My Sperm... My Choice, too? Please?! - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Willravel · 01-22-2008, 10:58 PM

I love Roe vs. Wade. It was one of the huge liberal victories and was possibly one of the most important occurrences in the entire women's rights movement. I would never ask that it be overturned.

That said...

Fathers' legal rights have, unfortunately, stagnated. In this country it would be totally legal for a woman to provide a purposefully broken condom, get pregnant, have a baby, and possibly even get child support... and the father can do absolutely nothing. Likewise, if a man and woman make love and the woman gets pregnant... she can have it aborted whenever she wants. The father doesn't have a say.

I know men aren't pregnant. I can't carry a child to term in my womb. Does that really mean that we are not a part of the process? It's odd to fight for men's rights, I'll admit, but this is a conversation that needs to happen.

Are fathers just sperm machines?

Ustwo · 01-23-2008, 01:59 AM

You reap what you Roe.

The pro-abortion crowd seems to operate from a 'woman should have the right to do what she wants with her body' and 'until its capable of independent life, a fetus isn't a human being'.

A father CAN'T have any rights if this mindset is to be valid.

Its not that you are a sperm machine, its that its not your body (so not your choice, you can't tell a woman what to do with her body) and its not even a baby yet.

Really the next logical step in this mindset is for fathers to have no rights or responsibilities, not more rights. Then you will just be a sperm machine.

tecoyah · 01-23-2008, 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Are fathers just sperm machines?

Pretty much. An unfortunate reality created by the physical process of human gestation.

host · 01-23-2008, 04:06 AM

The "spin":

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

<h3>You reap what you Roe.
The pro-abortion crowd seems to operate from a 'woman should have the right to do what she wants with her body'</h3> and 'until its capable of independent life, a fetus isn't a human being'.

A father CAN'T have any rights if this mindset is to be valid.

Its not that you are a sperm machine, its that its not your body (so not your choice, you can't tell a woman what to do with her body) and its not even a baby yet.

Really the next logical step in this mindset is for fathers to have no rights or responsibilities, not more rights. Then you will just be a sperm machine.

The setted law:

Quote:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...8_0052_ZS.html
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

428 U.S. 52

Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. 74-1151 Argued: March 23, 1976 --- Decided: July 1, 1976[*]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two Missouri-licensed physicians, one of whom performs abortions at hospitals and the other of whom supervises abortions at Planned Parenthood, a not-for-profit corporation, brought suit, along with that organization, for injunctive and declaratory relief challenging the constitutionality of the Missouri abortion statute. The provisions under attack are: § 2(2), defining "viability" as

that stage of fetal development when the life of the unborn child may be continued indefinitely outside the womb by natural or artificial life supportive systems;

§ 3(2), requiring that, before submitting to an abortion during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, a woman must consent in writing to the procedure and certify that "her consent is informed and freely given, and is not the result of coercion"; § 3(3), requiring, for the same period, the written consent of the spouse of a woman seeking an abortion unless a licensed physician certifies that the abortion is necessary to preserve the mother's life; § 3(4), requiring, for the same period, and with the same proviso, the written consent of a parent or person in loco parentis to the abortion of an unmarried woman under age 18; § 6(1),..

Held:

1. The physician appellants have standing to challenge the foregoing provisions of the Act with the exception of § 7, the constitutionality of which the Court declines to decide. Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179. P. 62, and n. 2.

2. The definition of viability in § 2(2) does not conflict with the definition in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 160, 163, as the point at which the fetus is "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid," and is presumably capable of "meaningful life outside the mother's womb." Section 2(2) maintains the flexibility of the term "viability" recognized in Roe. It is not a proper legislative or judicial function to fix viability, which is essentially for the judgment of the responsible attending physician, at a specific point in the gestation period. Pp. 63-65.

3. The consent provision in § 3(2) is not unconstitutional. The decision to abort is important and often stressful, and the awareness of the decision and its significance may be constitutionally assured by the State to the extent of requiring the woman's prior written consent. Pp. 65-67.

4. The spousal consent provision in § 3(3), which does not comport with the standards enunciated in Roe v. Wade, supra, at 164-165, is unconstitutional, since the State cannot

"delegate to a spouse a veto power which the [S]tate itself is absolutely and totally prohibited from exercising during the first trimester of pregnancy."

Pp. 67-72.

5. The State may not constitutionally impose a blanket parental consent requirement, such as § 3(4), as a condition for an unmarried minor's abortion during the first 12 weeks of her pregnancy for substantially the same reasons as in the case of the spousal consent provision, there being no significant state interests, whether to safeguard the family unit and parental authority or other vise, in conditioning an abortion on the consent of a parent with respect to the under-18-year-old pregnant minor. As stressed in Roe, "the abortion decision and its effectuation must [p54] be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician." 410 U.S. at 164. Pp. 72-75.

6. Through § 9, the State would prohibit the most commonly used abortion procedure in the country and one that is safer, with respect to maternal mortality, than even the continuation of pregnancy until normal childbirth, and would force pregnancy terminations by methods more dangerous to the woman's health than the method outlawed. As so viewed (particularly since another safe technique, prostaglandin, is not yet available) the outright legislative proscription of saline amniocentesis fails as a reasonable protection of maternal health. As an arbitrary regulation designed to prevent the vast majority of abortions after the first 12 weeks, it is plainly unconstitutional. Pp. 75-79.

7. The reporting and recordkeeping requirements, which can be useful to the State's interest in protecting the health of its female citizens and which may be of medical value, are not constitutionally offensive in themselves, particularly in view of reasonable confidentiality and retention provisions. They thus do not interfere with the abortion decision or the physician-patient relationship. It is assumed that the provisions will not be administered in an unduly burdensome way, and that patients will not be required to execute spousal or parental consent forms in accordance with invalid provisions of the Act. Pp. 79-81.

8. The first sentence of § 6(1) impermissibly requires a physician to preserve the fetus' life and health, whatever the stage of pregnancy. The second sentence, which provides for criminal and civil liability where a physician fails "to take such measures to encourage or to sustain the life of the child, and the death of the child results," does not alter the duty imposed by the first sentence or limit that duty to pregnancies that have reached the stage of viability, and since it is inseparably tied to the first provision, the whole section is invalid. Pp. 81-84.

