OT: Choice for Men

[Young Drachma]

Talk about contentious issues, there is apparently a movement out there that is small, but vociferious that wants men to have the right to renounce paternity.

National Center for Men's Rights
Snippet:The laws that protect men and women from being forced into parenthood are highly discriminatory. Women are protected by abortion and abandonment laws. But when men are lied to about birth control or fertility, paternity and child support laws can disrupt their education and force upon them a future of distress associated with the unwanted child, support payments, the stigma of illegitimacy and a gut wrenching anguish that most people can't imagine.

Here is an article:
Article - Choice for Men?

Thoughts?

[Franklinnoble]

Bad idea.

[Ragone]

If you are not ready for the responsibility of a kid.. then you shouldn't be having unprotected sex.. You protect yourself first.. not to mention all the std's out there..Even if someone says they are on the pill/clean.. I just don't see the need for this myself. You control your own destiny, it may take two to tango, but it only takes the male to use a condom.

[Suicane75]

It's always baffled me how a woman has the right to kill your unborn child, yet if she decides to have it you pretty much are in debt to her for the next 18 years.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

It's always baffled me how a woman has the right to kill your unborn child, yet if she decides to have it you pretty much are in debt to her for the next 18 years.

Uhh... you're actually in debt to the kid that you helped create.

Wear a raincoat.

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Uhh... you're actually in debt to the kid that you helped create.

Wear a raincoat.

Unfortunatly, from my experience, you pay for much more than the basic needs of the child. And if I helped create it, why don't i get a say as to wether it lives or not?

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

It's always baffled me how a woman has the right to kill your unborn child, yet if she decides to have it you pretty much are in debt to her for the next 18 years.

I agree with you on this point. I know a couple of dudes who are more or less trapped. They can't afford to get custody of their kid, but they gotta send its bitch mom a bunch of their check each week. They gotta deal with their kid living in a house with a new man often. Now you could argue the whole "dont lay down with just anyone point" and I would agree with you on that as well, but sometimes women lie.

[Suicane75]

I realize it's a touchy situation and that it affects both sides equally and all of that, but the basic fact that the woman has the right to kill your child is one ive never been able to get a handle on. Add to that the fact that child support is often an outrageous number and the whole thing just pisses me off.

[stevew]

I have one friend that pays $395 a month in child support, and his "baby momma" didnt even give his Kid his last name. I tell him all the time to be nice to her, or she'll go back and get more of his check. Its not the amount of money hes paying that bothers him, its giving it to the "Babymomma" to do whatever she wants with it.

[judicial clerk]

Well, I think abortion rights advocates don't think of it as a "right to kill", they look at it more as the woman has the right to do what she wants with her body. Of course a man has the right to do what he wants with his body, he just doesn't have to worry about the pregnancy/abortion issue.

Further, I think abortion rights advocates would say that nothing is being "killed" b/c the fetus is not a independent living thing.

Now, where the real truth lies ...

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

It's always baffled me how a woman has the right to kill your unborn child, yet if she decides to have it you pretty much are in debt to her for the next 18 years.

Because here's the conundrum. You can't force a woman to have an abortion, which means your opinion on the matter is really pretty irrelevant unless you're wanting her to actually have the kid...in which case, you're on the hook for it anyway.

That said, I don't like the idea of the father having absolutely no say in the matter either, but that really has nothing to do with your financial responsibility to the child.

Just FWIW.

[QuikSand]

[deleted]

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

Unfortunatly, from my experience, you pay for much more than the basic needs of the child. And if I helped create it, why don't i get a say as to wether it lives or not?

To your first point, I don't really have a response, as I'm not an expert in the matters of child support payments. I do have two kids, and I can tell you that they require a lot more than just "basic needs" - whatever those are defined as.

As to the second point, I'm anti-abortion, so I don't think anyone should have a say as to whether it lives or dies. If it's conceived, it should have the same right to life that you or I enjoy.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Because here's the conundrum. You can't force a woman to have an abortion, which means your opinion on the matter is really pretty irrelevant unless you're wanting her to actually have the kid...in which case, you're on the hook for it anyway.

Unless your name is Rae Carruth.

If you make a baby, you are responsible for it. The woman has the right to abort it because the law says that she does. If men want this law changed, the other option is for neither parent having a choice in this.

The bottom line is, if you are going to have sex, you MUST be mature enough to accept the responsiblity, which thankfully is usually just financial. BTW...having a child is not the worst thing in the world.

[Telle]

Once men start getting pregnant then they can start making the decisions about any beings living in their bodies.

[Fidatelo]

couldn't it work like this?:

- if both parents want to abort, abortion is allowed
- if mom wants the baby, dad wants it aborted, baby is birthed and mom gets custody with support from dad
- if mom wants to abort but bad wants the baby, baby is birthed and dad gets custody with support from mom

[Sharpieman]

I don't really agree with these Men's rights guys. However, I think divorces usually mess up men's lives. The amount of money paid to ex-wives is ridiculous. I know a few people who have been divorced, and women usually get way more than they should. I know if I ever get married, theres going to be a pre-nup signed.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by Sharpieman

I know if I ever get married, theres going to be a pre-nup signed.

