What about male reproductive rights?
 

All right, I read the rules and I think this should be OK...

Abortion activists always say that it's a woman's body and a woman's baby, so it should be her choice. But isn't it also the man's baby?

The same activists who embrace abortion also rail against deadbeat dads. If a woman gets to decide whether she wants to have a kid, why doesn't a man? The appearance is that the child is solely the woman's unless she wants it... Then it's both the man's and the woman's.

What gives? If a woman has the "right to choose" whether she will become a parent, why doesn't a man have that same right?

Yes I agree its a doublw standard.

I think the reason you see this with activists is that they grab whatever suits them at the time for an argument. Whether its rational or in line with the rest of their arguments does not bother them. They are pushing their agenda and they are not interested in investigating their own agenda for flaws, since they already believe in it enough to become activists.

One would hope that people only become activists after looking at the issue objectively, although idealism wins the day on that front almost everytime.

A married couple.

Should the wife become pregnant, she can abort without so much as telling the husband. She has no obligations.

Should the man desire a vasectomy, he can not receive the operation without the wife signing a waiver.

I don't like that at all. Now, a lot of times you'll have a wayyyyyy fucked up husband who's abusive, dominating, and crazy, and it's better if he doesn't know what she chooses to do (and for the naysayers who are pro-life except in the cases of rape, yes, husbands can rape wives. It happens).

But I see no reason why I need my wife's sayso if I wanna cut the loop.

And in terms of the baby being the man's too, suing for custody post-birth is all you get, maybe it ought to be opened up for pre-birth custody suits. If you don't want the child aborted in the current legal setup, be a little more picky over who you stick yourself into next time.

Much friendlier responses than I would have expected. Maybe this actually seems as inconsistent to other people as it does to me.

TFP never ceases to impress me. Of course, we're only an hour into this thread...

It is an awful double-standard which needs to be fixed, and a reason that I am largely pro-life.

I got my vasectomy done in another country and did not need a waiver from my wife at all - I was living there at the time. Is this perhaps a thing for some states only though? I would be surprised if it were nationwide.

I believe if a woman wants to abort it is her business BUT she must tell the father and he must sign the waiver.

If the father chooses to he can get a court order her not to abort and raise the child himself.

If I were to get a woman pregnant and she wanted to abort, I would sue to prevent and raise the child myself, even if I had to pay her medical.

However, what is to prevent her from falling downstairs, trying to self abort, telling the court I wasn't the father and refusing invitro DNA testing, etc.?

A woman will find ways to get rid of her baby if she truly has that desire. Trust me women can be totally nuts and very calculating to get what they want, especially if they are told they can't. And there are many ways she can get rid of a child in her, it may not be healthy for her but if she's nutty enough she'll do it.

The problem is this. The woman has to carry the baby for 9 months. Yes, it's all well and dandy that a guy could get custody after the baby is born, but before that... Well, the guy does his thing then just sits around and waits for 9 months. It's the woman who has the burden of pregnancy and child birth.

As far as the vasectomy thing, I had never heard that the wife had to sign off on it too. Doesn't seem quite right. I'd like to see some proof of that.

Yes, there is a huge double standard when it comes to womens reproductive rights. I'm not sure how to fix it, or honestly if it needs to be fixed. It's admirable that there are men out there who are willing to step up and raise a child when the woman does not. But bottom line... The woman is the one going through the pregnancy.

Lets get technology going so men can be pregnant too :thumbsup:

Edit:
I just wanted to say that I don't think that men shouldn't have reproductive rights. It's just such a fuzzy gray area thing.

I've heard the "she has to carry it for 9 months" argument. I don't buy it. Barring health concerns, if the man is going to assume custody afterwards, and the woman will have no obligation toward the child, 9 months is hardly comparable to raising the child for the rest of your life, even if it is inside you for those 9 months.

It just gets into a huge thing, SecretMethod. A guy can come back and say "9 months isn't a big deal, if you're healthy it'll be fine." Then the woman will say "Yeah, tell that to me when you're pregnant for 9 months." And the endless circle continues.