392 F.Supp. 1362, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

The "spin":

Quote:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-...out-abortion-c

Media Give Planned Parenthood Pass for Lying to City Re Abortion Clinic
By Warner Todd Huston | September 18, 2007 - 10:13 ET
Hiding behind a fake company name, Planned Parenthood came into Aurora, Illinois, a suburban Chicago neighborhood, and built an abortion clinic without telling the city of Aurora that it was to be an abortion clinic. Yet, all the news about this story is centering on the pro-abortion/pro-life debate instead of Planned Parenthood's lies. This story has been going on for a few days in Aurora, Illinois. It seems Planned Parenthood told a teeny, tiny white lie to the City Planning Board of Aurora about what use a new building they were constructing near a residential neighborhood would be put to. In fact, they even misled city officials as to who they even were, and those officials are none too happy about it.

The city granted a building permit to a company called Gemini Office Development LLC to build what was being called a “medical office building.” It turns out, however, that Gemini Office Development LLC is actually a shell company for Planned Parenthood and <h3>this new building was not going to be just a regular, non-descript “medical office building” but a Planned Parenthood abortion mill, instead.</h3> Curiously, Planned Parenthood neglected to tell the city of its plans until the building was complete and they were ready to open for business....

The harrassment and intimidation by anti-abortion activists, and the interference of religious doctrine in the practice of medicine and provision of medical reproductive health services to the least of us:

Quote:

http://www.kcchronicle.com/articles/...d176564413.txt
Aurora Planned Parenthood clinic opens its doors

Comments (No comments posted.)
AURORA (AP) – A Planned Parenthood health center opened its doors to patients Tuesday, two weeks later than planned, after anti-abortion activists raised questions about how it received its building permits.

About 100 protesters – some holding red roses, others rosaries and some with signs reading “Planned Parenthood: Bad for Aurora” – gathered peacefully on sidewalks near the clinic, which became a focus of the national abortion debate during the review.

Planned Parenthood was granted an occupancy permit for the clinic Monday afternoon.

“We have no regrets about how we went about this process,” Steve Trombley, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood/Chicago Area, said Tuesday. “We kept it private from our opponents, and we did it for good reason.”

Trombley said some walk-up patients were expected to drop by the clinic Tuesday afternoon, and appointments were scheduled for later this week.

Mayor Tom Weisner said, while Planned Parenthood was “less than forthcoming” when it used a subsidiary called Gemini Office Development to build the clinic, three attorney reviews found no legal basis to deny an occupancy permit to the clinic.

It became public knowledge in late July that Planned Parenthood would occupy the space.

The original opening date of Sept. 18 was delayed because city officials would not grant an occupancy permit while the review was under way.

Anti-abortion protesters have accused Planned Parenthood of deceiving officials in Illinois’ second-largest city into granting building permits.

Planned Parenthood officials said they were trying to protect the clinic’s staff and construction workers from protests, but there was no effort to defraud city officials.

On Tuesday, Planned Parenthood’s 22,000-square-foot, $7.5 million building was decorated with a bright pink 40-foot banner reading “This Center is Now Open.”

Reporters were allowed to briefly tour a small portion of the building. For security reasons, the windows all are located near the roof.ists

Otherwise, the large waiting room looks similar to those in other medical centers, decorated in neutral colors and with magazine racks on the wall.

The facility will serve more than 25,000 patients a year when it’s at full capacity and offer various contraceptive options, gynecological exams, pap tests, screening for sexually transmitted diseases, and abortions, Trombley said. Abortions account for less than 10 percent of Planned Parenthood’s services in the Chicago area, he said.

One Planned Parenthood supporter – Dee Manny, head of the McHenry County Citizens for Choice – said the clinic would offer valuable health services to poor and uninsured women. She also said it’s important to protect abortion rights.

“The anti-choice people want to take us back to the 19th century when contraception was not available and women begged their doctors to help avoid pregnancy,” she said.

But one of the protesters, Lucie Groleske of Aurora, said she wanted to remind women there are alternatives to abortion....

willravel, I'm sorry, but I view your thread viscerally, as offensive. I don't see why you want to go down this road. The obvious right for a woman to do what she wants with her own body, without being harrassed and deprived of medical care, products, and services, is fundemental, and should be a given in 2008.

Yet, as we observe here, advocates of this are painted as the "pro-abortion crowd", as if there is something flawed about the concept of a woman's inherent right, privately, and all by herself, if she wishes, in the same low key, manner, without oustside intrusion, as any man would expect to determine, what processes go on, internally, in one's body.

Observe how "newsbusters" determined that approval to build a medical clinic, suddenly becomes "illegal", if if is not disclosed, in advance, that the clinic operated in the new building will have ten percent of it's predicted activities, related to medically approved abortion procedures.

Isn't there enough interference in what should be a confidential process of a woman choosing what involves the most intimate and private parts of her body, and certainly in making unambiguously legal ones and seeking, depending on the medical options chosen, to seek and obtain safe and legal clinical care?

This has been settled law for more than 30 years. Responsible men are not the victims in these transactions. This thread seems, on the face of it, just another way to challenge a woman's right to choose, whether it is intended to be, or not. No birth control method is totally reliable. If you decide to ejaculate semen in the vicinity of a woman's reproductive organs, you give up control of where that semen goes, and what effect it has.

An alternative is this preposterous "road":

Quote:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...egnancy&st=nyt
Ex-Boyfriend Loses Bid to Halt an Abortion

By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: August 6, 2002...

Wouldn't it be fair to word the headline, "Loses Bid to convince Court to Force Full Term Pregnancy and Birth"?

ObieX · 01-23-2008, 04:06 AM

In my honest opinion if you don't want to risk having a child then you should keep your wang in your pants (its not hard.) A man's sperm is his until he gives it to the woman, at which point it's her property.. no matter who's DNA it contains. What she plans to do with that gift is up to her.

The only problem as i see it is the laws forcing men to then pay for the result of that gift. It's like saying, "you bought me this car so you're responsible for filling it with gas/oil and keeping it in working condition until its 18 or drives off on its own."

Keep in mind that if i were to have a child i would do my best and more to make sure it grew up in the best home i could help provide. I find it sad that some men think differently.. but then these are the same men who were too stupid to realize that sex leads to babies...

host · 01-23-2008, 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ObieX

....The only problem as i see it is the laws forcing men to then pay for the result of that gift. It's like saying, "you bought me this car so you're responsible for filling it with gas/oil and keeping it in working condition until its 18 or drives off on its own."...

The courts have ruled that a mother does not have the legal right to waive payment of child support, because it is payment for the sustenance of the child, until it can work to support itself.

