jorgelito

That's funny, a nice comic relief!

Cimarron29414

I think you are missing the point. If the only change we make in the system is to allow men to reject financial responsibility, then someone WILL be paying for the child for 18 years - you and me. It would be naive to think that anything other than this will happen.

Again, a man is 100% in control of his destiny as to whether he will be financially responsible for a child - he can wear condoms or chose abstinence. If he doesn't trust condoms or REALLY doesn't want a child, he should choose abstinence.

Consenting to engage in sexual intercourse implies consent for ALL consequences of that act - including the creation of a child and the financial responsibility of the child. You might not LIKE those choices, but there are choices.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Cervantes

Cimarron29414 - The problem isn't that of taking responsibility for your actions it is that women have a bailout from this responsibility while the man hasn't.

It is a clear double standard, women are given the option to bail from the rigors that follow a child while a man just have to sit down and accept the concequences to his life in whatever the woman decides.

It is as if a woman isn't expected to take responsibility while a man is to take full responsibility no matter what.

__________________
- "Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.."
- "Religions take everything that your DNA naturally wants to do to survive and pro-create and makes it wrong."
- "There is only one absolute truth and that is that there is only one absolute truth."

Seeker

Cimarron29414, in addition to the above (Cervantes post), what of the married couples that have decided they do not yet want children? If the woman changes her mind and tricks the pregnancy, what then? Is the husband at fault and responsible because his wife pulled a sneaky on him? This could be said for longterm bf/gf as well.

Do you really think that guys should not have sex until they want a child? I think that is a little unfair...

__________________
To those who wander but who are not lost...

~ Knowledge is not something you acquire, it is something you open yourself to.

degrawj

wow, i'm kind of surprised by the results. i didn't think that the votes would swing the way they are right now. this is something that i have tried to resolve in my mind for quite a while, and as of yet, i haven't been able to come up with a clear decision. in an ideal world, which this world is VERY far from, two people would be able to work something out so that if the woman didn't want to get an abortion, and the father did, then maybe they could resolve to not have the man be responsible for the child. but everybody is different, and there will never be a consensus, so someone usually ends up getting screwed, whether it's the mom, dad, or child. there is just a really slippery slope when trying to determine what the equal rights would be for a man under those circumstances. and honestly, until we can ensure that a woman will ALWAYS have the right to get an abortion, i think we are kind of getting ahead of ourselves.

joeshoe

You raise a good point, because there are gender equality issues involved. However, I believe the father should take responsibility for his child. The baby may be an accident, but the sex wasn't.

Of course, this argument does opposes abortion as a whole...

meembo

The physical deed marks the consent. If children occur, the vote is solely with the one who bears the physical responsibility. Period. This is why I had a vasectomy.

__________________
less I say, smarter I am

mokle

So if a woman has a child with obvious malicious intent, you'd expect the man to pay for said child, but forfeit all rights to the child?

I'll try not to point out how sickeningly distorted that idea is.

Anyways, back to the topic... saying that the man consented to having a baby just from the act of sex itself, well, that's a double edged sword, for you see, the woman had sex too, so she also consented. Does that mean that neither of them have the choice to abort? Sure, it's her body, but it's also his life.

Personally, I think abortion should only be legal for rape victims and underage women.

__________________
Mokle
"Your hands can't hit what your eyes can't see" -Ali

Strange Famous

of course the man should have to contribute - should children really be punished for the sins of their parents?

edit - also, my mother would probably have died if she did not have an abortion the 4th time she was pregnant (this was the medical advice she was given)

Obviously under your terms, abortion would not have been a legal option for her - while I suppose it is possible to argue that the right of that fetrus to live should be more important than the right of the mother to live (after all, if it was a straight 50/50 choice - the baby has a statistically better chance of a longer period of life)

Personally however, denying abortion where it is known childbirth will result in the death of the mother is extemely difficult morally, and I do not believe it would be acceptable to society.