This issue will never be resolved so everyone is happy.

There are two ways to rectify the double standard.

One, allow the man to have equal say in the choice of abortion.

Two, allow all men who help conceive the option of giving up their responsibilities as a parent.

I don't like either option. The first one, from an 'abortion should be legal' perspective doesn't make sense because it's all about what the woman wishes to do about the conditions of her body. The man might've been co-creator, but it's not he who is loaning a part of his body to the birthing process.

Two's the one that makes the most sense, at least internally, because then the woman always has the option of removing a child she can't afford to take care of, and if she doesn't use that option, then she shouldn't be able to force part of the burden on the man who had no say in the choice of abortion. After all, it'd be irresponsible of the woman to not abort the clump of cells and the man would have no way of preventing this irresponsibility.

I'd choose option C, "make illegal all abortions that aren't needed to save the mother's life", but until/unless that happens, B would be the logical choice.

IMO, male reproductive rights is a fine idea but a non-starter. I don't see any groundswell of political power brokering on that side of the single-issue policy movements. It has no chance of overcoming centuries (millenia) of sexist tradition and legal precedent. The political strings that actually call the tune on this one are pulled by women and those who support their position of exclusivity - for whatever reason.

I think its the females choise completely. Listen it's easy to complain that a man should have equal say in the debate to have the abortion, but the fact is the woman has to carry it so its the womans choice. So I think it should be a womans right to get an abortion if she wants, and its up to the couples to work things out among themselves and not bring legality into the equation.

I think that's a terrible idea. If that happens, all a dead-beat dad has to do is excercise that option and never worry about child support or anything.

I think it'll be interesting when we get this "male pill" I've been reading about in recent months.

Sure it'll take a lot for us guys to get over the psychological hook that a little pill is making us less "virile" (whatever the hell that means).

But for those of us who can get over a stone age and legally crippling obsession with potency, it'll be, um....liberating. :thumbsup:

Great, but what do you think about MEN'S reproductive rights??

There was a thread where this was mentioned in Coming Together - there were some good posts. I also don't believe that I should be required to have my wife sign a waiver for a vasectomy (in fact, can someone verify this and show proof?) for two reasons:

She can terminate a pregnancy over my objections and,
I can be forced to pay child support on a child I didn't want if she chooses to have it

There just seems to be some asymmetry here. I do agree with Art though, I can't imagine there ever being enough popular desire to amend these laws.

Fine. And if the man doesn't want the kid, but the woman insists on having it, then the man shouldn't be responsible for the upkeep of the kid. If you're the only one that wants the baby, then you should be the only one to pay for it.

I don't think men should be forced to have a vasectomy, that's make reproductive rights. If you're not smart enough to plan on having a child with a woman that wants a child, I don't think the man should have a say.

Until men can bear children, I don't think any male should have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body.

Great, we'd have a nation full of deadbeat dad who don't want to pay child support because the woman didn't want to risk an abortion.

I'm looking forward to it with a great deal of anticipation.

-lucky so far...

pan6467 I agree with your arguments. What could work is that if a man does not want a kid, he could sighn some paper with the mother saying that if she has the baby he will leave her and not have to pay support. However I see that this will leed to many more abortions. I may support abortion rights but I would rather not have people frivously abort their children.

If a man has a baby and doesnt want to be responsible for it he's a terrible, worthless, deadbeat dad.

If a woman has a baby and doesnt want to be responsible for it she's pro choice.

Possible alternatives? dont know anything that would be popular and fair to both sides.

or maybe we'd have a nation full of women who stopped and thought about it for a few minutes before jumping in the sack with the guy.

Look, how many times have couples agreed beforehand that if an "accident" happens, they'd have an abortion, yet when it happened the woman decided that she wanted the kid? That's fine, and if she wants to do that, more power to her, but the man shouldn't be screwed over with it.

