Oh you mean like my HS friends girlfriend. Who wanted to get married but he didnt... so she told him she was on the pill but wasnt, and ended up pregnant? Luckily for him the fetus died on its own.

Where was his rights? She was a perfect example at someone who only cared about herself and intended to live off him at his financial expense. He had a full college scholarship but gave it up when she told him the news, now he cant get it back. It works both ways, yes he should have been responsible for his own predicament. But any contract is voided if one side decieves the other intentionally.

Okay here is my opinion on all of this.

The world is not fair, people are not created equal, there is always someone who will be able to do what ever it is you can do, but they will do it better and faster. Guys, girls carry the kid, it is their choice whether or not to abort, if you don't want a kid then wear a condom or don't have sex. Girls, if you don't want a kid, use birth control and make the guy wear a condom, or don't have sex. It's as easy as that. There are risks to everything and one of the risks of having sex is the woman getting pregnant.Keep that in mind when you want to "get busy".

Correct me if I'm wrong but are you talking about men who don't want to pay child support or invest time into the lives they created because that what that arguement looks like.

That's what happens when you rely on someone else to take care of things. He could have wore a condom. Both parties are responsible for birth control, and if you trust a 17 yr old girl to take a pill everyday as your birth control you aren't thinking correctly.

That doesn't apply. Did they have a contract that said she was on the pill and would take it every day? Did he do anything on his own to prevent it or did he just fuck away?

(Disclaimer: I'm not a 'politics' person, just a practical one)

Interesting topic/discussion.

I'll simply give my opinion, and that is:

Male Reproductive Rights? (in terms of abortion decisions).

Sure, I'd be fine with that. Good idea, even.


....So long as, if the non-pregnant person decided they wanted to keep the child, and the pregnant person did not..

The one who wants the child would simply get full custody of the baby once it's born, and the 'mother' who carried the child was from that point forward totally, legally excused from the situation.


(This is, of course, applicable in cases where the health of the pregnant woman is not in danger).

My opinion is based on that, while being pregnant surely must suck, raising a child that one does not want would suck much worse.

If both parties are fine with a particular arragement, they all is cool. However, I would never support a system that forces one person to carry all the burden (regardless of who has custody) if that's not what they want.

ie, you don't just get to say "I want out." You would need the consent (in court) of the other parent to be relieved of your financial responsibilities.

Ok...but abortion is a woman's way (right) of saying 'I want out'.

And....these 'male reproductive rights' could essentially give the man the 'right' to say 'well, I don't want out.
Fine. Then he can take care of the child.

Who wants it, can have it. Who does not, should not have to.

.....(I know it cannot be that simple in 'society', unfortunately). ..

//edit - yes, some court thing is obviously necessary here, to create some sort of 'binding' document. I did not mean to give the impression that one could make a simple 'verbal agreement' and expect it to work for 18+ years..

But with that you go back to the courts having power over the woman's body, which was an essential part of Roe v Wade.

It may take me a post to get properly involved in this, so I'll start with my own views, none of which haven't been voiced by someone:

"Male productive rights"? Well, if your wife/girlfriend doesn't want a child and you do...I recommend you get another partner. Obviously that's not an easy thing to do, but the decision over children is something that's within the realm of a relationship. I agree with the point that a woman should never be forced legally to carry a child for nine months. That's where I disagree with you, SiN.

Somewhat similarly, if the woman does want a child and the man doesn't...let him sign some form of legal paper stating that he has no financial responsibility to the child or mother. Like above, if your husband/boyfriend doesn't want to have a child, you made a poor choice of a partner. Better luck finding a guy who wants a kid next time. No man should be put in the position of having to abandon his education/career because a woman chose to deceive him into fatherhood and not give him the chance to withdraw financially.

I'll agree that it'd be a shame to have children without paying fathers, but we already have tens of thousands of those. At least we know they'd have one parent who wanted them badly enough that they were willing to shoulder the financial responsibility and not put off having the child. That's more than we can say for many, many children who're up for adoption.

Also, I think it's interesting that nobody's taken to expanding the topic to talking about homosexual couples and what to do with financial responsibilities if one partner wants to adopt a child and the other doesn't. There's no "it's my body, chauvanistic man-boy" argument. Again, my view is that one should have the choice to opt out financially.