The development of DNA science and tech, along with much more aggressive enforcement of child support orders and collection methods by the states with cooperation of the federal government, should impress men with awareness that they are unlikely to escape payin g support of any child that they father. Also, what is the difference today, vs, the long period when legal, safe abortion was unavailable? There was much more likelihood, that, if you were involved in the initiation of a pregnancy, the pregnancy would result in a birth. Men had no more control in that climate, than now, a period in time when a pregnancy might not result in a birth. A woman today has greater choice and less burden, but it doesn't follow that a man does, to. Why should it?

jewels · 01-23-2008, 04:20 AM

I thought it was simpler than all that.

If a man and a woman disagree as to the outcome, how can a man demand a woman to either abort or give birth to his child?

mixedmedia · 01-23-2008, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ObieX

In my honest opinion if you don't want to risk having a child then you should keep your wang in your pants (its not hard.) A man's sperm is his until he gives it to the woman, at which point it's her property.. no matter who's DNA it contains. What she plans to do with that gift is up to her.

The only problem as i see it is the laws forcing men to then pay for the result of that gift. It's like saying, "you bought me this car so you're responsible for filling it with gas/oil and keeping it in working condition until its 18 or drives off on its own."

Keep in mind that if i were to have a child i would do my best and more to make sure it grew up in the best home i could help provide. I find it sad that some men think differently.. but then these are the same men who were too stupid to realize that sex leads to babies...

I agree with this sentiment and, like Will, I have qualms about the practice of abortion and think it's a regrettable practice that we are still depending on in this day and age. But to force a pregnancy on a woman because the man who had sex with her wants her to have it is not a very progressive idea, in my opinion. In fact, I imagine such a thing could have very perverse and backwards consequences.

ratbastid · 01-23-2008, 05:00 AM

I know there are cases where injustices have been done, but I think on the balance, it's appropriate and right to have the woman have more rights than the man. She's got WAY more at stake than he does. And the courts seem to feel the same way, so far.

Let's not turn this into an actual abortion thread, okay? I'm SO bored with that conversation. I'm sick and tired of being called "pro-abortion". As if ANYBODY'S dancing around in the streets singing, "yay! abortion!". It's a regrettable thing any way you slice it. In an ideal world, we would have no need for it. But in a free society, people have to have the freedom to choose it. That's my last word on it--I'm not rising to any more bait in this thread.

Xazy · 01-23-2008, 05:10 AM

I have to agree that it should be a woman choice and the man should keep it in his pants if he is not willing to support a possible outcome.

However I will tell you of a sad lady that I know of. She wants a child very badly and literally on her first date will have unprotected sex if the guy wants and will talk about children the minute she meets a new man. So much so that after sex with a guy where he wore a condom, and after when he went to the bathroom she took the condom and tried to impregnate herself (do not need to go in to more details then that I hope). Now imagine if she had gotten pregnant (she didn't), she could then claim child support. Now this is a woman who is probably bi-polar and have other psychological issues and is a rarity, but the man in my mind would be screwed (well twice).

So I 99.99% agree with women having that control aspect it is their body and we can not force them to have an abortion, and if we have sex we should be prepared for all possible outcomes. But like the example above, which is only a case I know of, and there is probably a lot more craziness out there, the man would be in my book getting the shaft.

tecoyah · 01-23-2008, 06:02 AM

Hows this scenario:

Married for years
Happily have three kids
Wife decides she wants another Man
Wife leaves and takes away everything that matters in life
Pay wife monthly for doing so

Shit Happens!

Ustwo · 01-23-2008, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

willravel, I'm sorry, but I view your thread viscerally, as offensive.

You get offended easy, no idea what you were trying to say in your post, but I'm right, you are wrong. You post really had nothing to do with wills question and was just another wild tangent of spam.

Thanks.

Willravel · 01-23-2008, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

willravel, I'm sorry, but I view your thread viscerally, as offensive. I don't see why you want to go down this road. The obvious right for a woman to do what she wants with her own body, without being harrassed and deprived of medical care, products, and services, is fundemental, and should be a given in 2008.

A woman can do what she wants with her body, but if an ovum is a part of a woman's body then sperm are a part of a man's body and with it are a link to a legal right of some sort over any child produced with his sperm. The pregnancy is impossible without the sperm, and considering the various paternity tests and child support payments, it's clear that the father bears just as much responsibility without getting any choice. That's not fair.

Let's go back in time. Say you're 23-24, unmarried and have a girlfriend you plan on marrying. She becomes pregnant. You want the child, she doesn't. Guess what? You can't do anything about it. She can go get an abortion and you have no legal vehicle by which to stop her. There are no father's rights, but there are father's responsibilities. In the same situation if she wants the child and you don't, she gets to have it and as the sex was consensual you are responsible for it.

It should be a man and woman's right to choose.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

I agree with this sentiment and, like Will, I have qualms about the practice of abortion and think it's a regrettable practice that we are still depending on in this day and age. But to force a pregnancy on a woman because the man who had sex with her wants her to have it is not a very progressive idea, in my opinion. In fact, I imagine such a thing could have very perverse and backwards consequences.

If we're not talking about rape (which shouldn't be included in this thread, frankly), then she is just as responsible as the man for having sex. More so, actually, as sociologically speaking the woman more often is the one who decides where or not sex is going to happen. If a man who has consensual sex with a woman must be responsible for the child, why not the woman?

pr0f3n · 01-23-2008, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

A woman can do what she wants with her body, but if an ovum is a part of a woman's body then sperm are a part of a man's body and with it are a link to a legal right of some sort over any child produced with his sperm. The pregnancy is impossible without the sperm, and considering the various paternity tests and child support payments, it's clear that the father bears just as much responsibility without getting any choice. That's not fair.

You're giving the sperm to the woman. Once it's left your body it's no longer yours, and since it's only half of your genetic code it's not clearly "you". Yes pregnancy is not possible without your contribution, but you've implied consent to the consequences by engaging in the reproductive act. It's not fair if you consider each choice made after the initial decision to screw individually, but taken in context the diminished volition is all a consequence of that initial choice.

Quote:

If we're not talking about rape (which shouldn't be included in this thread, frankly), then she is just as responsible as the man for having sex. More so, actually, as sociologically speaking the woman more often is the one who decides where or not sex is going to happen. If a man who has consensual sex with a woman must be responsible for the child, why not the woman?

The male role in the reproductive cycle is one of insemination and as a provider. That's your job. Tough luck. There a plenty of trade-offs and you're not taking on a risk of death after carrying a parasite in your body for nine months. Those few women who actually abandon their young are actually doing their children a favor by leaving, and it's still the father's role to provide for the young.

Willravel · 01-23-2008, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pr0f3n

You're giving the sperm to the woman. Once it's left your body it's no longer yours, and since it's only half of your genetic code it's not clearly "you". Yes pregnancy is not possible without your contribution, but you've implied consent to the consequences by engaging in the reproductive act. It's not fair if you consider each choice made after the initial decision to screw individually, but taken in context the diminished volition is all a consequence of that initial choice.

