Men's-Rights Group Eyes Child Support Stay - Roe v. Wade for Men

Men's-Rights Group Eyes Child Support Stay

By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer
8 minutes ago



NEW YORK - Contending that women have more options than they do in the event of an unintended pregnancy, men's rights activists are mounting a long shot legal campaign aimed at giving them the chance to opt out of financial responsibility for raising a child.

The National Center for Men has prepared a lawsuit — nicknamed Roe v. Wade for Men — to be filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Michigan on behalf of a 25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter. The suit addresses the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.

The gist of the argument: If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose.

"There's such a spectrum of choice that women have — it's her body, her pregnancy and she has the ultimate right to make decisions," said Mel Feit, director of the men's center. "I'm trying to find a way for a man also to have some say over decisions that affect his life profoundly."

more...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060308/ap_on_re_us/fatherhood_suit_2

this will be good. :popcorn:

I'm taking a deep breath in anticipation of all that will come in this thread.

not to have unprotected sex........

and that's when he decides to control the process. If he decides to drop a load, then he relinquishes control over what happens to it. If a woman incurs risk to health, finances, social system, and LIFE because of his irresponsible approach to sex, then she SUES for damages, which are considerable. If she decides to opt for the safer option of abortion, that's her business, too.

Men need to realize that they are liable for this stuff and take action when they are able to, one way or the other.

In other words, guys, stop whining and put that condom on if you don't want to risk a child support lawsuit.

Jeez, what are we living in, bizarro land?

If you don't want to have a baby, just keep those legs crossed Missy.

the safest, most reliable form of birth control there is..........it's called the pill. Kept me from having any unpleasant surprises for 30 YEARS.

No need to insist on celibacy. If you want it for yourself, fine. You DON'T get to dictate it for others.

After my wife and myself had the two kids we wanted I had myself cut. I did not want my wife on the pill. I value her life to much.

I think the point is that men's "choice" ends at that point, and women's choices extend further. Women get to be the one to make the choice that significantly affects the lives of both.

I'm a woman. A woman who grew up without knowing the "absent" dad. I have 2 kids, grown now, that I raised myself, with no money and little time from their dad. It's not as if I don't know the ramifications.

There is a certain hypocrisy in protecting the choice of one gender but not the other. I may find the choice made by either to be personally abhorrent. It's not my job to make that choice for them, though, is it?

What people here aren't really paying attention to is the fact that this fellow in the suit was deceived and entrapped.
Women do victimize men. And society is set up to allow women to hold men accountable because years ago women didn't have a choice. But it's sad that to this day women feel like they have to be treated like a victim and given special rights. And The right to collect financial compensation for the burden of having been victimized into motherhood is exactly that. With the availability of abortion and the option to avoid that responsibility, a woman needn't hold the man responsible for her decision to carry the child. If she wants the child, she should be aware of what she's getting into. If the guy's an ass to begin with, then why would she want him in her child's life? I know I wouldn't.
That said, I have no love for the deadbeats who abandon their families - men or women - and leave one parent to struggle with raising a kid alone. But in that case, the struggling parent has indeed been victimized.

I'm very impressed that you have been so strong and capable in raising your kids. By your example, I'm sure they either are or will be very independent and successful. Well done.

Now I get hammered I guess....

I will never understand the mentality of someone who does not get that

Child support is not about women, it's not about men and it's not about "victims" or "special rights" - IT'S ABOUT CHILDREN

"It's ok, we don't need protection" Then have sex with him. Find out I'm pregnant. And after he tells me he's not ready to be a dad, nor can he afford the responsiblility, I can just say,
"Well too bad... I'm holding you responsible anyway."?
Are you so naive to really believe that women don't entrap men? They do.

Child support is fine for deadbeats who don't respect procreation and just go around knocking up girls, but it comes from the notion that a woman is 'victimized' by being saddled with a kid. It is an acknowledgement that she is handicapped and cannot handle the situation without such aid. If abortion weren't availble to women the way it is today, then I would have no problem having this guy pay, but that's not the case.
Instead we have to assume that she is incapable of raising a child without 'support', sorry but that's treating women like we're handicapped.

Why should I be able to bind someone else to my decision against their will for doing the exact same thing I did when I and only I have the option of releasing myself from that responsibility?

Some women believe "equal rights" means "special dispensation to take advantage of others", and while I believe that the child support system is a good thing, I don't understand how women can think that it's a good thing to be able to entrap someone in their own decision.

he is obligated. He made the decision to believe you. He CHOSE to trust you but ultimately ONLY HE IS RESPONSIBLE for his own sperm. Entrapment is the lame ass excuse of the woefully irresponsible.

Why do you still not get that this is not about the custodial parent (male or female)? Say it with me . . . child support is for CHILDREN. CHILDREN are entitled to the support of BOTH of their parents now matter how stupid those parents may in fact be.

Your take is simplistic.

Perhaps I'll be back to expound.

"Why do you still not get that this is not about the custodial parent (male or female)? Say it with me . . . child support is for CHILDREN. CHILDREN are entitled to the support of BOTH of their parents now matter how stupid those parents may in fact be."

There is no such thing as a single parent who can adequately provide for their child?

These discussions implicitly assume some 'average' case. But there is no such thing. When 'exceptions' are raised or extenuating circumstances are proposed, the advocates for some imposition of the Power of the State cast them aside claiming they're irrelevant or some 'small part' of the issue. Well, another word for 'small part' is minority. I call myself a liberal because the rights of minorities are important to me, irregardless of whether I'm in that minority or not.

Law is a very blunt instrument, often as likely to create a greater injustice as a lesser - and surely a great injustice to those in the minority who were deemed inconsequential exceptions in the headlong rush to feel good about 'solving' some issue with a law.

I think of men who are inclined to be the custodial parent. Nowhere in any of these discussions has any acknowledgment been made to the possibility that the choice a pregnant woman makes might include giving him custody ... and even possibly paying child support herself. That seems to be a convenient omission. It's never mentioned. In the universe of choices, isn't this (assumed) minority to be regarded?

Exceptions from the 'average' are legion. In situations where the wisdom of Solomon is often required to deal with but a single individual instance, I pale at the arrogance that would lead us to believe we can deal with all the varying situations as though they were uniform and commoditized. They aren't. Almost nowhere is the potential for perpetrating grave injustices higher than in dealing with human reproduction and the life of a child, a mother, and a father. (Somehow, I doubt that the life of the father is rightfully to be regarded as inconsequential in this triumvirate.)

If there's anything that makes anti-choice legislation illicit, it's the presumption that we can apply cookie-cutter commodity-thinking to something as varied and inherently private as human reproduction. To assume the 'left' can't make a similar error in thinking is profoundly arrogant.

Real life rarely offers up stereotypical "average" scenarios, in my experience. You refer to a "touchy" issue here. If we don't thing the rw is "right," we can't just be the mirror image. If we say we stand for something, we need to think the whole thing through and make sure that's what we really mean. And then back it up.

I wonder if there is anyone who does not know, personally, of one or more grave injustices done to, or by, someone they know in the reproduction/parenting arena, and what role "choice" played in those scenarios.

When it comes to a woman it's "her body her choice"
But a man it's "Should use a condom, his choice to have sex."

We're not talking about rape here, we're talking about consensual sex.

I've felt this should be a law as well.
I've heard stories about a woman stabbing holes in her boyfriends condom (with a needle so they are barely noticeable) so that she can get pregnant and guilt trip him into marriage. Also of cases of the a married man NOT wanting children and the woman does the same thing, or lies "I'm on the pill" to trick him into getting her pregnant.

Honestly, that baby is 50% ours. Without a man you COULD NOT HAVE A CHILD (even in-vitro requires a man at some point and time) so if you can choose to abort the child, we should be able to choose not to support it if you go through with the pregnancy.

"Honestly, that baby is 50% ours. Without a man you COULD NOT HAVE A CHILD (even in-vitro requires a man at some point and time) so if you can choose to abort the child, we should be able to choose not to support it if you go through with the pregnancy."

name a way a woman can have a child without sperm (no biblical references please) and then I will say what I was saying was a joke

Men shouldn't have the "choice" of taking care of their child or not..

I'm gay, but I'll pretend to be straight for a moment.

If I get a woman pregnant, that woman is carrying MY child. half of its DNA came from MY sperm. That child is HALF mine. If it wasn't then there wouldn't be custody battles in divorce court.

For a woman to have the ability to have an abortion without the fathers consent I see that as wrong. You are destroying something that is queally mine as well. yes it develops in your body for 9 months, but there would be nothing to develop if it weren't for my half of the DNA. If a woman can choose to abort a child without the fathers consent, then a man should have the equal right to not support the child if she goes through with the pregnancy.

If I ever got a girl pregnant and she didn't want it, I would tell her, and mean it I would care for the child. She could walk away and never have to see or hear about that child again, I would fully raise it and pay for it, and care for it myself. That is my religious, and more importantly MORALE stance on the situation. I could never be one of these deadbeat dads who leaves their kids, but with that I could not just sit their idly by and let my child be aborted because the other person decides they don't want it.

yes it takes two to take two to have a child, and each take an equal risk in the matter of the woman becoming pregnant. Fact of the matter is I would be fully ready to take that chance if she Did get pregnant, and to do the fatherly/Decent man part in that situation.
If the woman did not want to take that chance, she SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD SEX!!!!! There is no other way to put it. Again this discussion is not about rape, its about consensual sex. In this case the woman has JUST AS BIG A ROLE IN THIS AS THE MAN!! She didn't want to get pregnant, she shouldn't have had sex period.