Obviously, personal examples are emotional and not necessarily the best basis for cold moral logical judgement... but when it is someone you know who would basically face a death sentence... I could not support any state who would create such a law.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Lin

No it isnt that simple. She doesnt always have a bail out. For religious or moral grounds she may be stuck with the pregnancy.
I could not abort a child once pregnant and it seems unfair in my opinion if the man could then deny me help other than half the money for an abortion.

AngelicVampire

The Father may also not be able to abort due to legal or moral grounds, I know I would feel bad about a child of mine being raised without me (remember "legal aborting" is giving up all rights to the child), I am not religious however I know many guys who would also not abort their child even if they hated the mother because the sins of the mother are not the sins of the child. However n a vast majority of cases women have a get out card.

Cervantes

Yes it is that simple. Just because she has religious or moral issues with abortion it doesn't give her the right to mess up a guys life with an unwanted child. I am talking in a stricly legal sens of equality putting aside individual stances to abortion. The moral/religious aspects of abortion/"legal abortion" is soely up to the individuals to decide for themselves.

I don not think that such things as religious/moral qualms with abortion gives someone the right to interfere to that degree (or any degree for that matter) in another persons life.

Getting a baby is something that, when abortion is a given right, is completly voluntary for a woman but not for a man. That is not euqality in my book.

__________________
- "Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.."
- "Religions take everything that your DNA naturally wants to do to survive and pro-create and makes it wrong."
- "There is only one absolute truth and that is that there is only one absolute truth."

Strange Famous

Im pretty sure it takes a man, who is fully aware of what he is doing, to make a baby too

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

meembo

I have to say again that children are a logical and foreseeable consequence of having hetero sex. If guys don't want to deal with the inherent risk, they have the responsibility of cutting off the flow of sperm, however they choose to. No man can say that job is someone else's responsibility.

You can apply any number of different standards and talk about "equality", but the biological facts are there for everyone and anyone to see. Once the life is "born" inside the body of the woman, the pregnancy is inside her body and is hers. The man has played his part in the conception, and the rest of the story is about his willingness to face his responsibilities. (Lord knows how many men duck that responsibility (fatherhood), monetarily and otherwise.) What is the alternative? Making the child pay for the bad judgement of the parents? Fuck that.

Men's choices about pregnancy end sooner than a women's, but that's the way it is, and it's no surprise. As men, we still have complete control where our sperm goes. Men, we simply need to act that way.

__________________
less I say, smarter I am

robbdn

This has been a really interesting discussion. As far the issue at hand about what rights does the father have to "legally abort" the child in the case where the father wants an abortion and the mother does not, I admit that I support the idea at first glance. I'm also a hard-line pro-choicer, and from reading others posts it seems like pro-choicers are more willing to accept the idea of a "legal abortion."

The biggest problem this solution poses though, is what implications does this have in the case where the father wants to keep the baby and the mother does not? Should the consenting father have the legal right to prevent abortion (except in cases of medical emergency) by agreeing to pay the mother medical expenses, lost wages, etc, and agreeing to release the mother from any financial obligation to support the baby after birth?

Bottom line though, I agree that consenting partners need to share the responsibility of a pregnancy and that current laws do not make this possible.

__________________
I'm swimming in the digital residue of a media-drenched world. It's too cold.

Gilda

Once the baby has been born, both parents should absolutely have the same rights and responsibilities when it comes to access to and financial responsibility for the child. Both parents should be held financially responsible for the child's upbringing, regardless of who has physical custody.

Both parents should also have equal responsibility when it comes to the part of reproduction that happens within their bodies. The man's part occurs with the production and release of sperm. Once he's deposited his sperm into the woman's body, everything else happens there, and the woman should have the right to determine what happens within her body. It's entirely consistent to grant each partner the right to make their own decisions about their own bodies.

The moment that gestation can occur outside the woman's body, I'll agree that the man should have equal say in continuation of the pregnancy; until then it's her body, it's ultimately her decision.

bermuDa

I think that this topic treads a fine legal line, and it has nothing to do with responsibility.