So only men make a choice to reproduce? Or is the woman's choice negated by the fact that she happens to be the incubator? And who decided that "once it's left your body, it's no longer yours"? Why is ownership attached to location? If a baby leaves a woman's body, is it no longer hers? Or better still, if I eat your jewelry, is it now mine?

We're still seeing a glaring double standard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pr0f3n

The male role in the reproductive cycle is one of insemination and as a provider. That's your job. Tough luck. There a plenty of trade-offs and you're not taking on a risk of death after carrying a parasite in your body for nine months. Those few women who actually abandon their young are actually doing their children a favor by leaving.

The males role? Provider? Now who's outdated? I could have easily been a stay at home dad, and then what? Would I be in defiance of nature?

Rekna · 01-23-2008, 09:43 AM

I think the father should have the right to say "I want you to have this baby, i'll pay for the pregnancy (bills and lost wages) but after word I have full custody of the baby and the mother must sign away all her rights to the baby.

There is a tendency in this culture to blame pregnancy on the man but the truth is it takes 2 people to get pregnant. Comments like 'the man should keep it in his pants' are just offensive as 'the woman should keep her legs closed' and do nothing but create rifts in the conversation. They both chose to have sex (i'm not talking about rape here) and now they both have to deal with it.

Ok here is a little fuel for the fire, why do many clinics require the man to get his spouses permission in order to get a vasectomy?

I asked a lady friend of mine who is very adamant about "My body my rights" and she said good they should have to get permission. That seems like a major double standard there.

Willravel · 01-23-2008, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

I think the father should have the right to say "I want you to have this baby, i'll pay for the pregnancy (bills and lost wages) but after word I have full custody of the baby and the mother must sign away all her rights to the baby.

QFT. This is basically my entire point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Ok here is a little fuel for the fire, why do many clinics require the man to get his spouses permission in order to get a vasectomy?

Because "my body my rights" only works on vaginas. It just slips right off balls.

kurty[B] · 01-23-2008, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

I think the father should have the right to say "I want you to have this baby, i'll pay for the pregnancy (bills and lost wages) but after word I have full custody of the baby and the mother must sign away all her rights to the baby.

Rekna, that's probably the smartest statement I've seen in this whole argument. I'd like to join this debate, but fear emotions will defeat any purposeful argument I try and come up with.

I have strong feelings about this situation, but don't see any easy way for all parties involved to reach a fair resolution. Should a situation like this be left to the courts to hear both cases and decide for the mother what should be done with the child? Then, we have anti-abortion activitist parking their trucks with dead fetuses displayed on the side outside the courthouse, and accusing judges of being murderers. We also have the problem of court cases taking time, and by the time a resolution is had the birth could have taken place and everything could have changed. You also have the difficulty of during this time the mother's hormones are fluctuating wildly and something could be said one day that is the complete opposite of what was meant.

I don't think our current system works, I have NO idea how it could be fixed. So, continue on, I'll keep reading.

Willravel · 01-23-2008, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kurty

Then, we have anti-abortion activitist parking their trucks with dead fetuses displayed on the side outside the courthouse, and accusing judges of being murderers.

They should have been aborted. Nothing excuses behavior like that on either side of this. Protests aren't meant to be displays of hatred. They're supposed to be about making a public case for what you believe in.

Shame on anyone with a hateful message at a protest.

mixedmedia · 01-23-2008, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Because "my body my rights" only works on vaginas. It just slips right off balls.

Uh, actually, no. This is a state issue (and very few of them, I believe) and in the states where there is a law demanding spousal consent for sterilization it affects both males and females.

Rekna · 01-23-2008, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

Uh, actually, no. This is a state issue (and very few of them, I believe) and in the states where there is a law demanding spousal consent for sterilization it affects both males and females.

Yes I don't think it is necessarily the law that enforces the permission (at least in the US) but more of the policy of the clinics.

Jinn · 01-23-2008, 10:12 AM

I agree with the "sperm is a gift" sentiment, such that it's no longer your property and you have no claim to it, just as you wouldn't have claim to own part of a person after you spit on them.

What I do think should occur, however, is that the father should be able to provide a signed Statement of Intent prior to the second trimester of pregnancy.

He can either declare his intent to support the child to term and until the age of 18 or declare his intent to NOT support the child until adulthood.

Armed with this information, if the woman decides to conceive, she will be very well aware of the potential consequences. Knowing that there is a signed statement of intent to NOT support the child, she may be more inclined to not bring the child to term. If she does, though, and the man has declared intent to support, then he should be legally liable for support.

In my mind, a man only has rights to a fetus after he has declared intent to support.

Really this is something that should be discussed informally by people having sex, but in the event of a one-night stand that results in pregnancy, a legal Declaration of Intent would suffice.

pr0f3n · 01-23-2008, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

So only men make a choice to reproduce? Or is the woman's choice negated by the fact that she happens to be the incubator? And who decided that "once it's left your body, it's no longer yours"? Why is ownership attached to location? If a baby leaves a woman's body, is it no longer hers? Or better still, if I eat your jewelry, is it now mine?

We're still seeing a glaring double standard.

The males role? Provider? Now who's outdated? I could have easily been a stay at home dad, and then what? Would I be in defiance of nature?

I'm not going to be pedantic and spell this shit out for you. Yes, it's a double standard, one that's imposed by biology and social contract. I understand the sentiment you're trying to convey, but it's wrong. A man has a choice to give the sperm to a woman, and she has the choice of what to do with a fertilized egg. Should she carry it to term, the man's responsible for the child as a provider. Our socieconomic climate has certainly allowed for role reversals to occur but it's still the man's legal and social duty to provide for his kid.

mixedmedia · 01-23-2008, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

If we're not talking about rape (which shouldn't be included in this thread, frankly), then she is just as responsible as the man for having sex. More so, actually, as sociologically speaking the woman more often is the one who decides where or not sex is going to happen. If a man who has consensual sex with a woman must be responsible for the child, why not the woman?

I'm not talking about rape. I'm talking about the possible legal coercion of women to stay attached to men they want or need to stay away from. I could see a law like this easily being used to control and manipulate women in unhealthy relationships.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

I think the father should have the right to say "I want you to have this baby, i'll pay for the pregnancy (bills and lost wages) but after word I have full custody of the baby and the mother must sign away all her rights to the baby.

This does not take into consideration the considerable emotional effects of bearing and having a child. And what if the father cannot afford to do these things and still wants the baby? Or, is this going to be a law designed for the privileged?