"If a woman can choose to abort a child without the fathers consent, then a man should have the equal right to not support the child if she goes through with the pregnancy."

And where would that leave us a society? With mandated support children still aren't properly supported this day in age.. You think we should make the problem worse? Make more children suffer, ya that's a good idea ..Give me a break..

and we seem to do everything we can to keep it going strong.

It's not the man who decides against a pregnancy that causes children to face the world without support, it's the woman who proceeds with a pregnancy knowing that the man has chosen not to participate. Of course, this is all referring to the hypothetical situation in which the man actually gets a say, which isn't the case.

from the general fund is the best idea.

It's stupid that one child should get 100 times more child support than another child just because of who his mother beedded one night.

All children in that situation should be treated equally and the public pool of money is the right answer, not corraling some guy who didn't want to be a parent and forcing him to be one.

carelessness and mindless lust at every turn while not only portraying the women in your scenarios as plotting harlot temptresses but suggesting that the children of mindless lust (male or female) should pay for their parents digressions.

How morally bankrupt.

You use the phrase, "corralling some guy" and FORCING him to be a parent. One would think a gun to the skull and insisting on unprotected vaginal intercourse culminating in orgasm and ejaculation might be a turn off but that is EXACTLY what must occur for him to be FORCED into parenthood. The only exception would be the damn near mythical .0005% of pregnancies that may occur when and if the female in question saboteurs the Trojan unbeknownst to the hapless horny male. If you don't want kids gentlemen, keep your rubbers fresh and in your possession at all times.


On the morally bankrupt front, let us also address this issue: You propose a public pool of money to support children whose genetic fathers have proved to be cowardly assholes and skipped out, or in your world, dudes having a good time suckered into giving up their sperm by all powerful and conniving females. What should we call this? The fuck tax? Should it be a tax on unmarried men 18+ only? What about the very happy gay men who will never engage in such a cowardly deed? Why should decent, responsible and hmmmmmmm, I dunno, BETTER men have to pay for anyone else's childish, selfish irresponsibility?

I've got another one for you.

You said "It's stupid that one child should get 100 times more child support than another child just because of who his mother beedded (sic) one night."
There are so many things wrong with that we'll just catch some of them for you, intelligent life will discern for themselves the remaining points. ONE. "His" mother wasn't a sole actor that night.
TWO. You seem to imply that hordes of women go around looking for a "better" man to scam and then gamble their whole lives without care.


IMO your point of view is very small, very young and quite selfish. I do not know your age, but if you are young, I hope you gain wisdom quickly. If you do not have any children, I hope you grow before you have them. If you already have kids and will not change, I hope they will see that they would be better off without your philosophy.

It's an interesting topic of discussion, but honestly I'm not making much sense of your post.

The examples I've been thinking about revolve around basically two people who have sex who have no commitment to each other and may not even know each other's names. That's a long way from thinking women are plotting temptresses but anyway.

I also separate pregnancy from parenthood. I don't believe that when a man or woman (especially thinking of my example right above) has sex, he/she is agreeing at that time to be a parent. I think a man and woman should have the right to decide when and even if they ever become parents.

If a man or woman decides that he/she is not ready, or capable or willing to be a parent at this time in his/her life, I don't think of them as cowardly assholes.

I wouldn't call it the fuck tax. The Good Societies Share With the Children Tax would probably be a bit longer but still a better name. I will be first in line to say I would be happy to pay an extra tax to ensure that each child gets enough to meet his material needs for a prosperous upbringing.

I don't think I implied that women look for richer men to have babies with. The examples I've been thinking of were more of the lottery type affair. Two people don't even know each other's names, and you have no idea whether you bedded a rich guy or a poor guy. Your child can win the lottery with a rich guy or lose it with a poor guy. I didn't mean to imply the woman was actually looking for one or the other.

I hope my view isn't very small. I must admit that as an old married dad, the very young remark did kind of perk me up though. The gaining wisdom hope I thank you for because lately it seems I'm remembering an awful lot less than I did 20-30 years ago, but that's a whole different topic.

objections and judgments into MY PERSONAL HEALTHCARE decisions.

Can you say raging, screaming hypocrisy anyone?

I'll keep fighting for your rights to get married and enjoy the same rights as every other human being including parenthood and you keep your religious morality and lifestyle judgments out of mine and my daughters uteruses, Mkay?

the fact is that you can't each have a say in an abortion.

One person must decide yes or no. You can't have a 1-1 tie.

In that case it must be the woman who decides since it is inside her.

That is as far as the woman's right to choose should go though.

Once she's decided whether she wants to be a parent or not, she should not also have the right to decide that the man must be a parent too.

The man should have that right to exercise himself.

That's the reality of what would happen if child support is no longer mandatory.

On edit..I see you already posted your answer to this..public pools of money for child support. That is one approach, but realistically it won't happen in the U.S. since we already have millions of kids living in poverty, who can't even get medical care, whose school lunches are being cut.

I have a friend who is from Denmark who talked about the extraordinary benefits available to single parents. Financial support for two years, free strollers, etc. even for noncitizens. It has a downside too...the resentment that much of society feels towards those who start receiving such benefits is creating social rifts.

Not saying it's a bad idea or a good idea. Personally I tend to think that cutting checks for individuals ends up creating excessive government control over individual lives whenever the authoritarians take over; and social condemnation by those who see things differently. I heard that Nixon (uggh!!@#!!) actually suggested flat benefit checks be given to every person in the country regardless of income to ensure that people had something to live on. I'd prefer that we have widespread cheap or free necessities -- medical, school lunches, public gardens, fruit and nut trees in public places, etc. -- than targeted checks that are an opportunity for the authoritarians to control and label individuals.

is it still your cheeseburger?

Your inference that men shouldn't have a choice implies that men are inherently irresponsible, and will consistantly make the choice of choosing to not care for a child. I have always believed that both parents should have the right to say I don't want to take care of this child, and if the other still wants to have it should be able to and take care of it themselves. This includes a man who wants to have the child when the woman does not, the woman should have to bring a child to term. Yes its unfair, but thats biology. Woman are taking the risk of getting pregnant when they have sex.

I find this idea so shocking I'm having trouble formulating a response.

because they 'didn't mean' for it to be born. Sorry. Once its born, BE A MAN (WOMAN) and do the right thing. Do the right thing for the kid. Anything else is selfish, low class and contemptible. Men: Don't have sex or be protected. Don't let a woman you aren't INTENSELY intimate with to touch your damned condom. Women, if you don't want kids, protect yourself. Don't count on a man. Most men in surveys view contraception as 'women's work'. So, be careful but if you aren't, step up to the damned plate.

RV, seen too damned many kids who suffer stupid parenting in 27 years as a teacher to have patience with 'grown ups' bullshit once the kid is born.

each have the right to choose whether and when they become parents or not. Seems like a basic right to me.

rights also.

Abortion = no child = no rights of child

If a birth occurs, there is now a third person in the equation - a third person who deserves the support of both of his parents.

I don't think he has the right to force a man to support him who didn't want to be a dad.

The child doesn't deserve the support of both parents. He deserves the support of all of us, the entire society.

Child support should be paid out of a custody pool paid for by general funds. We should all be happy to step up and support children in need. All of us.

The child deserves to know who he came from. The child deserves not to be renounced by his father because his father has issues with his mother.

No man should be forced to have a relationship with anyone he doesn't want to.

What's a more basic right than that?

Talk about a violation of the right to privacy.

Anyway, a man or woman may want to have a relationship or not have a relationship with anyone he/she wishes. I would certainly support that as a fundamental right.

It may have absolutely nothing to do with his relationship with the mother. He may not even have ever known the mother's name.

While a relationship cannot be forced, a child certainly does have a right to know his parents.

Look, the biology of it isn't fair. But once a living, breathing person enters the picture, that person's rights have to be considered as well.

the process of surrendering a child for adoption?

And I also believe the adoptee has a right to know where he came from.

violating the individual's basic right to privacy and using a child to make it sound better.

There aren't many more basic rights than an individual's right to free association, or to choose to freely not associate with someone. And that someone can be anyone. It's none of anyone else's business who I choose to associate with or choose not to associate with.

I did agree that a relationship cannot be forced.

Incidentally, I raised a child to the age of 18 without ever once receiving - or asking for - child support from her father. She deserved better than she got. I accept the responsibility for having created a child with someone I shouldn't have, but in every case, once the child is born, there's no going back.

It's simply not the same as choosing an abortion, which results in no child at all.

father?

the consent of both parents. We're not talking about fathers who are surrendering their children for adoption.

his or her interest in the child?

Seriously.

As it stands, one parent can decide for both to terminate the child (which I fully support).