I'm with you, Tom Thumb. If you opt out financially, you have to opt out emotionally as well. It would be as if you were putting the child up for adoption and the other parent were adopting him or her.

The woman can legally give up her parental rights and responsibilities in two ways: abortion and adoption. It seems clear to me that the man will never have any say in abortion. But I see no reason that the man can't have his own version of adoption.

What I was trying to say I guess is that it is a double standard. I think someone before me mentioned it. Basically, it takes two people (a man and a woman) to create life. Just because a woman carries the child does not entitle her to have ALL the rights. Therefore your assumption of me implying that I do not agree that dads should not pay child support is wholly and totally incorrect my friend. Both parties should bear an equal weight in the responsibility. That said, today's laws favor women in rights financially, and are against men socially. I mean, the woman has all the power to take money from the man, but leave the father wading in her dust if he ever wants to see his child.

I had a vasectomy years ago and my wife had to sign a consent form. Many doctors at that time wouldn't perform one. I was fortunate to have a good doctor who would on the basis of desire and consent. Nowadays I think the wife's consent isstill required as my son-in-law got one and daughter had to sign.

I wonder if this isn't just the doctors way of protecting themselves from a possible future lawsuit?

Cite, please?

Doesn't that reduce the mother who doesn't want the baby to the status of an incubator? Ever read the XIII Amendment to the US Constitution?

Some of the <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=82025&page=1&pp=40"> same folks</a> who advocate enactment of laws to eliminate women's right to abortion; including a few who would not even approve of legal exceptions for pregnant rape or incest victims, are now posting on this thread.

The common theme on this thread and the one I just posted a link to, is an
opinion that women should be put in the position, usually by the political power that conveniently, is concentrated mainly in the hands of men, of carrying and then delivering, every fetus that is conceived.

These same individuals either don't wonder, or don't care, why women seem so insistant that they continue to have the right to choose. Fellows, we are 30 years past this type of male control, it's time to leave the uteruses to the ladies.

Quite a few women aren't insistent. Quite a few women are insistent that the 'right' be removed.

As for the ones that do wish to preserve legal abortion, I understand well why they're insistent. There's a variety of reasons: they don't believe that the z/e/f is a human being, so they see it as harmless elective surgery; they want the surgery to be safe for those who would resort to it; they don't believe that any individual, and by extension, the government, has the right to restrain a woman from getting an abortion; they believe abortion bans violate privacy rights; ect., ect. It's' wishful thinking to imagine that anti-choicers exist simply because they don't understand the opposing position.

As for not caring, I 'don't care' in much the same way that you don't care about pro-lifers' insistence that abortion be outlawed: I took all their reasons and motivations into account and ultimately deemed them insufficient for the justification of their aims.

The 9 months arguement doesn't hold up and here is why. What is worse 9 months being pregnet or a lifetime knowing someone murdered your child, knowing who that person is, having all the evidence you need, and not having a legal leg to stand on.

Men & Women if you have sex be prepaired to raise a kid. It is called responsibility, be responsible for your actions. If you don't want to have a kid then DON'T HAVE SEX. Honestly it isn't hard to say no to sex.

My stance on abortion is simple. It should be illegal with few exceptions when the health of the mother or rape comes into account.

If you are playing with fire and happen to burn down your house whose fault is it? If you are driving recklously and get in an accident whose fault is it? It is time people stop finding ways out of their responsiblities, it is time we start forcing people to be responsible.

for all the people that said "life's not fair" and "deal with the consequences"...why is it okay to yell that to men who don't want a child, but not okay to yell that to women who don't want a child.

I believe that if the woman has an option to opt out of parenthood, the man should too. As for kids growing up without dads, just tell them "Life's not fair"...I'm sure they'll understand.

I honestly think that neither should have an option to opt out of parenthood. They are both equally responsible for their actions, so they should both have to deal with the consequences.

And I liked rekna's post :)

I came up with a similar idea to this before, a "male abortion". Give men 5 months (isn't that when most abortions have to be performed by?) after they are notified they have a child/concieved a child to decide if they want the kid-if they don't they can file for abortion and have nothing to do with the kid. I think that would help equal out the inbalance in treatment of the sexes in relation to children. As was said earlier, if a woman can decide to not have a child if it's economically inconvenient, why should a man not have the same right?