I think life sometimes just isn't fair. And if men want to have children, they need to find someone who wants to have them with them. Last time I checked I didn't notice any shortage of kids running around. Pushing an issue like this will only be detrimental to women's rights to privacy and control of their reproductive systems. Backwards.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai

I agree with the "sperm is a gift" sentiment, such that it's no longer your property and you have no claim to it, just as you wouldn't have claim to own part of a person after you spit on them.

What I do think should occur, however, is that the father should be able to provide a signed Statement of Intent prior to the second trimester of pregnancy.

He can either declare his intent to support the child to term and until the age of 18 or declare his intent to NOT support the child until adulthood.

Armed with this information, if the woman decides to conceive, she will be very well aware of the potential consequences. Knowing that there is a signed statement of intent to NOT support the child, she may be more inclined to not bring the child to term. If she does, though, and the man has declared intent to support, then he should be legally liable for support.

In my mind, a man only has rights to a fetus after he has declared intent to support.

Really this is something that should be discussed informally by people having sex, but in the event of a one-night stand that results in pregnancy, a legal Declaration of Intent would suffice.

I would agree to this.

Willravel · 01-23-2008, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

I'm not talking about rape. I'm talking about the possible legal coercion of women to stay attached to men they want or need to stay away from. I could see a law like this easily being used to control and manipulate women in unhealthy relationships.

I can't imagine the courts forcing a pairing of any kind. There's basically no modern precedence, and it would possibly be a violation of the 14th (if you're a good lawyer).

Now that I think about it, one could argue the male's side of parental rights from a stance of the 14th Amendment. Hmm...

What, MM, do you think about the situation described by Rekna in which a father wants the baby and all responsibility, whereas the mother wants to abort? Obviously there is someone more than willing to take full responsibility, but it would require the woman to be pregnant. I see this as a weighing: is it worth 9 months of a woman's life for a man to be a father to his child?

Not an easy question, but no questions worth asking are easy.

jewels · 01-23-2008, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

I think the father should have the right to say "I want you to have this baby, i'll pay for the pregnancy (bills and lost wages) but after word I have full custody of the baby and the mother must sign away all her rights to the baby.

That's great in principle. But what price does the father pay for the next nine months? Or if the woman's prepared to have the baby and the guy doesn't want it, she's forced to abort?

Perhaps there could be some requirement to name the father, be sure (legally?) he's notified and hope that an agreement between the two parties can be reached. The mother still makes the ultimate choice.

Willravel · 01-23-2008, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pr0f3n

I'm not going to be pedantic and spell this shit out for you.

"If you're pissed, don't post." This thread has the potential to become very heated, so please leave your anger at the door. This goes for everyone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pr0f3n

Yes, it's a double standard, one that's imposed by biology and social contract. I understand the sentiment you're trying to convey, but it's wrong. A man has a choice to give the sperm to a woman, and she has the choice of what to do with a fertilized egg. Should she carry it to term, the man's responsible for the child as a provider. Our socieconomic climate has certainly allowed for role reversals to occur but it's still the man's legal and social duty to provide for his kid.

A woman has a choice to allow her eggs to become fertilized and a man has a choice to fertilize them. She carry's it to term, but she is not the only parent. The man is only responsible as a provider if both parents agree that's his role. As I stated, there are plenty of stay-at-home dads out there, in fact there are so many that the idea of a rule or law concerning a man's role as the provider is antiquated. I'd say that saying a man's place is in the workplace is tantamount to saying a woman's place is in the kitchen, which is something I'm sure you'd never say seriously.

Yes, it's a double standard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jewels443

That's great in principle. But what price does the father pay for the next nine months? Or if the woman's prepared to have the baby and the guy doesn't want it, she's forced to abort?

This would be a good question for pro-choicers. As someone who's more in the pro-life camp, I'd want to err on the side of not aborting, but that would be a function of my bias towards my philosophy on the subject.

For those who do believe that abortion is okay, it's obviously okay or a woman to have a baby aborted, but a man has no say?

flstf · 01-23-2008, 10:29 AM

I find it interesting that in some cases when DNA testing proves that a man is not the father of a child, the court rules he must pay support anyway because he assumed (was told by the woman) the child was his until later when he suspected something.

mixedmedia · 01-23-2008, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I can't imagine the courts forcing a pairing of any kind. There's basically no modern precedence, and it would possibly be a violation of the 14th (if you're a good lawyer).

You don't seem to be taking into consideration that women don't pop babies out like jujubes. Carrying a baby to term and then giving them up to someone you have negative feelings about could be very...emotionally complicated.

Quote:

Now that I think about it, one could argue the male's side of parental rights from a stance of the 14th Amendment. Hmm...

What, MM, do you think about the situation described by Rekna in which a father wants the baby and all responsibility, whereas the mother wants to abort? Obviously there is someone more than willing to take full responsibility, but it would require the woman to be pregnant. I see this as a weighing: is it worth 9 months of a woman's life for a man to be a father to his child?

Not an easy question, but no questions worth asking are easy.

I did address it with this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

This does not take into consideration the considerable emotional effects of bearing and having a child. And what if the father cannot afford to do these things and still wants the baby? Or, is this going to be a law designed for the privileged?

I think life sometimes just isn't fair. And if men want to have children, they need to find someone who wants to have them with them. Last time I checked I didn't notice any shortage of kids running around. Pushing an issue like this will only be detrimental to women's rights to privacy and control of their reproductive systems. Backwards.

Rekna · 01-23-2008, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

This does not take into consideration the considerable emotional effects of bearing and having a child. And what if the father cannot afford to do these things and still wants the baby? Or, is this going to be a law designed for the privileged?

At the same time you aren't considering the emotional affect of someone else aborting your child could have on you. As for affording I believe that all health care involving pregnancy should be covered by the government for everyone. For fathers who can't afford the lost wages I'm sure the right to life people would love to do some charities that would help pay for those costs in cases that people can't afford it. Also just because you can't help everyone doesn't mean you shouldn't help anyone.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai

I agree with the "sperm is a gift" sentiment, such that it's no longer your property and you have no claim to it, just as you wouldn't have claim to own part of a person after you spit on them.

What I do think should occur, however, is that the father should be able to provide a signed Statement of Intent prior to the second trimester of pregnancy.

He can either declare his intent to support the child to term and until the age of 18 or declare his intent to NOT support the child until adulthood.

Armed with this information, if the woman decides to conceive, she will be very well aware of the potential consequences. Knowing that there is a signed statement of intent to NOT support the child, she may be more inclined to not bring the child to term. If she does, though, and the man has declared intent to support, then he should be legally liable for support.