Why shouldn't either parent, after birth, have the right to terminate his or her own responsibility, if both can?

are not comparable. Abortion results in no child at all. Once the child has been born, it's a whole different ball game.

Nobody said it was fair. In issues of biology, parenting, and children, often very little is fair.

It's not fair that my oldest child got a father who was content to play house as long as we were together, but who, as soon as I left him, decided he didn't need to support his kid, but those are the cards she and I were dealt, and I did the best I could. Sometimes life isn't fair.

no responsibility attached, so my question is why can't one parent surrender only his or her interest in the child (and with it, the responsibility)?

But since raising a child is pretty simple and inexpensive, I guess this isn't that big a deal.

Why is that life can not be fair when it comes to men forced into support, but it can't not be fair in any other way?

biological realities can not be changed.

I wish I didn't have to be the one to get pregnant, trust me. I wish I didn't have to be the one to have stretch marks and to have suffered from post-partum depression. I wish I wasn't the one my daughter calls for in the middle of the night when she needs to barf, and I wish I wasn't the one she barfs all over.

Life is unfair in many many ways and we women shoulder a lot of them.

And if you really don't want to be the one to get pregnant, don't get pregnant. No one is forcing you.

1. A woman's uterus belongs to her and no one else.
2. If a baby is created the baby needs support.
3. Two people created the baby.

deem fair.

Now you say you wish you weren't the one who HAS to get pregnant. In fact, you don't have to - you choose to and then act as if it were against your will.

But our law, at present, allows you to circumvent this biological reality in two ways: you can choose to abort, you can choose to surrender your child for adoption.

"Biology isn't fair" is a lousy basis on which to argue law, if only because it can be used equally to support almost any position (including outlawing abortion).

It isn't fair if it's at the expense of the child.

The child's rights at that point are most important and therefore the child's rights would take precendence.

People who want to outlaw abortion want the state to own women's bodies. I believe a woman owns her own body and that is also a biological reality.

Life isn't fair is the justification for a lot - until we WANT it to be fair.

And when you say "the child's rights are most important" you use the same antichoicer argument, you just spin it a slightly different way.

Autonomy and freedom of choice are important principles or they're not.

I support, unconditionallly, your right to abort.

But there ought to be some balance of choice as a legal measure.

taking away the woman's right to bodily autonomy or taking away the child's right to be adequately supported.

and please note, there is no right to be "adequately supported".

to the best abilities of his/her parents. Plural. Which would be remarkably different if it were just the mother.

It's not as if the fathers are being forced to actually raise these children.

Women face the real risks of death and long term health consequences from pregnancy and childbirth. Women even face a far greater risk of STDs from unprotected sex. When you find a way to equalize all of these risks and burdens, then you can have a legal say in the outcome of a prgenancy.

You say "It's not as if the fathers are being forced to actually raise these children."

But it's not as if the mothers are forced to do those things either. To the contrary - women hold the only choice in the matter for anyone.

You say "Women face the real risks of death and long term health consequences from pregnancy and childbirth. Women even face a far greater risk of STDs from unprotected sex. When you find a way to equalize all of these risks and burdens, then you can have a legal say in the outcome of a prgenancy."

I'm sorry, but what makes you think every aspect of life has to be equalized before the law can reflect equality?

Life - as some continue to point out in this thread - isn't fair. But the law is supposed to be.

It is fair to ask a biological father to assume some financial responsibility for his offspring, both to society and to the child. It is not fair to allow him to opt out of that responsibility and shift all of the burden onto the mother and to society.

Let me get out the scratch pad and see if I can cobble together a political philosophy to meet my own personal worldview. Let's see -- a woman's womb is absolute, and the life inside her has no rights. Check. When the child is born, though, his or her rights take precedent over the father's rights. Check. Mommy gets the choice to have abortion, and mommy gets paycheck. Check.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm just saying that to pronounce such arbitrary things, as though they're absolutes smacks of fire and brimstone.

I'm not a mens' rights advocate, by ANY means -- and I'm pro-choice, but only by postmodern default. My problem with this line of thinking is that people are starting with a construct that is, by no means, settled or absolute, and then stringing more unsettledness and absolutes on top of them.

or not when YOUR kid is born. If you surrender your interest, fine. But you have no right to put that child in poverty by dumping your financial interest. The kid didn't ask for this. They don't deserve to be punished.

is a few inches of shoe leather. when men have to have their insides scraped over an unwanted child then I will try and find an argument suitable.

around, either side, when the kid is grown. If you leave your kid, the kid has the right to tell you to come on in or get out. You know, there is so damned much concern for adults, so little for children. For every accidental birth, there are plenty planned. Too many people walk away. the kid didn't ask to be born but when it is, you are both on line.

then make that statement again. That's where lab mice come from already, and if it works for one mammal species, I assure you, it'd work for others. We just aren't doing it because...well, people would flip out.

No one should have sex who is not willing to take that risk, even if they've taken measures against it.

:headbang:
rocknation

And that's a question I have about the S.Dakota law. Does it go beyond just banning abortion? Does it hold both the man and woman responsible for the baby after it is born, or just the woman?

but I doubt that So. Dakota is at all interested in what happens to the baby once it's born. And yes, I was referring to men AND women.

:headbang:
rocknation

into it that once the baby was born, the man is also responsible, all those men who voted for it might have thought twice before they went ahead ~

If this is not the case, I think in a year or two, they'll all be forced to think about it, after either their own girlfriends, their son's or friends' start demanding child support.

I've always thought that the only reason why Roe V Wade lasted as long as it has is because most men, no matter how 'religious', hope and pray that a woman they get pregnant will opt for divorce.

This should be interesting. I wouldn't be surprised if a few of those gungho fundies turn into liberals in a few years ~ :rofl:

if abortion is illegal because women will have abortions whether they're legal or not. They'll just lose access to safe medical abortions and will have to opt for baseball bats and coat hangers instead.

Men can block adoption. Even if they pay the child support that doesn't mean that they are going to be legally required to participate in the parenting.
In SD, men can force women into parenthood without ever laying eyes on the child.
Initially, the child is born into the woman's custody.
Women should lobby for a law that requires men to take custody if they block an adoption.

for themselves. If men don't feel the condom protects them enough, then the should demand something better. If the drug companies know that men will be buying the product, the will produce it.

of sperm.

Maybe the side affects are too drastic, like growing breasts or something.

If you are the biological father of a child (other then through sperm donation to a sperm bank etc) you are financially responsible for that child. Period. End of story.

What do you think a basic budget goes to when a woman has a kid?
Besides that, any idiot can write a check. The hard stuff takes place in the real parent participation.
I know plenty of women who pay child support if they don't have custody after a divorce.

If the woman has an abortion, there is no baby.

If the woman carries the pregnancy to term, there is a baby. Once there is a baby, the baby requires support. Support should be provided by both parents. Not fair? Maybe not. But fair or unfair, it doesn't change the fact that there is now a child in the equation.

and once they divorced, he moved heaven and earth to avoid paying child support, including trying the "I never wanted children" BS. Imagine how his children were effected to know that he valued money more than their very existence.

This should not be law. It's crap. Just another way to shift all the burden of childrearing onto the woman. This sounds like a RWinger's ploy-Take away abortion, then make it impossible for the mother to pay the rent. Craziness.

time window where the man can decline to support the child at the beginning, if it was clear to both parties he never wnated a child and she chooses to go full term. The choices are all hers: Abortion, adoption , or keep.

This particular case has merit. The woman stated due to an illness she could NEVER get pregnant. The man stated many times he did not want children. She becomes pregnant, he should have the right to say he won't support that child. She doen't have to have it. It's all her choice.

It's a case of fraud. He was lied to, he shouldn't be financially responsible.

everything else. children-port contracts. Maybe we can turn it all over to halliburton. The game goes both ways. Men don't want kids, protect yourself or abstain. The choice is all hers?

Abortion-outlawed all over, soon to be gone
adoption-used to be what a lot of unwed mothers did. hang the emotional consequences
keep-he tangoes and walks, she carries the responsibility forever.

I still don't get it how the man has no responsibility when he untook an act with risk. Don't wear a helmet and crash your motorcycle, the consequences are bad. You could go on and on. What it appears to be said here is men don't have to be held liable for their actions, women must carry the transaction if the man seeks default, fuck the kids.

He shouldn't have believed her. He should have been big and smart enough to do what he had to to protect himself. He's a whining baby. The only one that matters to me is the kid. Poor baby. I guess I taught too many sad kids to have sympathy.

God help our future when we reduce children to transactions and debatable liabilities.

RV, feeling VERY, VERY old

argument anti choicers use against women?

Male hormonal birth control. If you (male) don't want to get someone pregnant, right now your options are A) get snipped; B) use a condom (which has a higher failure rate than snipping). That's a damn small pool of options from my POV. Work toward opening up your field of options, rather than curtailing mine.

edited for further clarification.

It doesn't change them one whit, it merely says that if you disagree with the other biological parent of the potential offspring and choose to go ahead with the pregnancy against his wishes or without his consent, you do so knowing you've chosen to accept the responsiblity for the child's financial support (presumably also entailing exclusive parental rights as well).