Granting the father of an unborn baby rights over the decision to abort or not undermines the basis for which abortion is a legal practice. By giving the sperm donor parental rights, you are in effect intoducing three entities into the situation: the mother, the father, and the fetus, which is now subject to a custody battle before it can even survive on its own. By admitting that there is a "child" involved, the issue is no longer a women's body and her right to choose.

although I think the decision to abort should involve the father to some extent, I'm still pro-choice, and in order to keep legal abortion legal we have to keep the father out of the equation under the current precedence.

__________________
I am the very model of a moderator gentleman.

Matadon

I agree, for the most part. A father's legal right to the fetus exists only within the purview granted by the mother, because the status of the fetus lies solely within her control. It's her body, and therefore her decision as to whether or not she wants to go through with the process of birth. After a baby is born, then both parents are involved, but until that point in time, it's solely the mother's ballgame, unless someone wants to argue that it is a woman's duty to act as a brood-mare for her husband, regardless of her opinion on the matter?

AngelicVampire

So Matadon if your girlfriend (whom you are sleeping with) told you that she wanted no kids (and you are not after kids now), however she gets pregnant (changed her mind without telling you), you cannot support the child + survive yourself and have no interest in the child. Essentially you are happy with a woman playing you to get money?

maleficent

She's not "playing him" to get money for herself. He helped make that child. If he truly didn't want to have children... ever... well, he should have had himself fixed. No birth control is 100 percent effective and accidents do happen...

His sperm helped to create that child, how is it fair to the child that he should just throw away his paternal rights?

__________________

Supple Cow

Not at all; it's still her body. I think that's a much bigger issue compared to the financial obligation. If a woman is not physically and mentally prepared to carry a fetus and then give birth, and she does not even WANT a child, then she retain the right to have an abortion. However, given the special rights women have concerning the fate of fetus while it is still part of her body, my sense of fairness makes me amenable to the idea that a man should not ALWAYS be held financially responsible. I mean, if we're talking about better legal systems to make both sexes behave more responsibly, that would surely do it.

Say a woman does decide to have a baby - she carries it in her body for 9 months (give or take) and that often leads to later scenarios where she wins custody battles but also where she is left with the responsibility of pursuing legal measures to care for the baby when the father is being a deadbeat (that refers to both welfare programs for single mothers and suing the biological father for child support). To say that the responsibilities of both parents are equal is a nice idea, but it's simply not the truth because women clearly have greater rights and responsibilities, as it should be.

I happen to think that physical rights and financial responsibilites (though they often go together) are separate issues. In cases where the man and woman want different things, this is how it breaks down:

A man never has a right to make the ultimate physical decision about having a baby, but he always has a responsibility to pay child support for it if the woman decides to have it. The woman always has the right (let's hope) to make the ultimate physical decision about having a baby, but she does not always have the financial responsibility for it because she can always sue the man for child support. This system has a built-in incentive for women who don't have physical concerns about having a baby to behave irresponsibly about birth control.

That being said, it seems reasonable to me to allow a man being sued for child support to counter sue the woman for either lying about birth control efforts or breaking a verbal agreement to not have the baby. This does not stop her from having the baby if she wants to - it has nothing to do with her physical state. It merely recognizes that women should also behave responsibly and protect herself when choosing to have sex. The current system just gives men a lot of reason to distrust women.

__________________
"I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. Twenty-six times I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed."
(Michael Jordan)

Bruce Banner

all and all, the father should have some rights to an extent, this would not even be an issue at all without the man present

__________________
opening your mouth to queston my validity is like trying to contradict the theory of relativity- TECH

shakran

The trouble is that you want your cake and eat it too.

You have a viable option - abortion.

You CHOOSE not to take that option. Doesn't matter why you choose not to take it - the fact is that you have made the choice not to have an abortion.

That puts the ball squarely in your court. If you choose to have the kid, then you need to be responsible for your choices.

It is simply not fair to the man to tell him "I'm having this kid, and there's nothing you can do to stop me. And by the way, you're going to be paying for my choice for two decades."

If abortion is an ugly prospect for you, then perhaps you should not be having sex with people unless you are willing to accept the possible consequences.