In my mind, a man only has rights to a fetus after he has declared intent to support.

Really this is something that should be discussed informally by people having sex, but in the event of a one-night stand that results in pregnancy, a legal Declaration of Intent would suffice.

This is a bad idea because it encourages abortions. Dead beat dads would be jumping all over this to get out of paying. The government shouldn't ban abortion but they should have incentives to lessen the number of them that happen. For example, free pregnancy related health care and better adoption agencies which are FREE.

mixedmedia · 01-23-2008, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

At the same time you aren't considering the emotional affect of someone else aborting your child could have on you. As for affording I believe that all health care involving pregnancy should be covered by the government for everyone. For fathers who can't afford the lost wages I'm sure the right to life people would love to do some charities that would help pay for those costs in cases that people can't afford it. Also just because you can't help everyone doesn't mean you shouldn't help anyone.....

I think I'm fully considering that having your child aborted when it is still just a mass of tissue is far different than carrying a child for nine months and handing it over to someone you didn't want to have children with.

So, in effect, you are agreeing that privileged men should have more rights over something as keenly important as parenting than under-privileged men?

Willravel · 01-23-2008, 10:40 AM

BTW, for the sake of this thread we're not discussing rape or ineffective prophylactics. This is unprotected sex between two consenting adults. We can have other threads about those other situations.

MM, I'm not suggesting that pregnancy is easy at all. Quite the opposite, which is why this is so complicated. The point I've been trying to make, though, is that the woman and man both decide to have sex. The woman decides right there along with the man. Just as a man should have to pay child support for his child, a woman should bear some level of responsibility. A function of said responsibility should be bearing a child that she helped to create if the man is willing and able to take care of it. I'm sure it's very emotionally and financially painful for a man to pay a good part of his wages to a woman he obviously doesn't want to be with and who he may not want raising his children. I've seen this drive a man to near-suicide, in fact. Just because one is a man doesn't mean that one is incapable of being hurt. Anyone, regardless of gender, can be emotionally damaged.

I cannot begin to imagine the pain of having someone I don't love steal my children and raise them without me. Or worse, have them killed before he or she is even born. That would likely scar me for the rest of my life.

If people irresponsibly have unprotected sex, they are both running the risk of being put in a situation where they are emotionally damaged as a direct result of their own actions.

host · 01-23-2008, 10:45 AM

You're assuming so many things in your support of an option for a male to "have his say"...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna
I think the father should have the right to say "I want you to have this baby, i'll pay for the pregnancy (bills and lost wages) but after word I have full custody of the baby and the mother must sign away all her rights to the baby.

Substitute the word "state" for father, read the NY Times article I linked to at the bottom of post #4.

The first thing in the court proceeding is the judge appointed a "guardian" to "represent" the fetus....

This is a thread, whether by intent or design, about publicly exposing matters extremely sensitive and private, for a woman who becomes an object of a man resorting to some legal mechanism that does not currently exist, courts say it is settledl law, to seek redress in court to "preserve a pregnancy", with the goal of directing the authority of the state to force a full term pregnancy and birth.

Let's look on how it can "be done right".

Requirements would include a viable, timely, notification "process". Any woman who becomes pregnant would be required to notify any man who she has reason to believe has a probable paternity interest, in a timely way, via a "proof of notification" mechanism, acceptable as timely and verifiable in a resulting criminal or civil proceeding.

In the case where several individuals could possibly have a paternity interest, notification to multiple individuals would be neccessary.

To respond to issues of health risks associated with pregnancy, and to the possibility of changing fortunes of someone with a paternity interest involved in contesting termination of a pregnancy, posting a bond, early in the court proceeding, to fund medical expenses and protect against resulting disability or other temporary or permanent debilitating effects of the contested pregnancy, including birth defects, as well as to partially or fully fund reasonable child support for the ensuing 18 years.

Doesn't even the discussion, in recent posts, of commitment to provide financial support, and pay for lost wages and medical expenses, confine this "male right", to males of some significant financial means?

Do we really want to go there? A procedure to force an unwilling woman to endure a pregancy to full term and delivery at the insistance of a man who can afford financially, to qualify to do that?

Don't wealthy males have enough "rights", at the expense of the rest of us, already? For women living in poverty in rural areas, and in all of South Dakota, aren't "forced pregnancies", already the norm?

Xazy · 01-23-2008, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

At the same time you aren't considering the emotional affect of someone else aborting your child could have on you.

That is her choice, I am anti-abortion personally, but if you are willing to have sex you have to consider all possible consequences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

As for affording I believe that all health care involving pregnancy should be covered by the government for everyone.

Sorry got to veto that, if you get or get someone pregnant why should my hard earned dollars go to support you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

For example, free pregnancy related health care and better adoption agencies which are FREE.

I can agree with adoption agencies. I think they need to be better promoted, since there are a lot of people out there who would love to adopt. But again this should be the agency responsibility and not the government.

Quote:

I think I'm fully considering that having your child aborted when it is still just a mass of tissue is far different than carrying a child for nine months and handing it over to someone you didn't want to have children with.

It is to me still a Child you are aborting whether month 1, or at the end.

shakran · 01-23-2008, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jewels443

I thought it was simpler than all that.

If a man and a woman disagree as to the outcome, how can a man demand a woman to either abort or give birth to his child?

Flip side of that argument: If they disagree as to the outcome, how can the woman insist on having the kid and then require the man, who didn't want it, to help pay for it?

If you want to argue the sperm-as-gift idea, then the logical extension of that is that if I have a girlfriend, and I give her $2,000, and she uses it to buy a car, I am 50% responsible for any future costs (oil changes, repairs, wrecks) related to that car.

telekinetic · 01-23-2008, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

This is a bad idea because it encourages abortions. Dead beat dads would be jumping all over this to get out of paying. The government shouldn't ban abortion but they should have incentives to lessen the number of them that happen. For example, free pregnancy related health care and better adoption agencies which are FREE.

We really need to have two versions of this thread. One for pro choice, one for pro life. Having both people discussing the same issue without being up front about it is going to lead to some serious miscommunications.

If you do not believe there is anything morally wrong with abortion, JinnKai's plan is the best possible one, although it still doesn't address the circumstance for "Father wants, mother doesn't" in which case there should be some sort allowance of pregnancy support paid (3 months of the mothers wages paid to allow her to stay home during 3rd trimester + all medical expenses, etc).

If you do believe that it is morally wrong to have an abortion, then this isn't even an issue you can intelligently discuss, as there is no set of circumstances which the mother should be able to abort.