It sounds fair to me. However, I would think that any choice to end the pregnancy should also involve a requirement for the father, if he agrees with the choice, to incur 50% of any costs involved with the abortion. If he disagrees, since this ultimately involves the woman's body, alas, all he can do about it is refuse to pay for half the termination fees.

Choices come with consequences. As the woman does, in fact, actually have the final choice in the matter, and it does involve her body in a vastly more serious way, affirmative birth control should also be her responsibility--her choice. If she chooses to use birth control, so be it--the man cannot deny her. If she demands that he use birth control, so be it--and while the man can deny her--she can deny him access to the act itself. If either party desires birth control, they can have it (though the choice of either not using it or potentially even the choice of using it may give the female cause to deny sex entirely). If they don't want a pregnancy but are both irresponsible--alas, the final burden, the final responsibility for her own body falls on the woman.

Since the choice for a woman to continue or abort a pregnancy exists, and is hers, it hardly seems fair that she should be able to choose for the man, against his preference, that he will bear the either the responsibility for the child's financial well being and/or it's parenting. He doesn't get any choice other than to use even greater care than the woman with regard to birth control in advance or to abstain entirely? While society tends to think of sex as being of much greater value to a man than a woman--that is, well, he got to partake of the pleasure--so if a pregnancy occurs, he must therefore pay for the rest of his life. Sex may indeed be more important to a man--no doubt quite a debatable notion, but that hardly makes up for the fact that the man has no further say in the matter and is utterly inconsequential by comparison to a lifetime of obligation without representation. In fairness, the act of sex itself should be considered to be of equal value and equal responsibility to either gender and the one should not be exchangable for the other. Of course, this is merely my humble opinion (which is something that should go without saying).

It is sort of a tough question. For instance, if both parties are deeply "pro-birth" (I disagree that those who are anti-choice are 'pro-life'), then there is a foregone conclusion that there is no acceptible choice with regard to termination. Therefore, if pregnancy occurs, it will be carried to term and since neither party can choose otherwise, the man must necessarily be held accountable for child support (and should also be both accorded and required to provide parental rights/duties). If the two parties differ on the question of whether or not a pregnancy may be terminated... they'd probably be better off not taking the chance even if that means no sex. Still, if both, going in are okay with resorting to abortion if an unintentional or unwanted pregnancy occurs; then the man should be accorded some rights in the situation--if only the right to choose whether or not to accept the burden if the woman's choice would force an unwanted parenthood on the man. That is, he should have the right not to be "put upon" based upon the woman's choice. Though, to be honest, any man worth his salt would probably choose to accept responsibiity for his offspring anyway.

It's almost ironic that having greater choice should result (if the laws did recognize a man's rights) in an even greater need for responsible/careful consideration of sex vs birth control. Nevertheless, if a woman gets to choose, so should a man. This does not alter a woman's options, though it does make one of the options a little more weighty--and well it should be weighty if she decides, for the man, against his will to proceed. Of course, too, it should make one option 50% less difficult to manage--in that he should be held responsible to assist in that choice, if he agrees with that choice (if he doesn't agree then he should be held accountable to accept child support/parental duties). Choices, choices, choices. Decisions, decisions, decisions. Where will it all end.

However, I cannot agree with you entirely.
People are going to have irresponsible sex everyday. We cannot stop that. Unless we want to turn everyone into fundies and only have sex to procreate within marriage, then this is an issue that cannot be solved.
Should men have a say? Yes, it is half of their DNA. However, not all men are responsible enough to have a say (just as not all women should have children). Is the system biased against men? Absolutely, but it may be necessary so that innocent children are able to receive the basics in life that they need.
Your explanation of your views is way to black and white... Are women who meet men in a bar supposed to give them a questionaire before they partake in a one-night-stand?? How about men? From my experience, pregnancy is the last thing on a man's mind-especially in the heat of the moment (but I could be wrong).
Overall, we do need better forms of birth control for men (vasectomy, condoms, and abstinence do not provide the greatest variety) so that they can better control the outcome of their sexual escapades.
My opinion is that anyone who decides to have sex, unprotected or not, with the purpose of getting pregnant or not, must bear the consequences of their actions. If that means 18 years of child support payments, then so be it.

I posted this elsewhere in the thread, but there's a new contraceptive implant for men called the intra vas device that's currently in the process of being approved by the FDA and likely to be completely reversible. I totally agree that men really have not been included in the fight for reproductive choice -- this may turn out to be our version of the Pill. Something to watch for.

I posted a thread asking DU men if they would take a male version of the pill; sad to say, many replied they would not because (get this) they thought women would not believe them when the said they were taking it! Not one said that it was a good idea as simple self-protection. Pitiful state of affairs...

is forced to have the baby by the state....

the man doesn't want the baby and want's to opt our of his responsibility.......

They can't have it both ways....

If one has a choice, both must.

but they have a point. However, if they want to avoid the financial responsibility, they should give up all parental rights. No visitation, no custody, no nothing.

This could be a slippery slope though. I just thought that with this you would have to have a law that states the woman must inform the father before making an abortion choice.

Need to think about this more.

edited for clarification

I was reply to your "if they don't want financial responsibility...." They=men.

Both men and women take the chance of an unwanted pregnancy if they have sex. Just because men don't carry the children doesn't get them out of their responsibilities if a child is conceived.

I was quoting your own post. I assumed your "they" meant "men."

the MyPosts feature is helpful...no? I apologize.

I got all screwed up on this thread.

My only point is that both parties agree to have sexual relations. Birth control is not a perfect science. If the woman has the choice to keep or end the pregnancy, it would seem that the man should have the right as well.

I also stated that I need to think this through a little more. This is a tough one.

there are really no easy answers. I've been lucky in my experience and I'm now with a man who I know would be responsible with whatever scenario came up, so to speak.

If thats your only argument, one could say the same thing about women and abortion..
If you didnt want to get pregnant you shouldn't have had sex..

Such a double standard

you are comparing apples and oranges

.

that is what they are shooting for so to speak.

WTF is this all about? Oh yeah, this is about control because who is easier to control than a woman with an unwanted baby, no money to pay for child care so she can work and no welfare or not enough welfare to change her situation. Is this to force the marriage issue?

So I take it your opinion is the SAME for a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant?
I sure hope so, anything else would be sexist.

Oh, I forgot...It's the Big Bad Patriarchy that FORCES women to have sex with men, yes?

I was replying to the post above which used "they" for "men"

If you said "if women want to avoid pregnancy, they shouldn't have sex", you'd be torn limb-from-limb here. So how is it any different to tell the men to keep it in their pants if they don't want the financial responsibility?

been implemented..

the same could be said for the woman.

I don't think being able to avoid supporting the child is the answer however. As a father who does pay child support I do see alot of the bias in the system. Fo example, where I live, in theory, both parents are supposed to provide equal support for the child. But of course, the father is the only one who has to actually account for how much he has given. There is no requirement to track what the mother provides, or that she is even using all of the money for support of the child.

Alot of states do not recognize financial needs of the father either. My step brother has two children by two wives. Both left him after cheating on him. Yet he is forced to provide debilitating support for these kids, to the point where he cannot afford to provide the basics for himself. Luckily we have a very generous family, but otherwise he would have had to declare bankruptcy.

Men who hide income in order to pay inadequate amounts of support. The system is not perfect by any means.

I think in many places this system needs to be reformed...it does no good to drive the father into bankruptcy. But of course we are well familiar with the number of men who skip out on their responsibilities.

I did hear a proposal for a state run child support pool, into which all parents responible for supporting a child of divorce etc, would be forced to pay, and from which the custodial parent would receive their money. I am not including alot of detail, but this would have the beneifit of removing the burden of tracking down dead beat dads from the mother to the government, and it would also be structured in such a way to make both parents accountable for the support they are providing. Something to mull over.

There could be very many good reasons why a dad isn't paying child support.

One good reason would be it isn't even his kid. There might be a terrible medical financial or medical emergency.

Anyway, I don't like negative labels tossed at a whole group of people and I don't think we should do it.

'Deadbeat Dad' in the current culture.

Forget layoffs, plant closings, salary cuts, medical costs, new family costs, or playing catchup like a friend of mine who was told he was the father when the child was 7, and had to back pay all the way back to birth.

And the court system (at least where I live) takes into account all of those things you mentioned. Maybe not so much the "new family costs". Do you realize how that sounds. New family costs. Sorry little John Jr. I can't afford you anymore I have "new family costs". You are old news.

What exactly are you saying, in-re support? I virtually every state if a non custodial parent were to be laid off, the support starts piling up from that date forward. I have never heard of a state where lowering of support is common. In ever case I have studied, A person would have a better chance of getting NAMBLA certified to run a daycare center for boys than they would getting support lowered.

As for new families, they are a reality, and should be accounted for in many cases. If a parent were to leave and win custody, why should the person who was left behind be prevented from supporting their new family?

It often takes months to reduce or eliminate court ordered support which still gets deducted from the check. A teacher friend of mine paid several months support while he had the kids due to the time it took to eliminate the order. I am sure she was ordered to pay that money back, but he still had it taken in the first instance. He could afford it, the person described in the above post probably can't.

ahead of the law because he decided not to pay his child support. The bastard. Had about seven kids and decided not to pay. I've hated him ever since. Is their any betrayal worse than abandoning a child?