You can't have it two ways. You can't say "It's my body and therefore the abortion decision rests solely with me," while at the same time saying "Hey, it's HIS fault I'm pregnant." You had control of your body when you slept with him. If you didn't want the financial responsibility of a child, then you should have remembered that you're correct - - it IS your body and you should have kept him away from it.

If you expect someone to be responsible for something, they have to have a say in how it goes down.

Seeker

Thanks Supple Cow, this IS what it's all about.

__________________
To those who wander but who are not lost...

~ Knowledge is not something you acquire, it is something you open yourself to.

Zeraph

I agree with Shakran. Though in a perfect situation, before sex, everyone would talk about contingencies if there was a pregnancy and not have sex if they didn't agree.

I think the father should have the right to legally abstain from being the father, but he'd have to do it before the child is born, unless the father can prove that the mother left and secretly had the child. However, it would be permanent like a real abortion, doesn't matter if he wishes to be the legal guardian later in the child's life (to keep from inhereting money if he outlives the child).

I don't exactly like it, but I believe in choice. In this case the choice not to be a father.

analog

This made me laugh until my sides hurt and i wanted to abort my funny bone.

See, abortion can be funny. Next up, cancer.

Read the opening post. It has nothing to do with being able to physically cause an abortion, only the removal of responsibility.

I am a religious person, but that's bullshit. If she's got agendas or is hindered by an internal decision struggle, that's her fuckin' beef. She HAS the ability to opt-out. This whole argument is about what people CHOOSE to do, and that includes factoring in their personal bullshit.

Boo fucking hoo. I wonder what the founders of N.O.W. (National Organization of Women) would have said if they knew their pioneering spirit and hard work towards gender equality would actually have resulted in... equality?

Equality is 50/50. The same. The current ability for a women to opt-out, but not a man, directly contradicts all notions of equality. That is wrong. All the women in this thread need to stop their tubes from getting in a knot over the honesty of some of the males in here. You have the total, unwavering advantage. 100%. If you can say "no thanks" to a baby, then men should be able to as well. Men do not create babies, nor do women- it requires both together, and so should the laws reflect that fact.

My uncle spent years in the courtroom spending God knows how much money on lawyers, trying to get and keep the rights to his son, my cousin. Mother's rights FAR outweigh a father's. That bitch was an alcoholic, multiple alcohol-related offences, used hard drugs, also multiple offences including cocaine and LSD, AND... AND... AND... child endangerment, neglect, abuse. Also, she has never held a job. Ever.

Yeah. She'd leave him home alone, at one to two years of age, all day or all night, and leave out a bag of chips for food. My uncle was away when this happened. She locked him in a closet once for 3 days. No food, nothing. She just left him. She went and partied in atlantic city for a long weekend. He almost died.

Despite all this, he STILL had to fight to get custody, and then had to fight to lower her ability to see him. She used my cousin as leverage to get money from my uncle for child support on the kid HE was raising! And he had to fight to get THAT overturned.

As it stands, men's rights don't begin at conception- they never have any, at all, ever. Women can do whatever they please and the laws will protect their stupid asses, even should they be drug-using, alcoholic, child-neglecting, -abandoning, -abusing whores. There is no equality.

Willravel

Well put. Damn well put.

kutulu

It's so hard to take this seriously but at the same time this thread makes me ashamed to be a man. All I can see are other men here bitching about what is fair or not. I thought we were men. A real man doesn't hide from responsibility. Get over yourselves and realize that there are differences. Women are not there for our control.

People saying women have abortion as an option for emergency birth control are looking at abortion in a very rosy way. It's not that simple, it can have very serious side effects and cause a woman to be sterile for the rest of her life. Aside from that, it's a decision that can get people kicked out of their churches.

Hell if you are going to say that the woman can have an abortion, maybe the man should have had a vasectomy performed. That can be reversed sometimes if the man wants kids later.

The hypothetical situations are laughable. All these images of strung-out women malicously plotting to trick the man into having a baby so she can have some meal ticket. Sorry, but life isn't a soap opera. Seriously, how often does this happen?