I don't like it, either, but it's the closest thing to fair that exists in a land with legalized abortion.

y'know, too many people act like it's all the man's fault for "knocking up" the woman. Frankly, unless she was raped, she's just as responsible for the pregnancy. They both mutually decided to have sex. Whether or not to keep the kid should also be a mutual decision. If they both decide to keep it, then they both deal with it. if they both decide to abort it, then they both pay for that. If the woman decides to keep it even though the man is opposed, then it's no longer a mutual decision. 100% of the decision rests with the woman, therefore 100% of the responsibility should as well.

Look that type of thinking may work ideally, but realistically we have a problem with kids being raised being raised without fathers. The first rule with sex is don't do it if you aren't prepared to face the consequences of your actions. If you are going to make adult decisions, you have to deal with the results like an adult. This is a kid's life you are dealing with, not a puppy. Real men don't run away and say "I don't want to deal with it."

That's a good point, kutulu. So why can women run away from that responsibility if they want to?

And that was my point. Before sex the man and woman agree to abort if a pregnancy results. The man HAS prepared to deal with the results like an adult. If the woman then turns it around on him, saying she refuses to abort, why should he have to pay for it? If the man has absolutely no say in the decision (and as has been correctly pointed out - he doesn't, it's her body, not his) then he should not bear responsiblity for the results of the decision.

Now, if the woman says in advance that if she gets pregnant she's keeping it, and the man ignores that and has sex with her anyway, then he deserves what he gets. He's been given advance notice that they're keeping the kid, and he now has decision making power - namely, to have sex or not to have sex.

In the scenario I describe, the woman has yanked any possibility of decision making power away from the man.

Look at it another way. The man wants a new stereo. The woman does not. The man ignores her wishes and goes out and drops 2 grand on one anyway. Should the woman automatically be forced to give him $1,000?

I'm in the "the woman has to carry the thing for nine months"-camp.

I'm not carrying something I don't want. I'm not giving birth to something I don't want. If you want a baby, you carry it.

Precisely. Art's right in that it's unlikely any change would ever be popular enough to go through, however it is an interesting mental exercise in equality IMO.

Even as a woman myself, I still feel that the man and woman should have equal responsibilities and equal rights. Yeah, so the woman actually carries the baby and delivers it, but then there's a while lifetime to deal with afterwards. There's no reason that a man shouldn't have equal say in regards to a child that he helped create.

there is no way to even the scales here -- nature wasn't fair and until someone comes up with an artificial womb (i'd love to see pro-life groups investing money in this) humanity is stuck. Allowing men to stop a woman from having an abortion (or to force her to have one for that matter) gives men undo power over women's bodies that women never have over men. In a perfect world only men who really care about the outcome of a pregnancy would exercise this right but we don't live in that world -- I see these kind of rights being abused by controlling men as another means to hold power over a woman. One could argue that such things would be worked out in court but an abortion must happen within a fairly small window and I do not trust our court system to make decisions in a timely manner (nor do i relish weighing down the system with thousands of abortion cases).

conclusion: yes, it's unfair that men do not have an official say in the future of their unborn child but it's not near as unfair as the fact that nature has saddled women with the sole responsibility of carrying a child to term. I see no way to realistically even out either of these issues. If you don't want to be caught in a situation where you disagree with your partner on what should happen should an unwanted pregnancy occur then i suggest you talk to them about this before sleeping with them.

Life isn't fair. Deal with it and the results of your decisions.

Abortions are fucked up procedures. It shouldn't be shocking that someone might change their mind about having one when they finally have something living growing inside of them. My wife is pregnant and it goes from an abstract concept to very real very quickly.

Hrrrmmm, the whole issue seems silly to me

I say if you want male reproductive rights, Wear a comdom for god sakes

What if the condom breaks?

What if you're too druck to make a coherant decision?

What if the woman says she's on the pill, or that she's using some other from of protection?

Tough shit, it's the risk you take when you have sex

Being drunk is never an excuse.