Yet he is forced to provide debilitating support for these kids, to the point where he cannot afford to provide the basics for himself. Well, boo freakin hoo. Where was all the sympathy when my ex-husband deceided he "couldnt help with child support"??? Look, I didn't have any choice about paying for the support of my own child and he shouldn't have the choice either. For 18 years, I managed to work and support OUR child on what ever I could make, meanwhile, he managed to carve out a pretty nice living for himself.

Everyone has a story on one side or another...and that is the point.

The system is broken...it is too affected by the bitter back and forth between estranged parents. Child support and visitation are too often used as weapons by one parent against the other...

Support needs to be somehow seperated from this. A system needs to be devised...and I have seen some proposals for state run support pooling etc, to make sure that A. the child gets the level of support they need, and B. Both parents are held accountable for providing the support they are required to, and most importantly, that support is seperated from the bitter relationship between the parents.

that he get fixed. It seems he had about nine kids, just dropping them wherever he want without even the pretense of concern or support. Nine kids. What will become of nine innocents because some selfish coward decided he didn't have the burden of contraception or support of his actions results. Poor kids. I err on their side. And, who said life had to be fair? Look at our country. show me what is fair. Anywhere.

If you have sex and it results in the birth of a child you are financially responsible for the child until they are 18.

as well as the woman?

Being a female who receives child support, albeit for a wanted child, I am trying to look at the other side.

I take it you don't believe a pregnancy can be unintended and unwanted?

will always be the one who loses.

If there is a pregnancy, only one person can give use of her uterus, and only one person can agree to a medical procedure to end the pregnancy. Therefore, due to biology, or God's will, or whatever, it is the woman's choice and only the woman's choice.

But if a baby is born, then that baby's rights are more important than either the mom's or the dad's. That child has a right to know both parents if at all possible, and has a right to support from both parents. Period.

Life isn't fair. It isn't fair in many more ways for women than for men. Men have found one way it isn't fair for them. They need to get over it. They can't change biology.

I believe a child has the right to demand adequate support. I don't think it much matters where the check comes from.

I don't think a child has a right to force a man into fatherhood who doesn't want to be one.

the simple fact that a child exists forces the man into fatherhood. Again, simple biology.

I don't believe fatherhood is just simple biology.

I think an adoptive parent is every bit as much a father as a biological one, and I believe a biological parent who never had a thing to do with the child or never wanted to is not a parent.

Just semantics I guess, but I believe the parent is the one who cares about and cares for the child, not the donor, willingly or not, of the sperm.

so that there is an adoptive father, then I'd agree with you.

If not, then the biological father is still responsible because he's all the child has.

for adoption, right?

for mothers to place their babies for adoption, regardless of whether there's a liklihood of the baby actually being adopted? And regardless of whatever psychological ramifications there might be for the birth parents and child?

Here it is.

When a woman finds out she's pregnant, she has a limited amount of time to make a good faith effort to inform the potential father.

The father then has a limited amount of time to file an official legal document either agreeing to take on the legal rights and responsibilities of fatherhood or declining them.

The women is sent this form, and then she makes her decision of whether to birth or terminate. It is her decision alone.

The woman chooses whether she will beocome a mother.

The man chooses whether he becomes a father.

It's the fairest proposal I've been able to come up with.

:yoiks:

called me a mysogynist. Then I'd have fun seeing how many different ways the insult could be spelled.

In the end though, I really do think it's the most fair proposal. It treats both the man and woman with respect and allows each to choose whether they will become parents or not, which to me is an important right and a right that progressives should support.

Really in probably 100 threads, the argument against it is either.

1. That will never happen
2. Why do you hate women

You got off easy! lol

old wounds now.

old wounds now.

:evilgrin:

Completely. :hi:

This is an issue that does deserve attention... not sure what the solution is... but if women desereve not to be forced to have a pregnancy... it stands to reason that men have a right not to be forced to be financially responsible for one they did not want.

can have.... Don't want to pay for a child you don't want, make sure you don't make a baby, wrap it. Don't take anyone's word for it, make sure yourself....

at the start anyway. The wrapping slipped off.

Would it bother him that much to learn that he was conceived when dad was wearing a condom?

It would probably gross him out I guess.

He is certainly very loved and well taken care of by both of us. We're married and doing well. I would think it might be a little life lesson to teach him he better be more careful when he gets older.

legally committed to.

ETA- it wouldn't solve all problems, but it'd help put a huge dent in it.

but at what point do woman say "enough is enough!, this vagina is closed until further notice".?

"No copulation without representation"!!

I have 2 sons and a step-son, and a daughter. Somehow my 2 sons, one of who is 30, have managed to not get anyone pregnant. My daughter managed to not get pregnant after 2 years of dating her now husband, until they chose to. And they used condoms because she couldn't take the pill.

My step-son, I'm ashamed to say, has "accidentally" had FOUR, count them, FOUR children. With two different women. Sure, occasionally real accidents happen. More often than not, it's flat out irresponsibility.

A man's choice is BEFORE he has sex. Take responsibility for that, problem solved.

sex' also. What's the difference? And in your stepson's case, he didn't have sex by himself, did he? Two adults are involved in the making of a baby, I'm not following why it is only the man's responsibility.

As a woman I find it insulting to assume that while a man is expected to be responsible, a woman is not! We're not children, we're mature and capable of deciding whether it's worth it to have sex with someone we don't have a commitment from or a mutual desire to have children, and either end up having an abortion or a child we'll have to raise alone ~

So, if we expect men to be grown up about it, we should expect women to be also, imo.

Obviously one person can't make biological choices about somebody else's body. Reality.

Other than that, I agree with you. A man doesn't support his child, he'as a deadbeat. A woman doesn't', she's a victim who goes on welfare. It's obviously not always that simple, but still, I think there are an awful lot of women who don't fully accept their financial obligations for raising children.

I just had this argument yesterday, I have to go get my flame suit. :)

have them around and takes no help. She's an exception to the rule. There are inequities in every system and things that need tweaking but walking away like a baby is a car you're decided to buy or not can't be one of them. My brother paid faithfully his child support and then some for eighteen years. THEN he found out he had an illegitimate daughter. Lordy. Of course, he put her on his life insurance too. But then, my brother is a really good man. A child of his is his to care for until he dies. That's how he sees it and that's why I respect him more than usual. :)

I also respect the choice a woman makes to be a single mom when she may be scared and not sure if she'll be able to do it.

On the other hand I won't criticize another woman who in the same situation decides she is not ready to be a mother.

Each choice is valid and should be respected. That's the whole idea of a right to choose. A person may not make the choice I'd make or even a choice I admire, but it's their right to choose.

As is another man's choice that he is not ready to be a parent at a particular time in his life either. Again that is his right to choose when or even if he should be a parent.

I think everyone (both men and women) should have their loser detectors turned on maximum and be responsible when choosing partners, and be aware that their is always the risk of pregnancy occuring. The deadbeat dads that I know of in my own life makes me wonder who on earth would even want to be around them, let alone sleep with them.

two pretty irresponsible women too.

Wouldn't that be a viable option for them? Men can't be made pregnant by rape or incest, they do have to make the choice to have sex. Not all women get to have that choice.

It's about damn time that men had the option of contraception that didn't involve surgery or archaic barrier methods.

It's waaaaay past time for the male birth control pill. Think about it--we can both take them, and probably reduce the risk of unplanned pregnancy by about a million percent.

(I disagree about men always having to choose to have sex. Although men cannot become pregnant, they can still be raped, and we should remain aware of this and sensitive to it.)

The wording was poor, I was attempting to say that while me can be raped or victims of incest, they can't become pregnant from the assaults. However, they do have a choice in pregnancy that women don't always have since rape and incest can create a pregnancy in women.

I hope that's more clear.

We should indeed have a male pill by now... and we should all be much more sensitive about the topic of male rape. Seeing it joked about in a prison setting makes me physically ill. :(

It's called a vasectomy.

Look, it's too easy for a guy to decide, about six months into a pregnancy - and too late for an abortion - that, hey, he doesn't want to be a father after all. When that happens, the woman should be forced to support the resulting offspring for the rest of her life alone?

I know plenty of men who've managed to get through - gasp! - their ENTIRE LIVES without having fathered unplanned/unwanted children, and without being abstinent. They must know something, eh?

It's a sticky issue, because, yes, there are women who make the decision to carry the pregnancy to term against the man's wishes, but I maintain that a man who steadfastly does not wish to support any offspring of his engendering should seriously consider vasectomy. There's always sperm-banking if he thinks he might want offspring later.

that there is a new male contraceptive in the process of being approved by the FDA called the intra vas device which is expected to be much more reliably reversible. It's currently in human trials. Something anyone thinking about getting one might want to watch for.

That is, if a woman has no right to an abortion, the argument that women have a greater degree of discretion evaporates, and the male should get no choice in the matter of child support. By their reasoning, of course.

I'm sure that would be right.

"I'm trying to find a way for a man also to have some say over decisions that affect his life profoundly."