Because it's the woman's body that the Z/E/F is inhabiting, not the man's body.

Male ownership of women has been out of vogue for a long time....

yeah, who needs that whole sexual revolution thing? Things started going bad in this country when they gave the women the vote...We need to return them to chattel status.

/obvious sarcasm tag

Yeah, and bring back Debtor's prisons, too!!!

/obvious sarcasm tag

I've been agreeing with everything you've said, but I'm not sure--do you oppose abortion for the reason above?

By that, I mean that people should take responsibility for their actions?

That's my position, anyway. Also referred to as "Pro-Choice before conception, Pro-Life afterward."

[thread hijack]

So what do you think of all of the guys out there who have proven via DNA that they are not fathers, but they are required by our courts to pay child support anyway?

[/thread hijack]

Being who I am I'll throw out this idea (this is serious, just kinda joking also.)

If a man wants to keep the baby, let there be a law that says half his earned income for that 9 months (to a minumum of say $12000) becomes the possession of the now inconvenienced mother. During the birth and delivery of the "Product" he gets full rights to it. Unlike retail though there's no 30 day return policy, though that would be interesting.

Linky

Looks we're about to actually have this case, If the lawsuit would have come before the kid was born I could see him maybe having a chance, but now that the kid is here I don't think he has a leg to stand on.

Cute really.

The trick is the left can NOT allow the courts to give any 'rights' to a father prior to the childs birth as it would imply that the child is in fact a living seperate entity, rather than the clump of cells approach they try to sell.

The whole mask of morality in abortion is based around this.

Kinda posted before (was wondering over the last few days when this would appear, didn't want to start a 2nd thread of my own) Abortion: A Father's Rights

I stand for a legal abortion (legal not physical) and the option (at the mothers consent) to allow her to "incubate" the baby (for some financial reward decided by them/courts) and it become the sole responsibility of the father. Again if this option is taken neither side can back out, the guy is going to be a father and the mother will have no rights to the child.

A legal abortion could easily be implemented by having a form you sign with your partner (thus acknowledging that they are aware of your non-desire), if you wish to remove yourself from this you and partner can again turn up and sign to remove yourselves. Something akin to 6 months from the date you are informed that your partner is pregnant/with child. This is purely a legal sense, you have no right to visit the child, your name is not on its birth certificate and you are not financially responsible for it.

Of course you cannot force the woman to have an abortion however you should have equal rights to back out at that time.

A lot of people argue that men have choices, condoms, abstinance, vasectomy however all of these end at conception (vasectomies are not 100% reliable) when you lose all choice, speaking to many women (had this arguement with my boss's wife, several co-workers and friends) they seem to feel that this is fair, the man had a choice up till then now its the woman's choice since its her body. This does seem logically to be sensible however it does open men up to abuse (semen remain viable in the mouth/condom and it has been done in the past). Similarly for rape victims (men can be raped), a 12 year old (iirc) was raped by his baby sitter and was then responsible for child support because it was his child?

Father's should have the same rights as mothers, possibly implemented differently but with the same net legal effect. The arguement that the child's needs come first is imo a non-issue, if both parties had abided by their agreements there would be no child... similarly if my mobile phone provider changes my contract I can opt out with no penalty, a similar idea should apply.

Off topic but relevant should women be albe to find out sperm doners details and force them to pay child support? (in some cases the male is essentially a sperm doner but is implanting directly rather than via external means).

Some masculinism sites (looks far better as feminism than the male version... meh)
Choice4Men Website
UK Men's Movement

"Father's Rights" is such a joke. Bitter men who are butthurt that they can't have an abortion. I love how extreme cases like rape ending in pregnancy and test tube babies are brought up. Those circumstances can be addressed but other than that, men are willing participants in a situation where:

1. There is no such thing as 100% protection; and
2. Emotions can change what you 'thought' you knew.

As are women, but they have a final opt out. Now I personally don't want to be in this situation, at the moment I don't want children (and possibly never will) and I would likely sign a pre-nup with any girl I was co-habiting/engaging to work out the divorce in advance... however even that signed contract could be overridden.