See #1

And if a woman wants reproductive rights, would you recommend that she "Get on the pill for god sakes."? Both parties are responsible for birth control. Both parties are responsible for the result of failed birth control. Only the woman has the option to back out after birth control fails. As the consensus seems to agree, that situation is patently unjust.

What is just about telling someone what they can and cannot do with their body? What if someone wanted to force a vasectomy on you? I had a friend whose sister had an abortion, she can't have kids now.

As I said before, its a human life we are talking about, not a puppy. If you opt out, that kid grows up without a father. Take a look at all the fucked up people out there and ask yourself if some of them might be less fucked up if their father had taken an active role in their lives.

We do that all the time. "The right to swing that hammer ends at my nose" and all that. And I for one believe that should apply to abortion as well.

But in the context of the discussion, I agree with you. As long as abortion is to be considered something legally permissible, the man should have no say in it. "The man doesn't have domain over the woman's body just because she's carrying a clump of cells with his DNA" and whatnot. However...

Not good enough. Not good enough justification to acknowledge the reality that motherhood is not finalized with conception, while ignoring the reality that fatherhood is not finalized with concepton.

So the kid's life would be fucked up without a father? Well, then, the mother has an option. It's just a clump of cells afterall. She'll have the option of removing the responsibilities just like the man did.

Re: What about male reproductive rights?
 

Because many people in our country care only about themselves and look for any way they can to further their own lives at the expense of others financially. Happy to explain if this doesn't make sense. Just didn't want to type a novel.

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

Gilda

I don't disagree with most of what you have to say and frankly feel uncomfortable defending the so called men's rights advocates. People that don't want to become parents should not engage in sex since most birth control methods are not 100%.

Until an abortion decision is made the pregnant woman and man are only potential mother and father in most parts of the USA. I guess I'm saying that I see some validity to the argument that the potential father might be given some consideration in deciding whether he wants to be a parent even after the pregnancy.

Where abortion is still legal many women and men probably see it as just another "last chance" method of birth control.

I have no problem with the man's opinion being given some consideration. He should certainly have some input, be allowed, even encouraged to make his views known and have the opportunity to discuss them with the mother. The parents should be in communication during the pregnancy about how whether to abort and how parental repsonsibilities will be dealt with, so that they can create the best possible environment for their child to grow up in. Input, consideration, communication, sure, the father deserves that much respect, as do mother and child.

The ultimate decision, however, must lie with the person carrying the child, and a father should not be able to retroactively or preemptively abdicate his responsibilities as a parent.

Gilda

Then there is reality.....Air Pollution causes cancer, people should not breath. Sorry but, sex is far to enjoyable to expect the population to become celebate, and to expect such is unrealistic to say the least.

Gilda, if implemented a law would likely require you to note your decision not to have kids before hand and then upon finding out that your spouse is pregnant again make the decision, its likely not an easy out.

The problem I see is that although the man can have a say his speech is basically useless as he actually has no voting rights in this. Having sat through many many speeches by parties recently I have noticed that very rarely do they actually sway people's votes, most people have already made up their mind.

Would you be happy if your husband after you got pregnant but within 30days handed the kid over to social services and didn't go back for it? How many men take this option (seeing as its legal)?

I'm sterile and gay, and married to another woman so it's not a scenario likely to occur.

How, exactly, does a man, or anybody for that matter, hand the child over to social services during the first 30 days of pregnancy?

Gilda

The Second URL has a section on handing over children within 30days to an emergency worker/hospital and being allowed to leave it there (adoption I assume) with no penalties, you are allowed to return within 14 days to pick it back up if you wish to (seemed to be only the party that left the child though).

As for it being an unlikely scenario... probably true, but you never know, there has been 1 reported case of a virgin birth (wonder who was liable for the child support in that case?)

Are you sure you meant D?

That section (and subchapter) deal with the state taking custody rights away from you against your will. Based on how serious many of those sound (like subchapter D) I wouldn't assume that there are no other penalties that go with those behaviors.