Oh yeah men have so few decisions in this world.

Women have ONE advantage over men, in one specific situation, and then only because it's been forced by biology. But NO men can't allow that to happen.

There are two UNRELATED issues. Women give birth. Women can't be forced to have their uterus used against their will. Women can't be forced to have a medical procedure (abortion) against their will. Therefore, babies might happen and that choice is the woman.

Issue two is that if a baby is made then the baby has the right to support from BOTH parents.

These two issues are independant of each other. There is no relationship other than that in this instance, due to simple biology, men have fewer options.

Tough. Life is not fair. I'm not as strong as you; I have to pee sitting down; and I'm the one who had 9 months of difficulty, weight gain, stretch marks, birth, and then breastfeeding afterward; I had a minor stroke from birth control pills because women have to take on that health risk too. All these disadvantages are also due to simple biology. You have no choice as to whether the baby is born once there is a pregnancy. Wah wah wah. Get over it.

like it always is, all the responsibility is shoved on the women...
we seduce the men
its our responsibility to have birth control if we don't want babies
if we get pregnant, we are stuck with 18 years of child rearing usually without the support of the father (i speak about unmarried/divorced couples)
Society likes to make anything that has to do with sex the women's fault or responsibility. A woman sleeps around and she is a whore/slut/etc. A man sleeps around and he is glorified! He is a stud, a lady's man, etc.
What stupid double standards. Men want to have their cake and eat it too. How great it would be to have sex and then say "oh, I'm not going to be responsible for my baby"
If men do not want to be financially/physically/emotionally responsible for their child (wanted or not), then absolutely they should be advocating for more choices of male birth control - instead of trying to make the burden of raising a child harder than it already is for a single mom.
You don't want the baby, don't do the deed; or get a condom; and advocate for a woman's right to choose.
Men who dodge the responsibility of taking care of their children are called dead-beats for a reason. Why the hell would anyone want a legal loophole to be a dead-beat dad?

take responsibility for their own bodies. But wait, wasn't that what they wanted? Surely, then, if they choose to take that responsibility and decide to continue their pregnancy over the objections of the male contributor, why should she be allowed to decide what role he will be forced to play... why doesn't she, as you say, take responsibility for her choice to continue without a willing partner (which means accepting full responsibility for the child).

Sure, both parties played a role. Still, only one gets a choice when the supposedly unwanted pregnancy appears? Both parties had full access to choice prior to sex, why should one be held more accountable than the other?

Have a conversation with a single mother and enlighten yourself.

Actually, my husband paid dearly for his son that he has never known.
My husband found out (this was years before we met) that he had a son when SRS came to do a paternity test. He slept with the woman once (and she IS a slut) and didn't take proper precautions. The mother of his child was married (unbeknownst to him)and proceeded to have 5 other children besides his; and only one actually belonged to her husband. After a few years, she decided she only wanted to keep the child that her husband fathered and sent the others to SRS and into the foster system. This is when my husband had to take a paternity test... the child was his; he wasn't in a position to raise his son (he was attending Flint Hills Job Corps at the time and had no money, no home, no job etc). He signed away his parental rights to allow his son to be adopted by a foster family (who also adopted his son's half-sister). And then he paid for all the back child support he owed. He paid for everything that the government paid for during her pregnancy plus his son's medical bills. I, personally, believe that the mother should have been responsible for half of the bills because she willingly gave away her children... but the system is biased against fathers (but maybe it has to be). My husband paid for his son, who is now almost 11 years old and he may never get the chance to know him. Is it his fault? yes and no. He did not use any discretion when he decided to sleep with that particular skanky hoe, he didn't use protection (thank god he didn't get any diseases). Had he known she got pregnant, he would have stepped up to the plate and taken care of his child simply because that is right thing to do (which he still took care of his business anyway). I think that my husband is a good example of how the child support system can screw men over.... however men need to step up to the plate and take care of their responsiblities, no matter what the woman decides to do.

But really, you seriously need to have a talk with a single mom trying to make ends meet. You need to talk to divorced moms whose ex-husbands do anything they can to get out of paying child support.

Better yet, go get a woman pregnant and when she decides she doesn't want the baby, maybe she should just go put it on your doorstep for you to raise and say that she doesn't want to be responsible anymore.

Otherwise shut up and advocate for 1) Women's rights and 2)better forms of male birth control.
If you seriously don't think that society is heavily biased against women, you need to read the history books.

don't like women who don't like men (taking your meaning), and don't have much support to give for whiners.

I happen to be all for proper child support and do sympathize with single mothers trying to make ends meet. However, we were discussing the both the proposed rights of men, which doesn't really exist. In particular, we were--scratch that, I was--considering the case in which both parties to a sexual union accept the right to early termination of pregnancy; and with the applied concept that men have been, or should be, given an equal right to participate in the decision--or failing that, have the option of bowing out, permanently. No one should be forced to commit to being a parent or supporting a child when they weren't given an equal say as to whether the pregnancy is continued or aborted--when, again, both parties were willing to consider exercising that right before the fertilization occurred. Note that this is a relatively limited condition--many can't or won't consider abortion to be a right/option and for this to be fair, both would have had to consider it acceptable. Otherwise, the man's "rights" wouldn't be being stomped on by a woman unilaterally deciding to continue a pregnancy against the man's own choice.

By the way, if I did get a woman pregnant, and we had both considered abortion as a viable option, then if she chose to keep it--I would be responsible for my half. However, if she decided to continue the pregnancy against my preference, I should no longer be involved and she should be considered to have taken the entire responsibility onto herself intentionally. If we both agreed and she proceeded with my approval, (then regardless of the gender) it's too late for either of us to back out... Since this isn't an ideal world and people do change their minds when they shouldn't be allowed to, and after the birth she decides to drop the baby off on my doorstep--at least she would be/should be responsible for child support (and subject to the same legal requirements applied to men), and I would deal with it and raise it the best I could. One does what one must. Just as your husband did when he faced the reality of today's laws and the world at large. A rough experience, no doubt.

The whole point of this thread was the situation in which the woman decides, for whatever reason to take it upon herself to reject the choice of abortion and saddle the father with at least a long period of financial obligation. Which just isn't fair. All the many other situations and cases that reflect reality... well, I wasn't making comment on them; and you shouldn't assume my opinions nor take offense to what was not even said.

Furthermore, I reserve the right to (1) not shut up--even if I'm making an ass of myself (which, even though it must appear to be an exceedingly rare thing, :woohoo: it might possibly, just maybe, under the right but extreme circumstances occur... nah--it could never happen :evilgrin: ), and (2) I already do advocate for women's rights (though sometimes I wonder at the large number of women who don't seem to--especially those who voted for the current Commander in the Bush)(and women's primary problems right now involve holding onto rights they've already won), and (3) most of the bias against women you seem to imagine exists... does--right where you told me to look; in the history books (in corporate America, more often than not there is very substantial reverse discrimination where those presumed to never suffer from discrimination do and those often assumed to suffer discrimination instead enjoy real preferential treatment--I imagine you won't believe that, nevertheless, that has consistently and repeatedly been my experience situation after situation over the last two decades at one of the country's top (10) corporations)(even the much vaunted 'wage gap', under the latest, most sophisticated economic analysis has been shown to so small as to be insignificant when all factors are considered). Women stand to lose alot more than most seem to realize if the current wave of conservatism/fundamentalism isn't stopped. Barefoot and pregnant will most definitely become the most common concern if they achieve their ultimate goals, so if you want to be the most effective advocate of women's rights, you need not even mention women's rights but fight the Republicans on every issue and level. In any case, the fortunes of all 'groups', like most things, will vary in a cyclical fashion and whatever is true now will probably change more (increase, decrease, peak, bottom out or change direction) in the next decade anyway. The one constant is... change. Let's hope for and work for the right kind of change. Whether you and I disagree on the fine points, we are plainly on the same overall side in the current and continuing war.

Bounding onto other related topics... (apparently, I feel like writing) It's really rather astonishing how a large and apparently growing segment of America handles it's reproductive rights. If one has the misfortune of tuning into daytime television, one can hardly avoide seeing the people... men with eight children by five different mothers, women with six kids by three different dads, women with x number of children searching to find the man responsible and striking out half a dozen times and so on. It's positively scary. As far as I can see, even greater application of responsibility by law should be a real issue--deadbeat dads need to pay for their offspring or suffer real punishment. If being a single mother with a half dozen kids to raise isn't punishment enough, I don't know what--but somehow these women have to be pressured to use birth control (which includes demanding that the man use birth control or experience 'no joy'). It's enough to bring out the latent Conservative in a person... almost. The children in such circumstances are innocent of wrongdoing, yet remaining in such an environment are likely, almost certain to behave in a similar casual manner when they reach sufficient age to reproduce. This is... a real problem that needs to be addressed. These youngsters must be cared for and supported--even if society must bear the cost; but the parents, whoever they are, also need to be tracked down and required to contribute. Sociologists, psychologists and whomever else needs to be engaged in a government program to reverse this trend--though it's probably an all but impossible task. How to you instill sexual/procreative ethics/morals and teach responsibility and self-restraint to whole populations across generations. I don't know. I do know that this is far and away beyond anything I've commented on earlier.