Compare 'evil woman' conspiracy theory to the amount of unplanned pregnancies that just happen because of lack of birth control, improper use of birth control, or failure of birth control. Maybe I'm crazy but I'm pretty sure that these situations have to outweigh the 'evil woman' situation by at least 10,000:1.

It sucks that men can be taken advantage of but radically changing the laws to accomodate an extreme circumstance is never the right thing. The fact is that in virtually all circumstances both parties were consenting and both need to live with the consequences.

Look around at the country. How many kids are fucked up because they didn't have the guidance of both parents? When a man DECIDES TO BE A SCUMBAG and deserts his kid it forces the mother to work more and as a result, the kid doesn't even end up with one full-time parent. Giving men the right to be a scumbag and have no legal responsibility will do nothing but make the country worse.

If you aren't ready for a kid WEAR A FUCKING CONDOM. It's that fucking simple.

Be a man. Don't neglect to take preventative measures and then sit back and cry that you don't have control over someone else's body.

Supple Cow

First of all, that dig was totally unnecessary. Second of all, it's not even true. I'm a woman. Did you read any of my posts in this thread?

__________________
"I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. Twenty-six times I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed."
(Michael Jordan)

JustJess

The problem is many-faceted. I think Supple Cow is onto something... In my utopian world, this is what I'd like to see happen:
True, real-life sex education for everyone. Especially in the poorer areas, rural areas, etc. Education and free condoms for all. You can’t stop people from having sex. But if we had some real education that covers all the options – abstinence unless you’ve had ‘the talk about the possible outcomes’, condoms, sponges, etc, etc, etc – perhaps that might help. And education about what happens after the sex.

I’d like to see a legal/social agency who is there to help mediate between parties to arrive at mutually acceptable resolutions.
The examples: the father wants to take care of the baby himself and the mother does not want the baby – now, I do think that she should have the ultimate decision because it’s HER body. However, perhaps there would be fewer instances of this if there were mediation, someone to help with a little perspective – maybe help a woman see that if she is generous with 9 months of her life, she can give that guy who actually wants to take responsibility what he wants and then she’ll be done with it. Unfortunately, part of being a male is that if you have sex and a pregnancy results, not only do you have to deal with the possible child, you ALSO have to deal with the possible abortion. Just like she does.
What about fiscal responsibility? Well, if we continue with the idea of mediation, we could use that as a channel of finding a balance that both parties can live with. Perhaps have the 50% cost of abortion/recovery be the minimum allowable contribution from the man. Even if she has the baby, she’s going to have costs that that money can contribute to. And depending on the relationship and circumstances of how she ended up pregnant in the first place, that can be the basis to determine how responsible the man should be. All mediation should be resolved within 2 months of conception so that the options are not limited. This way, he has to be a least partially emotionally and fiscally involved, and can have a discussion about what to do next. Because it’s her body, the mediation would not be legally binding (as in she would HAVE to do whatever they agreed to), but if she chooses to go a route other than the agreed-upon resolution, then she will have total fiscal responsibility.
How does that sound?

__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

JustJess

Actually, I thought everyone was pretty measured and calm. Pretty impressive considering the topic!

__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

AngelicVampire

Kutulu, so you are saying that a man who takes protection and uses it properly and has it fail has no option? Clearly he was being protective of his "seed" and did not want a kid, the woman clearly agreed (otherwise he would be riding bearback and trying for a kid)... if the woman then decides to have that kid is it really the guys fault? He was taking precautions to not have it (and don't say he shouldn't be having sex, many women have sex who don't want kids either).

kutulu

That sums it up. Hey life isn't always fair. Either accept the possible consequences or abstain. It's a well known fact that birth control methods are not 100%.

Are you completely ignoring the effects that single parents are having on kids growing up these days? Do you really think society will be better if we have more deadbeat dads out there?

JustJess

AngelicVampire - I think this is touching on a bigger problem. I'm all for sex and people enjoying their freedom of "expression", but no one talks about what the possible outcomes are. If more people thought about "gee, I could catch something from this random encounter" or "hm, we've only been dating 3 months - I'm not ready to be a daddy, maybe I should tell her that"... but not enough people do.