Did you maybe mean (H)?

This seems to be a mother's right to take parental rights (and responsibilities) away from a deadbeat dad rather than having the state force wage garnishment for support. Some people do that because they want to ensure that the father cannot have any contact with the child.

The second link you provided is the type of law enacted to prevent people from throwing their babies in trash bins. I don't see how it's relevant to the discussion.

Subchapter D begins at line 5-17.

Its possibly not relevant however it does allow parents to voluntarily remove themselves from the parenthood so it is a precedent for doing so.

I agree, and don't expect most people to refrain from this pleasure but men had better be ready to assume the responsibilities of fatherhood unless or until they have some say in the abortion decision.

Birth control methods can be near 100%, and I'd say 100% if the users do it right.

I've been actively having sex for 2 decades, one child, planned.

The problem is the father has no say in the abortion decision. This is the cornerstone of the problem. The woman has a backdoor out of said responsibility with no say of the other, her future is her decision. The man simply has to accept whatever her decision is, his future be damned.

Yes, because it's HER body. She cannot force a medical procedure on you either.

While I completely agree with you Gilda, allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment and take a stab at the legality of this. For the average citizen there can be no protected gender inequalities under the law, which I think is a good thing to have.

Granted the existence of abortion, you need only to switch the gender to see that in terms of *legal responsibility* women can have as much consequence free sex as they want. Not that having to undergo an abortion is not a consequence at all, but it is an out that legally absolves you of all responsibility for the child, thus once a pregnancy has begun, you can still choose to reject motherhood.

There is no such choice out for men, once the pregnancy has begun fatherhood is forced on them at the mother's discretion. Thus an inequality based on gender. This would have to resolved by either getting rid of abortion or granting men an abortion-like right to choose to give up all legal rights and responsibilities that come with children.

As an aside the way I feel about this is what some other people have said, If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Pregnancy is a consequence of sex, if you don't want to deal with pregnancy - don't have sex, this applies to both genders. I don't care that you don't think you should have to, If you decided you wanted to go to a carnival somewhere and shoot your .38 off in every which direction just because it's fun and you have the right to do what you want to do, that doesn't excuse you from responsibility for the people you end up killing. I fail to see how this is any different.

Should a (soon-to-be) father have the right to prevent an abortion, whether in or out of wedlock?

IMHO even if men are given the right to opt out of parenthood responsibilty they should not have the right to force an abortion or birth. I know this is probably not consistant but the woman should always maintain the right to go it alone if she chooses. This of course assumes the law is changed to allow the man to have any part in the abortion decision, which is probably a long shot at best.

That's the problem. If she does not wish to become a mother it's HER body. If a man does not wish to become a father it's HIS responsibility.

I don't care about a man's right to force an abortion, I happen to think it;s wrong, actually. What I mean is what if mom want's an abortion, and dad doesn't. Dad has no legal say. That's not fair.

Yes, but not everyone is so careful and accidents do happen. There are probably cases where one sex partner goes out of their way to cause a pregnancy when the other partner is trying to be careful. I'm sure that even with much education there will still be many unwanted pregnancies (at least by one of the participants)

Yup. Short of there being a health risk to the mother, absolutely. He should have to pick up any bills that result, however.

Of course, I'm not a fan of abortion, period...

If a man were allowed to 'abort' his part of the parenthood during the same window the female has the option to do so, would that satisfy this matter?

What I would propose is that during the first portion of the pregnancy, when a woman would normally be free under the law to pursue an 'at will' abortion (i.e. no rape/health/etc. factors), a man would likewise have the option to 'abort' fatherhood in a legal sense, absolving him of future legal liabilities (and privledges) in relation to that child. If a man pursued this and the woman chose to continue the birth, it would be solely her responsibility to raise the child. Naturally, if he did this he would also be declining any rights to future involvement with the kid as well.

This would eliminate the argument that abortion allows a woman an 'out' from responsibilities of parenthood that is not available to a man.

Josh