If we're viewing the issue as policy makers rather than as potential participants, there needs to be a solution that allows for both the Father and Mother's beliefs about life/conception/etc.

pr0f3n · 01-23-2008, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

"If you're pissed, don't post." This thread has the potential to become very heated, so please leave your anger at the door. This goes for everyone.

Sorry if that came across as "mad." I think of it as "gruff" but I'll try and pay attention to my tone.

Quote:

A woman has a choice to allow her eggs to become fertilized and a man has a choice to fertilize them. She carry's it to term, but she is not the only parent. The man is only responsible as a provider if both parents agree that's his role. As I stated, there are plenty of stay-at-home dads out there, in fact there are so many that the idea of a rule or law concerning a man's role as the provider is antiquated. I'd say that saying a man's place is in the workplace is tantamount to saying a woman's place is in the kitchen, which is something I'm sure you'd never say seriously.

Yes, it's a double standard.

The social contract in these United States stands opposed to your opinion, so while you're entitled to that opinion you're also subject to the law and customs of the land. While I know that rationale has been used to defend social inequities in the past, the inequities of reproduction bolster the social standard. The father is always responsible for the child, regardless of whether he wants to be. I never said the mans' place is in the workplace, I said the man is always the provider. When the woman is earning the money, he's ensured the child is provided for. Should she, for whatever reason, stop earning the money, it's still his responsibility to ensure the child's provided for.

Yes, it's a double standard. Double standards aren't always a bad thing, and sometimes there's no reasonable alternative.

Quote:

This would be a good question for pro-choicers. As someone who's more in the pro-life camp, I'd want to err on the side of not aborting, but that would be a function of my bias towards my philosophy on the subject.

For those who do believe that abortion is okay, it's obviously okay or a woman to have a baby aborted, but a man has no say?

It's the woman's body. I know pro-lifer's want to blur the issue, but it's the woman's body and the fetus is a parasite, unable to survive outside the womb until, with the aide of cutting edge technology, roughly the 24th week of gestation. You deal with your parasites, let a woman deal with hers.

Willravel · 01-23-2008, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pr0f3n

The social contract in these United States stands opposed to your opinion, so while you're entitled to that opinion you're also subject to the law and customs of the land. While I know that rationale has been used to defend social inequities in the past, the inequities of reproduction bolster the social standard. The father is always responsible for the child, regardless of whether he wants to be. I never said the mans' place is in the workplace, I said the man is always the provider. When the woman is earning the money, he's ensured the child is provided for. Should she, for whatever reason, stop earning the money, it's still his responsibility to ensure the child's provided for.

Yes, it's a double standard. Double standards aren't always a bad thing, and sometimes there's no reasonable alternative.

What about this statement, which is similar to yours:
"The mother is always responsible for the child, regardless of whether she wants to be." Sounds very pro-life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pr0f3n

It's the woman's body. I know pro-lifer's want to blur the issue, but it's the woman's body and the fetus is a parasite, unable to survive outside the womb until, with the aide of cutting edge technology, roughly the 24th week of gestation. You deal with your parasites, let a woman deal with hers.

A fetus is a symbiont, not a parasite. The mother provides protection and nourishment and the child provides a continuation of the species. The relationship is symbiotic.

Not only that, but does housing suggest ownership? As I stated before, if I eat your jewelry, is it then mine? Because if that's the case, then I see a lucrative future in ingesting precious stones in my future.

Rekna · 01-23-2008, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

I think I'm fully considering that having your child aborted when it is still just a mass of tissue is far different than carrying a child for nine months and handing it over to someone you didn't want to have children with.

No you are considering how you would feel but not how others might feel. There are many people out there that would be devastated and don't view it as a "mass of tissue". I think if someone wants to take care of the baby and nurture it it should be born.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

So, in effect, you are agreeing that privileged men should have more rights over something as keenly important as parenting than under-privileged men?

I'm not saying that at all. Do you think privileged men have more right to eat than non-privileged? There is a difference between the way things should be and the way things are and it is best not to confuse the two.

Quote:

Originally Posted by twistedmosaic

If you do believe that it is morally wrong to have an abortion, then this isn't even an issue you can intelligently discuss, as there is no set of circumstances which the mother should be able to abort.

You are wrong, there are still many ways we can discuss this. This type of belief yields no progress in the debate.

I would do everything in my power to prevent someone else from aborting my baby (with an exception for health issues). I believe that having a baby is better than aborting a baby. At the same time I believe that my morals should not be forced upon others and nor should theirs be forced upon me and therefore do not believe we should ban abortion. Instead I think there is a place where both prochoicers and prolifers can agree and that is that we should make it easier for mothers who do not want their babies to have their babies find a good home. We need to provide incentive for these mothers to put their babies up for adoption and make the process easier for everyone.

pr0f3n · 01-23-2008, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

What about this statement, which is similar to yours:
"The mother is always responsible for the child, regardless of whether she wants to be." Sounds very pro-life.

Sounds like you're using a loose definition of child. Before it's born, it's a fetus. A woman is free to keep and care for a fetus, or have it removed from her body. A man's responsible for the consequences of his insemination from conception through <arbitrary age of maturity assigned by society>.

Quote:

A fetus is a symbiont, not a parasite. The mother provides protection and nourishment and the child provides a continuation of the species. The relationship is symbiotic.

Not only that, but does housing suggest ownership? As I stated before, if I eat your jewelry, is it then mine? Because if that's the case, then I see a lucrative future in ingesting precious stones in my future.

No, biologically the fetus is a parasite. It robs the mother of nutrients and alters her body irrevocably whilst in the womb. The symbiotic relationship is metaphorical at best, as species propagation is correlative to gestation.

Again with the word play

If you swallow jewelry, your body will generally expel it from your body in a natural process, but should you chose to circumvent that process through any of a variety of methods, you have that right.

01-22-2008, 10:58 PM	#1 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	My Sperm... My Choice, too? Please?! I love Roe vs. Wade. It was one of the huge liberal victories and was possibly one of the most important occurrences in the entire women's rights movement. I would never ask that it be overturned. That said... Fathers' legal rights have, unfortunately, stagnated. In this country it would be totally legal for a woman to provide a purposefully broken condom, get pregnant, have a baby, and possibly even get child support... and the father can do absolutely nothing. Likewise, if a man and woman make love and the woman gets pregnant... she can have it aborted whenever she wants. The father doesn't have a say. I know men aren't pregnant. I can't carry a child to term in my womb. Does that really mean that we are not a part of the process? It's odd to fight for men's rights, I'll admit, but this is a conversation that needs to happen. Are fathers just sperm machines?