Kutulu, the main point I am arguing is that women have 1 level of choice more (essentially making sex 100% protected from their point of view as the final choice is always a choice) and that if you say one thing then go and do another then the other parties involved should not be affected by your decision. Now I don't truly believe in equality (men and women are different) however for some reason the rest of the world wants people to be equal, to have identical opportunites, rights and the ability to live freely, to that end should everything not be equal?

Now I know its probably silly but if you read through some of those sites I posted (scary reading), something like 52% of mariages end in divorce, 72% of these started by women, and even if the woman remarries (assuming she has custody) you can still be made to pay child support despite your children no longer needing additional support. The system itself (in Britain at least) also tends to support single mothers more than single fathers with various tax breaks, incentives etc... we should either get equality or call "equality" what it is, a sham (look at the US, there is a section in there allowing the government to apply sexist laws if they basically feel like it).

Except that preganancy is not an equal burden on men and women. The woman has to bear the physical burden of pregnancy, labor, delivery, and recovery. Figure out a way for a fetus to be transferred from a woman to a man and we can start making things equal. Beyond that, it's all equal.

completely irrelevant

Fixed that one for you, since you neglected to include that it is the same no matter what the sex of the parent is (what was that you said about no equality?). Besides, why should your former partner's marital status change YOUR obligations to kids that YOU helped create? It's about the kids, not the adults! Furthermore, anyone who had a kid and refuses to give emotional AND financial support is a worthless POS and deserves to pay child support. Hell, IMO, they should rot in prison. Take a survey of current convicted felons, want to guess whether they came from stable homes?

Adoption can be done, my dad adopted my half-sister when he married my mom. I never met the guy but since I've never heard of my sister having any contact with him, I'm assuming her father was one of those POS's.

source?

I suppose I should have included the father in the child support section... however seeing as how few cases result in the father getting custody I felt it was a minor omission. The whole point about child support is to ensure the child has sufficient funds to grow up normally, if the mother/father remarries then the new family unit can easily provide for the children (same way the original family could) such that child support payments should not be required, if you could ensure it was spent on the kids I might feel differently.

In UK law we have the Widowed mothers and Widowers allowances... nothing similar for fathers and several other items iirc, will attempt to locate them.

I cannot find the relevant section of US law right now, basically iirc it says that you can impose non gender equal laws (which is supposed to be ensured) if it would otherwise impose on society. It was an interesting aside which I can no longer find.

Sub chapter D of this seems to allow the leaving of a child with no penalties

From : This
So there are obviously some methods to allow you to relinquish your rights as a parent. (emphasis mine)

Of course it's a double standard, and in this case, it's a double standard that makes logical sense. The male and female roles during the pregnancy are fundamentally different in that the female does 100% of the work, has 100% of the responsibility for the pregnancy itself. She should therefore have 100% of the decision making to herself.

Before the pregnancy begins, absolutely both partners have an equal responsibility to take proper precautions and preparations. After the child is born, both parents should have equal rights and responsibilities. During the pregnancy itself everything is happening in the woman's body, so the decision making should be all hers.

Also, it seems that the focus here is on the wrong person. Once that child is born, the man who concieved the child is a father. He may not want to be, may want to abandon his responsibilities, but that doesn't change reality. He's a father. Child support is entirely about providing for the child's needs. Both sexes should be treated equally at this point; if the father has custody, the mother should pay support based on need and ability to pay. If one parent doesn't want custody, it should go to the other by default. If both parents desire custody, the determining factor should be what is in the best interests of the child.

Where the situations are equivilent, treatment should be the same. There is no male equivilent to pregnancy, so he's not in the same situation as she is. In different circumstances, different treatment is warranted.

And let's think about the consequences to the children involved. We'd be increasing the number of children being supported by a single parent.

No man, short of being raped, can have fatherhood forced on him.

Gilda

I don't think I can say anything better than Gilda did in the previous post, however I can add the following reply to the quote below.

I received a vasectomy about 2 years ago. I was 37 at the time. I did not need a signature from my spouse. My wife even remarked about it.

Comparing an abortion to a vasectomy, reguardless of who has to sing what, is absurd.