I do also agree with you that--if it hasn't been said in here yet, that when an accidental pregnancy occurs and abortion isn't an option, then the man should step up to the plate (as you say) and take care of his responsibilities. In the real world, including the reality that men don't have a choice--regardless of what the mother decides... you're mostly right. Someone has to take responsibility for the children born into these circumstances. It's gratingly not fair to say the man should do it regardless of the mother's choices... and BOTH must be held accountable, somehow.

Okay, how about some radical remarks? In the kinds of cases I just mentioned, though, it's almost as though abortions should be... gulp... required. A woman who has more than some number of kids without identified or supportive fathers... just shouldn't be allowed to produce more. Likewise with men. However, short of sterilizations--wow, I just said "sterilizations"--the next option would have to be required abortion. That's extremely unpalettable and not just because we all agree abortion is an unfortunate choice--hard on the mother, a sort of immoral act if used simply for birth control and deeply offensive to a significant number of people. Still, it stands as an important, perhaps necessary and potentially even preferrable solution (when compared to other potential and seriously unfortunate eventualities). Then too, it's hardly fair to some innocent fetus--but then again, it's hardly a fair world it's going to be born into (especially unfair to it). Indeed, abortion may be a kindness--and all that's allowing for the notion that it's an unfinished person. If you consider it just a special, albeit parasitic lump of tissue (the cold view), it's merely a health choice similar to having a wart removed (oof--I can be so harsh). Obviously, these are hard questions. Very hard questions, but answers are required and probably going to be desperately needed. Republican thinking just isn't going to do it... "Just say no" doesn't work, while demanding the fetuses be taken full term just makes the problem bigger--while simultaneously seeking to guarantee the child starves for lack of food/clothing/shelter (no social/governmental support--if they have their way) or dies for lack of healthcare (and then faces an inability to even afford education--thus ensuring it's social status doesn't threaten that of "Family Values" children)... while it IS a kind of answer to overproduction of "wanted births"/"unwanted babies", it is not a "kind" answer (indeed, it's positively uncivilized). Even so, it wouldn't be an effective answer either.

What are we to do? Our economic future is filled with bleakness--globalization necessitates a drop in our standards of living while hopefully raising those of other severely desperate people across the globe. That's bad enough, but when you add Bush's mismanagement, tax-cuts and subsequent debt--the economy could literally collapse along with the dollar, leaving us in a deep, long-lasting depression. Our living conditions will be affected beyond our imaginations--and that's ignoring the worsening global climate and assuming we won't be hit with hundreds of millions (potentially billions) of casualties to a severe avian-flu pandemic. That will drastically damage the world's economies. We're lucky in the sense that we should be able to produce food even under the worst circumstances... but social needs--such as large numbers of children, formerly supported by Social Security and other government assistance programs will be potentially in the worst shape of all. If that wasn't bad enough, guess what people who are unemployed or facing desperate times do? They relieve their tension in a way that leads to ever greater numbers of small mouths to feed.

Feed me, Seymore. Feeeed Meee!

We think more alike than I probably would like to. However, I still think I cannot entirely agree that men should be able to bow out (I am aware that many fathers do this/run off/disappear whatever.. and I truly can't imagine how either a mother or a father could abandon their child.)

"As far as I can see, even greater application of responsibility by law should be a real issue--deadbeat dads need to pay for their offspring or suffer real punishment.... This is... a real problem that needs to be addressed. These youngsters must be cared for and supported--even if society must bear the cost; but the parents, whoever they are, also need to be tracked down and required to contribute."
Even though we both agree with this, what if we find the dead-beat parent, attempt to make them pay and they say (after the fact) "Oh the mother kept the babies without my consent and I am not responsible" People can be horrible and would say this just to get out of their responsibility even if it is a flat out lie. What to do then? Now the mom would truly be screwed over if she wasn't already. I just don't think that either parent should be allowed to not be responsible for their child - whether or not they both want to keep it.

I do agree that by taking away abortion rights, the problem will only worsen. That fathers will be forced into fatherhood when both him and the mother would have chosen to abort, isn't right.
I also agree that some people shouldn't be allowed to reproduce... however I don't think I could morally impose that idea on another person. I have seen my fair share of people in my community who are dumber than a stack of bricks and keep reproducing and don't take care of their children, or can't afford to. It really is an injustice that there are people who are truly deserving and truly want children, yet they are infertile; and then the people who don't care and can least afford it seem to have no end to their fertility.

Overall, for both genders, I firmly believe that if you are going to willingly partake in sex and are capable of reproducing, then you need to be able to shoulder the consequences - which could be nothing or it could be 18 years of child support or even a nasty std.... (yes, I know this is ideal, because people will always have irresponsible sex).

I am very afraid of what will happen with this administration and the fundies pushing for everything they can get... Not only for women, but everyone... It's scary. Yes we are on the same side overall... Good debate though, it is at least interesting.

The best advice one can offer is wear protection each and every time, otherwise it could be some of the most expensive sex you will ever have in your life......

Or Phyllis Schlafly?

Or buy a nice latex doll that can't get preggers. Or he can get his nuts fixed. Or he can gamble on a condom and accept the fact it may fail and he will share responsibility if a pregnancy results. Or he can chose to have sex with a woman, allow sperm to enter her body and then understand that he will share responsibility if a pregnancy results.

There's such a spectrum of choice that men have. It's his sperm and he has the ultimate right to make the decision about whether or not he allows his sperm to enter a womans body or not. It is not his right to shirk his part of the responsibility if a pregnancy does result.

This case will absolutely be laughed out of court, as it should be.

The tone of this thread proves it...

Everyone has a horror story story on one side or another...

The system is broken...it is too affected by the bitter back and forth between estranged parents. Child support and visitation are too often used as weapons by one parent against the other...

Support needs to be somehow seperated from this. A system needs to be devised...and I have seen some proposals for state run support pooling etc, to make sure that A. the child gets the level of support they need, and B. Both parents are held accountable for providing the support they are required to, and most importantly, that support is seperated from the bitter relationship between the parents.

You are absolutely right. It's a broken system and that's the main gripe behind all the noise. If the system worked, I guarantee that a myriad of these problems would be solved.

There is so much abuse of child support from both sides that it's sickening. Some of the lowest human beings, both men and women, illegally abuse the support system.

The laws on the books simply need to be better enforced, against all parties. In every state that I am aware of, the custodial parent must allow for court ordered visitation regardless of the status of child support payments. As it should be, since the court has determined that visitation with the non-custodial parent is in the best interest of the child. When a custodial parent breaches that order, s/he should be held in contempt of court and handled appropriately. When the non-custodial parent refuses to pay support that has been ordered, s/he should also face other consequences. The laws are written in favor of the child and are to consider the child's best interests at all times. The problems arise when the parents don't follow the laws and the court's orders.

So maybe you are correct in that some reform is needed, but it is in the enforcement of the laws and not their terms.

It is impossible for government agencies, already understaffed to try and enforce every child visitation order...

And the simple truth is, the custodial parent, which is usually the mother, has defacto advantage in determining visitation. For the father to challenge any breach of the court order is expensive and often fruitless. And in any court proceeding in most states, the mother is presumed to be the fitter parent absent any contradicting information.

What is best for the child is to remove the support system from the bitter conflict between the parents. This insures that the child is getting the money they need, that the money is being used for the benefit of the child, and that both parents are living up to their obligations.

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

Every opinion in this thread is interesting, but one glaring truth is missing:
States have restricted abortion access to the point that it's really difficult
for many women to have the procedure done without calling attention to
their actions.

For example, try looking up "Utah Abortion Clinics." Here's what you get:

Utah Abortion Clinics

Denver
Abortion Medical Services - Edward O'Loughlin MD, PC
850 East Harvard Avenue, Suite G55
Denver, Colorado 80210
(303) 733-5511
www.AbortionMedicalServices... Visit Mini Site

Las Vegas
Summit Family Planning
2900 East Desert Inn Rd, Suite 209
Las Vegas, Nevada 89121
(800) 606-2630
www.summitcenters.com/summi...

And then, there's this:

Patient Privacy Notice

Abortion Clinics
Effective April 14, 2003


In accordance with the Federal Privacy Law (HIPAA), abortion clinics keep medical information and records confidential and will only use them for patient treatment, health care operations, and billing purposes.

Treatment: Physicians, clinicians, and staff will use your medical information to give you the best possible care.

Health Care Operation: Abortion clinics will use this information for appropriate follow-up care, patient notification, statistical & regulatory requirements, and internal quality assurance programs.

Billing Purposes: Abortion clinics will use your medical information to bill the appropriate third party(ies) for your care.

DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION WITH EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES

1. Health information will be given to family members in case of an emergency or under other circumstances with proper authorization and documentation.

2. Health information may be given to other physicians or institutions under emergency situations.

3. Information may be given to proper authorities when neglect or abuse is alleged or suspected.

4. Information may be provided to courts or other agencies when a subpoena is given to this office.

Anyway, my point is that getting an abortion is not a simple act anywhere, and very difficult in some places-- like Utah. This fact shouldn't be ignored in the Men's Reproductive Rights proposal.