01-23-2008, 01:59 AM	#2 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	You reap what you Roe. The pro-abortion crowd seems to operate from a 'woman should have the right to do what she wants with her body' and 'until its capable of independent life, a fetus isn't a human being'. A father CAN'T have any rights if this mindset is to be valid. Its not that you are a sperm machine, its that its not your body (so not your choice, you can't tell a woman what to do with her body) and its not even a baby yet. Really the next logical step in this mindset is for fathers to have no rights or responsibilities, not more rights. Then you will just be a sperm machine. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

01-23-2008, 04:06 AM	#5 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	In my honest opinion if you don't want to risk having a child then you should keep your wang in your pants (its not hard.) A man's sperm is his until he gives it to the woman, at which point it's her property.. no matter who's DNA it contains. What she plans to do with that gift is up to her. The only problem as i see it is the laws forcing men to then pay for the result of that gift. It's like saying, "you bought me this car so you're responsible for filling it with gas/oil and keeping it in working condition until its 18 or drives off on its own." Keep in mind that if i were to have a child i would do my best and more to make sure it grew up in the best home i could help provide. I find it sad that some men think differently.. but then these are the same men who were too stupid to realize that sex leads to babies... __________________ We Must Dissent.

01-23-2008, 04:20 AM	#7 (permalink)
jewels Eponymous Location: Central Central Florida	I thought it was simpler than all that. If a man and a woman disagree as to the outcome, how can a man demand a woman to either abort or give birth to his child? __________________ We are always more anxious to be distinguished for a talent which we do not possess, than to be praised for the fifteen which we do possess. Mark Twain

01-23-2008, 06:02 AM	#11 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Hows this scenario: Married for years Happily have three kids Wife decides she wants another Man Wife leaves and takes away everything that matters in life Pay wife monthly for doing so Shit Happens! __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

01-23-2008, 05:00 AM	#9 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	I know there are cases where injustices have been done, but I think on the balance, it's appropriate and right to have the woman have more rights than the man. She's got WAY more at stake than he does. And the courts seem to feel the same way, so far. Let's not turn this into an actual abortion thread, okay? I'm SO bored with that conversation. I'm sick and tired of being called "pro-abortion". As if ANYBODY'S dancing around in the streets singing, "yay! abortion!". It's a regrettable thing any way you slice it. In an ideal world, we would have no need for it. But in a free society, people have to have the freedom to choose it. That's my last word on it--I'm not rising to any more bait in this thread.

01-23-2008, 05:10 AM	#10 (permalink)
Xazy People in masks cannot be trusted Location: NYC	I have to agree that it should be a woman choice and the man should keep it in his pants if he is not willing to support a possible outcome. However I will tell you of a sad lady that I know of. She wants a child very badly and literally on her first date will have unprotected sex if the guy wants and will talk about children the minute she meets a new man. So much so that after sex with a guy where he wore a condom, and after when he went to the bathroom she took the condom and tried to impregnate herself (do not need to go in to more details then that I hope). Now imagine if she had gotten pregnant (she didn't), she could then claim child support. Now this is a woman who is probably bi-polar and have other psychological issues and is a rarity, but the man in my mind would be screwed (well twice). So I 99.99% agree with women having that control aspect it is their body and we can not force them to have an abortion, and if we have sex we should be prepared for all possible outcomes. But like the example above, which is only a case I know of, and there is probably a lot more craziness out there, the man would be in my book getting the shaft.

01-23-2008, 09:43 AM	#16 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I think the father should have the right to say "I want you to have this baby, i'll pay for the pregnancy (bills and lost wages) but after word I have full custody of the baby and the mother must sign away all her rights to the baby. There is a tendency in this culture to blame pregnancy on the man but the truth is it takes 2 people to get pregnant. Comments like 'the man should keep it in his pants' are just offensive as 'the woman should keep her legs closed' and do nothing but create rifts in the conversation. They both chose to have sex (i'm not talking about rape here) and now they both have to deal with it. Ok here is a little fuel for the fire, why do many clinics require the man to get his spouses permission in order to get a vasectomy? I asked a lady friend of mine who is very adamant about "My body my rights" and she said good they should have to get permission. That seems like a major double standard there. Last edited by Rekna; 01-23-2008 at 09:49 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

01-23-2008, 10:12 AM	#22 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	I agree with the "sperm is a gift" sentiment, such that it's no longer your property and you have no claim to it, just as you wouldn't have claim to own part of a person after you spit on them. What I do think should occur, however, is that the father should be able to provide a signed Statement of Intent prior to the second trimester of pregnancy. He can either declare his intent to support the child to term and until the age of 18 or declare his intent to NOT support the child until adulthood. Armed with this information, if the woman decides to conceive, she will be very well aware of the potential consequences. Knowing that there is a signed statement of intent to NOT support the child, she may be more inclined to not bring the child to term. If she does, though, and the man has declared intent to support, then he should be legally liable for support. In my mind, a man only has rights to a fetus after he has declared intent to support. Really this is something that should be discussed informally by people having sex, but in the event of a one-night stand that results in pregnancy, a legal Declaration of Intent would suffice. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

01-23-2008, 10:29 AM	#28 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	I find it interesting that in some cases when DNA testing proves that a man is not the father of a child, the court rules he must pay support anyway because he assumed (was told by the woman) the child was his until later when he suspected something. Last edited by flstf; 01-23-2008 at 10:31 AM..

01-23-2008, 10:40 AM	#32 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	BTW, for the sake of this thread we're not discussing rape or ineffective prophylactics. This is unprotected sex between two consenting adults. We can have other threads about those other situations. MM, I'm not suggesting that pregnancy is easy at all. Quite the opposite, which is why this is so complicated. The point I've been trying to make, though, is that the woman and man both decide to have sex. The woman decides right there along with the man. Just as a man should have to pay child support for his child, a woman should bear some level of responsibility. A function of said responsibility should be bearing a child that she helped to create if the man is willing and able to take care of it. I'm sure it's very emotionally and financially painful for a man to pay a good part of his wages to a woman he obviously doesn't want to be with and who he may not want raising his children. I've seen this drive a man to near-suicide, in fact. Just because one is a man doesn't mean that one is incapable of being hurt. Anyone, regardless of gender, can be emotionally damaged. I cannot begin to imagine the pain of having someone I don't love steal my children and raise them without me. Or worse, have them killed before he or she is even born. That would likely scar me for the rest of my life. If people irresponsibly have unprotected sex, they are both running the risk of being put in a situation where they are emotionally damaged as a direct result of their own actions.