More amusing is some states let minors get abortions without parental consent, but I can't do a dental filling on them without parent permission.

Now thats assinine.

I want to be able to contractually hold my girlfriend to her word. What's wrong with that?

I __________, in sound body and mind; hereby acknowledge that any pregnancy caused by, resulting from, or inceminated with John Doe's semen; is souley the responsibility of me, __________.

By signing this document, I hereby release John Doe from any and all Financial or Emotional responsibility in the matter of any and all pregnancies or their resulting children/dependants.

Furthermore, I, _________, am aware that any pregnancy concieved on or after this day, __________, will be deemed “accidental”, and therefore will be resolved in the following manner:

The pregnancy in question shall and will be aborted in accordance with the law.

In the instance that the pregnancy becomes too far advanced to be aborted in a lawful manner, it is understood to have been the responsibility of the bearing party, thus releasing John Doe from any and all burden that results.

Both parties, upon signing this document, have agreed that Niether party is or will be in the buisness of parenting untill this document is further ammended, saying as such. It is the agreement of both involved that any fornicating, sodomy, falacio or other sex act is intended to “get off”, “shoot my load” and not intended to “start a family” “spend the next 18 years giving you half of my income”.

Signed X____________
Signed X____________
Witness X___________

I generally agree. However when the woman is deciding whether to end her pregnancy or not she is not just deciding what happens to her body in the next 9 months but also what happens to her and the potential father's financial responsibility for the next 21 years.

If she decides that now is not the time for children and wants to stay in school etc.. she can decide to terminate. If he decides that now is not the time for children and wants to stay in school etc.. he has no say in the matter.

I think that people should not breed until they are financially responsible and I think that everyone should be obligated to support their offspring but I understand those who wish to give the potential father some say in this 21 year financial decision. Especially in places where abortion is still considered a legal way to avoid parenthood.

well said flstf

Nick was in love with Sharon. Nick met Sharon in first period English freshman year and now, as Seniors, they had a full blown relationship. Nick and Sharon planned on getting married. On prom night, Nick and Sharon had intercourse. Sharon got pregnant. Nick told her he wanted to keep the child. She said she'd think about it. She thinks about it and decides that she's not ready to have a child. Nick offers to raise the child alone (he has a good job and is mature enough to raise a child). She disagrees and goes out and gets an abortion despite his wishes. Nick is devistated. The abortion required no paternal consent.

That is where male reproductive rights go right out the window. I know pregnancy is not an equal burden, but the child is of both parents, MALE AND FEMALE. If you don't want to have a kid, stop fucking everything that walks without a contraceptive or two or three.

Here's the problem with this. You seem to be viewing this as the mother getting a windfall of free money from you. The money is called child support because it is for the purpose of supporting the child that you father. Regardless of what occurs before the birth, once the child is born, you are a father. The child has no say in the matter, and should not be neglected because you want to be able to get your rocks off without having to deal with the consequences.

Gilda

We deal with the unintended consequences of our actions all the time. One of the easily anticipated consequences of sex is pregnancy. If you're not prepared to deal with that consequence, there is a foolproof way around it--don't have vaginal sex, or have a vasectomy.

Once she's pregnant, unless there is a surgical intervention or miscarriage, he will be a father. He may not want that, or like it, but that is how it is. Biology puts the baby in her body, not his. Because the burden of carrying the child is entirely hers, the decision making at this point must be entirely hers.

I agree completely.

I understand it too. Some men want to have fun and not deal with the consequences that result. That is irresponsible, and unfair to the child who had no choice in the matter.

Giving someone other than the woman any sort of control over her body and her decison about what to do with it, either in the form of forcing her to carry an unwanted child or financial coercion to have an abortion is an invasion of her right to determine what to do with her body.

Let's look at the result of giving males this option of deciding once a woman is pregnant that they want to decline fatherhood. This would remove all responsibility at the outset, even before the pregnancy occurs. Men would be free to have as much consequence free sex as they liked, and walk away unburdened by the responsibilities of parenthood. It would remove any incentive for the man to share in the responsibility for contraception or supporting the children they fathered, shifting all of that to the woman.

A child deserves the support of both her parents. A desire to save some money shouldn't trump what's best for the child the man willingly helped to create.

Gilda