Go on with the thread. It's a great read!

If an individual does not want to have a CHILD, they need to make sure that they use the birth control available to them. 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.

what a surprise to see so many people whining that men don't have a "choice" and even some saying that a man should have to consent before a woman can have an abortion on International Women's Day.

Goddess forbid we should ever talk about the real state of women's rights in this world without having to stroke some men's egos first. :eyes:

I'm going back to bed. Wake me when everyone has decided to join us in the 21st century.

When a woman becomes pregnant, the decision on whether to carry the child to term should be amenable to a democratic solution. Each of the two contributing parties gets one vote, with a tie going to the one who contributed the most cytoplasm.

Rev.Enki, the misunderestimably wise

Men should be given the option to opt out. I'm a woman. And when I have sex with a man... I am having sex. Not just the man. Condoms can fail, hell, they can fall right off! I've had that happen many times. Birth control pills (and etc.) can fail to do the job. Sometimes accidents happen.

If I am to get pregnant; I have the option to keep it, or abort it. My body, my choice right? And if I want to keep it, and the man doesn't- I don't need him. He can opt out if he wants. I won't ask him for financial support, and he can just never see the child. I don't see why this is such a big deal to people. I grew up without a father, and it didn't screw me up in any way. My mom was mom and dad, the uber parent, and she certainly didn't need to keep me. She wanted to, and she did just fine.

I'm a woman, I enjoy sex just as much as any man I choose to have sex with- we are both choosing to have sex, and if there's an accident, I believe there should be options on both sides. He can't force me to have the baby, and I don't see why he should be forced to support it, if he says to me "I don't want to be a father."

I don't think a man needs to simply keep his dick in his pants any more than I should keep my pants on. So I can agree with these guys, in so far as, giving up financial support also means never taking a part in that child's life. Ever. I also think any decision like that should be made ASAP.

I would like to add something to the mix here. When I was pregnant with my second child I decided I would have my tubes tied. If I ever had to raise these kids on my own 2 was my limit so I asked my doctor to tie my tubes after my child was born. Imagine my surprise when I was informed by the doctor that I had to have my husbands consent to have this done and he would need to sign the forms before I had the procedure.

Well, isn't this rich, men want to be able to decide to walk away from the financial responsibility of a child if they don't want to be a father. They want to be able to decide if a woman they had sex with can or can not have an abortion and they also get to decide if I can have my damn tubes tied. Is there anything else you guys would like to decide for me?

wrong, needing a man's permission to get your tubes tied... My mom raised me and my brother with no financial support, she got her tubes tied because she knew she a) didn't want more children, and b) couldn't afford more. Thank goodness she wasn't married and didn't need any kind of permission, because hell. My mom enjoys sex.

As far as I'm concerned, men should have no say over what we do to our bodies, be it getting our tubes tied, having an abortion, using birth control, etc. And if a man says, early enough in the pregnancy, that he doesn't want to be a father- I say, they should be given that right.

Now if a man waits until after the child is born... and I say, same for women, because some women walk out, too- then they should by law pay for child support. If any decision is to be made as to whether one parent doesn't want to be a parent, that should be made before the child is born. Suffice it to say I think a few laws and procedures should be changed.

Once again, I think it's absolutely horrible that you needed permission to get your tubes tied. That's disgusting. :hug:

And it wasn't for the purpose of not having children, it was medically necessary. Still my husband had to sign his consent and AUTHORIZATION for me to have the surgery. I guess if he wanted children it would override my medical needs.

We need to learn to address this issue reasonably and you have offered a solution to a very real problem rather than just screaming over the din. If we resort to telling men to "keep it in their pants", we are, in essence, supporting the RW meme of "women should keep their legs crossed".

However, real solutions are difficult to find and not every situation can be accomodated by a one-answer plan. Your ideas present an excellent starting point for the discussion.

live in, becoming more and more square head every day, imposes restrictions on us that keep us effectively children. Having the spouse sign. What next? Your dad? Then they say, you have these options that make ME happy: Keep it yourself, dump it on someone else, abort it. Abortion is under threat and impossible in some place. Then there's the new ruling by the Supremes that allows assholes to harass you all the way to the door again.

Men (the general societal men, there are zillions of exceptions) keep us children and they want to have the option ON TOP OF IT ALL to walk. Fuck that. Babies take two people, they create a living person when born and BOTH people have the duty and responsibility to do the right thing. Men, BE A MAN. Women, suck it up. The child now comes first. Is life fair? Hell no. Look at Darfur. Look at the Rwanda thing. Women were raped and had babies from their terrorist attackers. Their husbands DUMPED THEM. The fuckers.

The world isn't fair, no one can dump their responsibility to an INNOCENT child because they DIDN'T MEAN IT. Get over it, world. If you want to be in the adult world, you have to take your damned adult lumps. Go out and fine tune the system if you don't like it but don't become less of a man than you are because you were 'duped'. Sometimes it isn't fair but then again, read above.

RV, who KNOWS FROM A LIFETIME OF EXPERIENCE that the world isn't fair. Its usually fucked and having dumped sad children living all around raising themselves because their mom is working two jobs to feed them isn't going to help it get better.

:shrug:

I had a c-section. I had 2 of them. Didn't need his sig for that. I had another abdominal surgery (complications from the first
C-section) didn't need him for that. Only when I wanted my tubes tied. They explained to me that it was necessary because well heck, he may want to have more kids later. My response, "Great, he can have them with his next wife!"

FYI: He was in agreement on the tubal, we discussed it before hand. I'm just considerate that way. However, it does not change the fact that it was REQUIRED that he sign and give consent BEFORE I had the procedure.






Whoo Hoo, this is my 1000th post!

And guess what? When my kids were 11 and 7. He decided he no longer wanted to be a husband or a father and his financial responsibility to us was over. Imagine that! But hey, as long as those doctors kept his options open for him what the hell right?

On that note I'm going to bed. Everyone have a great evening.

needed for either spouse to be sterilized by choice.

:yourock:

I think

If you choose to have the child, what's best for the child -- to have two incomes supporting it, or one? I also think there are kids who do suffer because one parent had the attitude that the child was simply property and that the other parent's involvement is worthless. If you move beyond focusing on your interests and focus on the child's instead, I think you come up with different answers.

having the second parent. Why on earth would anyone want their child to have to go through knowing a man as their father, that doesn't even want the child? A man who may resent the mother for having the child? If I chose to have a child that a man didn't want, I certainly wouldn't want to put a child through that potential emotional trauma of having said father who doesn't want them. What's best for a child depends on that child, me and my brother were raised on one income and we never lacked for anything. Of course he knew his father. I didn't. And I have no problem with that.

money is good. Keep them in shoes and hamburger helper. that will ALWAYS be good.

consequences of your actions.

:kick:

wise words.
dp

of this debate. Which is usually a strong indication of its truth.

Although I am in no way endorsing "Abstinence-only" education(I totally support COMPREHENSIVE sex education which promotes abstinence but also discusses contraception and other important sexuality issues), it is inescapably TRUE that sexual abstinence is the ONLY 100% guaranteed method of avoiding unwanted pregnancies. Every man and woman who enter into a sexual relationship with each other SHOULD be fully aware that pregnancy is ALWAYS a POTENTIAL outcome. Although birth control methods, especially the pill, can be quite effective in preventing pregnancy, the truth of the matter is that condoms sometimes break or slip off, birth control pills sometimes get forgotten, and ovulation can't really be RELIABLY predicted. So, if some men can't deal with the prospect of having to support a child (that they HELPED create with another human being) for the next 18+ years, they should NOT be having sex with anybody in the first place. Frankly, I think this lawsuit is bogus and I think that men NEED to be held morally, legally, and financially responsible for the consequences of their actions as do women. I agree that the child support system probably can be a bit onerous and probably needs to be overhauled to some degree, however in regards to this lawsuit, men DO have choices but the right not to assume financial responsibilities for children they helped bring into this world should NOT be one of them!

what with roe vs. wade on the way out.

Even though I wanted absolutely nothing from the "sperm donor" when my daughter was born, this case is ridiculous. "The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose"...??? This has been discussed over and over again in courtrooms across the country.

Maleness and femaleness is inherently unequal. For example, women have short biological clocks compared to men -- half as long. If you don't think that's a big deal talk to those single women who wish they had kids who are 40+.

For every scenario you can think of regarding men sometimes get trapped into unintended pregnancies by women who dupe them, you can find scenarios of men duping women into thinking they are interested in settling down.

There are risks to having sex to both parties, and those risks will always be inherently unequal. This is a time IMO where society generally needs to say "Deal with it."

On the other hand if our society was more rational, it wouldn't take a full-time job to eke out money for food and housing..the fact that minimum wage jobs aren't enough to sustain a man and his child within a reasonable level is part of the problem..our economy is making this a much more difficult problem than it needs to be.

But children have NO choice.

I've read a lot of posts on this thread, and I think yours is one of the wisest. :)

No birth control is 100% and anytime a couple has sex they should both walk into it knowing a pregnancy could result. Period.

My suggestion to anyone having sex:

If you want to make sure no pregnancy results from having sex...don't have sex.