the other parent be able to "opt him out" out of convenience and then process the next 20 years of his life through a draconian system that makes the Patriot Act look like an annoying traffic ordinance.

Because that's what's happening here I think. This argument is the end result of a very inappropriate gender bias in family law and I think that as liberals we need a lot of self-examination on this issue. For all the compassion liberals have in general for the downtrodden, there is surprisingly little around the mistreatment of fathers and family rights by our government.

I mean, who here doesn't see the similarity between a conservative telling pro-choice advocates "keep your legs together" and liberals telling men "keep your pants zipped?"

We all know that sh*t happens and sometimes a pregnancy is the result. As liberals we have all sorts of compassion for the women in this situation (appropriately), but why none for the men?

A useful exercise might be to google "Bradley Amendment" and maybe read up on some of the human fallout of the last 20 years of using impoverished fathers ejected from their families in order to get votes.

Then maybe question why "deadbeat dad" is the one quote by Ronald Reagan that a liberal might use.

after you have gained some useful "real life" experience. (However long it takes!)

You wrote "I mean, who here doesn't see the similarity between a conservative telling pro-choice advocates "keep your legs together" and liberals telling men "keep your pants zipped?"" which p'd me off. Try walking in the shoes of a woman for a mile, so to speak.

But, I think that yes, men are often overlooked in terms of family rights. Fathers are very important for kids.

When you get down to it, it's the womens choice. Men just pay the bill. Sure, men should have a say but that's about it.

I scour the net in order to find anti-choice discussion groups. I debate them constantly. They all have photos of aborted children as a weapon (shock) at their disposal. I was wondering if anybody knows where I can get a link with social services type photos of abused kids.

I remember one from social services a while back that showed an infant that had cigarettes put out all over her. I don’t want to sound weird but our side needs some shock photos too that show what can happen to children that are born to parents that think they are an affliction. That photo helped change me to become an activist for Pro-Choice.

I also need them to make posters for various anti-choice marches to counter their abortion photos. I need a good verifiable trail of their source too.
Thanks Much,

Pro-Choice is Pro-Life

I think you will have a hard time finding photos like that - I don't know this for certain since I'm not a lawyer but I would think that could be illegal, child privacy and all.

I agree that we could use some shock value on our side but we don't want to pander or exploit in the process. Maybe you could pursue something with women who have had botched abortions - at least they'd be able to give consent.

Maybe I could get an email list of older people who knows what it was like before Roe v. Wade. I'll bet they know some horror stories to tell. But it would never work as well as a photo.

....make sure you pick the states where abortion was illegal pre- Roe v Wade. There were several at the time where abortion was fully legal beforehand.

Just a thought.

Anti-choice zealots are too set in their ways. Trying to change their minds is a waste of your time.

I do encourage you to make your voice heard to your state Senators, Representatives, anyone who will listen.:D

I know what you're saying but I have successfully changed anti-choice types for the better (one was hard core as hell) and have made many at least understand our point of view. To them it’s all or nothing. I can show them differently.

if a baby results from my copulatory activities I am obligated to support that child - REGARDLESS. Besides what kind of man does not want to support his offspring once they are a fact?

the original poster would fit that description.

Very sad indeed. I'm glad Mr. kt has respect for me and my right to make choices regarding my body. He has a voice in our decisions, but he understands why reporductive choice is a woman's issue.

Life insurance on the "baby-daddy." If he decides he doesn't want to support his offspring, he is promptly killed, and the funds are used to take care of the child.

He'll probably only make that mistake ONCE.

:evilgrin:

:evilgrin:

I can't help myself -- I am indeed an Evil Genius! (Snicker)

:evilgrin:

:evilgrin:

We seem to have settled on whether or not a man should be able to financially abandon his child with an overwhelming "no."

So since that seems to be settled, maybe the flip side should be, "what rights should he have guaranteed based on that responsibility?"

those rights in a responsible and loving way he keeps them - same as the mother.

I think given the argument it's pretty clear that he doesn't have "the same" parental rights as the mother. I mean, first he's got to go to court and even establish a right to "visit" the child.

Actually he'll have few if any actual parental rights. If the mother agrees, he'll be allowed to visit the child, if she doesn't agree he's in for a long court battle which he's likely to lose. And even if he does win a right to "visit" the child and it's against the mother's wishes for whatever reason, the court is not very likely to enforce his right to visit.

He's also not very likely to have even a limited input as to how the child is raised and there will pretty much always be the presumption that the mother is allowed to move as far away with the child as she sees fit.

Now each one of those points is open to argument and I'm not here to argue their merit. I'm simply pointing out that in reality, he really doesn't have nearly the same rights as the mother of the child.

based on the best interests of the child. Anyway, I am speaking of the situation where the father fully accepts his responsibility to support the child - it is not likely that a judge will deny him parental rights - unless there is an abuse issue. And this is the same criteria that will be used in the case of the mother. If the support has to be gotten from the father kicking and screaming - of course that is not going to weigh well in his favor when it comes to his parental rights.

I guess I'm not understanding what parental rights are then. Could you please point out to me what the difference is between custody rights and parental rights and then maybe a quick list of what parental rights are? Being serious here. Thanks.

as long as that right hasn't been taken away for some reason. And thet right may indeed include custody rights as long as the custody question is not in dispute. For example if one parent dies, the presumption is that the surviving parent has custody unless someone disputes it for some reason. However, when there is a dispute, actual custody is awarded according to the "best interests of the child" as determined by a family court. Often in the past that meant the mother got custody because the family courts were biased in favor of the mother. But now sometimes dual custody is given or one parent or the other is awarded custody, based on the judgement of the court. In practice, mothers probably win custody more often than fathers, but not nearly as reliably as they did in the past. The same principle holds true for parents specifying guardians for their children in a will in the event of their death. The family court judge will certainly take the parent's wishes under consideration, but he/she is bound to consider the best interests of the child, even if that may conflict with the deceased parent's wishes in the will.