__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

AngelicVampire

I do, Sex != kids for me, if the woman is iffy on this then that hole is a no go area... however if she changes her mind wtf... we agreed nothing comes of this so why should her rights exceed mine?

Lockjaw

Hmmm...
Working under the premise of things are between two consenting individuals...
I'm getting the vibe from some of you that...

Men should have vesectomies but women should not have to have their tubes tied if they don't want kids.

Men should be "men" and wear condoms if they don't want kids but women shouldn't be responible and MAKE their partner wear a condom if they want to have intercourse.

Men should have NO say in their future or the future of their offspring but women should have the say in their future,the future of their sexual partner, AND the future of their children. Now who is controling who again here?

Men should "know better" and if they want to play they potentially have to pay but women shouldn't have to know better and if they want to play they really in the end don't have to pay if they REALLY don't want to.

Are any of you taking yourselves seriously when you are saying "be a man and take better care of what you are doing...if you aren't willing to pay you aren't mature enough to be having sex...." However when this exact SAME arguement is stated as to why women should have no right to abortion when her desire is based upon it not "ruining" her life it's roundly yelled down as being sexist.

It's a sad situation when "equality" has become better described as screwing the other side worse than they have traditionally screwed you in the past(no pun intended).

kutulu

No, both parties are equally responsible for birth control, if being child free is that important to you and you need to have sex don't place all the faith in preventing pregnancy in the hands of someone else. Also, realize that every method of birth control (even vasectomies and tubal ligations) have been known to fail. Everybody knows someone who had an unplanned pregnancy after one of those procedures took place.

I'm 100% serious on that. It is the woman's body and abortions are not pretty or mentally easy. I'm sure that most pro-choice people (like myself) are in favor of having that option available for those who want it but could never personally do it. You can't fault someone for not doing what most people couldn't do themselves.

Does anybody actually think society will be better if we make it ok for men to run around impregnating women freely and then be completely free of any financial obligations?

tim2shady

Very interesting.....but

The woman's right to control her own body over-rules a man's right to be emancipated from the resposibilities of having a child. SO.....what to do........

Kids need both parents as much in their life as much as possible, so the courts need to start at 50/50 for visitation and financials. As long as, each parent is deemed a person resoposible enough to care for a child.

Perhaps this would influence some men from becoming "dead-beat" dads......they could say hey, i have just as much right as she does, maybe I'll stick around and do the right thing for the child.

Perhaps this would influence women not to "trap" men, as it is a common occurrence.....if he don't want to stay with me, then he'll pay for it....kinda thing.

And since i'm thinking about it......hmm...maybe i should start a thread??

__________________
mean people suck.....period.

Matadon

If the woman wants to carry the baby to term, and the father wants no part of it BEFORE BIRTH, then I think that it should be the woman's responsibility, should she choose to give birth. AFTER BIRTH is a completely different animal, of course, but until that fetus can exist separate from its mother, it is not a lifeform. Basically, up until birth, either party can opt out, with the mother having the ultimate veto (e.g., no father can force a woman to give birth), but after that, they're both in the ballgame together.

Does this help clarify my viewpoint?

Lockjaw

Yet that type of thinking isn't applied all that often to young foolish females who get pregnant and one of the large arguements for pro-choice is that the woman(though I wouldn't call a girl that gets knocked up while screwing around a woman any more than I would call a guy who ran out on his kids a man)should not be penalized by having a baby she does not want.

However it's still one more option than the male in the situation has and that is not "equatable". At the end of the day if she doesn't want it she doesn't have to have it. That's not something a male has the benefit of and it's not right if you consider both parties are equally responsible.

I suppose not however I don't think this stance of women can get out of it(even though it's damaging) but guys shouldn't be let out of it on a "moral" stand point really is right.

No but neither do I think society is better off by making it ok to terminate a life/potential life based purely on whether or not it will interupt their lives(rape,incest, and cases of saving the mothers life not withstanding).
Frankly on the scale of detestable behavior loss of life is worse than not being a parent(fiscally at least) in my book.