That's so romantic! You must do well with the ladies

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

If you make a baby, you are responsible for it. The woman has the right to abort it because the law says that she does. If men want this law changed, the other option is for neither parent having a choice in this.

sach, what I'm getting at is that if the father wants the child, and is willing to raise it, in the eyes of the law, that doesn't matter if the *woman* doesn't want it. So in essence, the child is being denied a chance at a life with somebody who wants to love and raise that child, because it's an inconvenience to the mother.

On the other hand, if the mother DOES want the child, then the father is on the hook financially, which is as it should be. As you pointed out, if you make a baby, you're responsible for it. My gripe isn't so much with holding fathers equally responsible for their role in the creation of a new life. My gripe is with the marginalization of the father into, essentially, a financial support role for the child.

It's not a simple topic, and it doesn't have a simple solution, I know. I'm not agitating for any particular resolution, so please don't misunderstand me. I'm just lamenting what I perceive to be an unfair tilting of the scales against fathers in situations like these.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

couldn't it work like this?:

- if both parents want to abort, abortion is allowed
- if mom wants the baby, dad wants it aborted, baby is birthed and mom gets custody with support from dad
- if mom wants to abort but bad wants the baby, baby is birthed and dad gets custody with support from mom

It won't ever happen because men don't have the chance to carry the baby....

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Telle

Once men start getting pregnant then they can start making the decisions about any beings living in their bodies.

Gotcha. Then women won't have any problem with simply working to support the child on their own, without any financial support from the father, because after all, it's the woman's sole domain. Right?

[Telle]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

couldn't it work like this?:

- if mom wants to abort but bad wants the baby, baby is birthed and dad gets custody with support from mom

You wouldn't be saying that if it was your body that had to birth the baby, your body that had to carry it for nine months, your health and life that might be put into jeopardy. If storks really brought babies, then sure you have a great plan. Or if the fetus could easily and without any side-affects be moved from the mother to the father, then sure again. Otherwise, I don't think so.

[SackAttack]

Dola,

Sorry, that came out a little snippier than I meant it to. What I mean is, if a woman has the sole *right* to determine the life of a child, then it's not unreasonable that they should have the sole *responsibility* for that child, as well.

I do believe a father should support his offspring, but support without being allowed input is essentially blackmail at gunpoint.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by Telle

You wouldn't be saying that if it was your body that had to birth the baby, your body that had to carry it for nine months, your health and life that might be put into jeopardy. If storks really brought babies, then sure you have a great plan. Or if the fetus could easily and without any side-affects be moved from the mother to the father, then sure again. Otherwise, I don't think so.

But, umm, the woman was there when the whole sex thing happened right? So there are repercussions of that, one of which might be having to birth the baby if the father wants it. I can see a woman being able to override the fathers decision if she has medical reasons why it might be risky or if the sex wasn't consentual, but otherwise... well, them's the breaks.

[Telle]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Dola,

Sorry, that came out a little snippier than I meant it to. What I mean is, if a woman has the sole *right* to determine the life of a child, then it's not unreasonable that they should have the sole *responsibility* for that child, as well.

I do believe a father should support his offspring, but support without being allowed input is essentially blackmail at gunpoint.

A woman has the sole right to decide what happens to her body. If the baby could be "grown" somewhere else, then you'd have a point.

[SackAttack]

Sure, the ultimate decision lies with the woman. I'm not arguing that in the slightest. What I'm arguing is that men should at least be allowed some say in the matter if the woman expects financial support. That's all.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Telle

You wouldn't be saying that if it was your body that had to birth the baby, your body that had to carry it for nine months, your health and life that might be put into jeopardy. If storks really brought babies, then sure you have a great plan.

It's a flawed arguement because people have been having babies for Centruies

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by Telle

A woman has the sole right to decide what happens to her body. If the baby could be "grown" somewhere else, then you'd have a point.

If people have the sole right to decide what happens to their bodies, why then do we have things like placing people under "suicide watch"? Why can we attempt to force someone to live when they don't want to? It's their right to kill themselves, isn't it?

[Telle]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Sure, the ultimate decision lies with the woman. I'm not arguing that in the slightest. What I'm arguing is that men should at least be allowed some say in the matter if the woman expects financial support. That's all.

The hope would be that the mother and the father would consult and if the father really wanted to raise the child, then the mother would consider birthing the child and granting him custody. Unfortunately, the current stigma is that giving up your child is a lot worse than aborting it (which I completely disagree with) so I doubt that many would-be mothers would go with such an option. I wouldn't be surprised however if states had laws that if a mother chose to give up her child to adoption that the father would have "first dibs". But the bottom line is that she should not be forced or coerced into carrying or birthing a child.

[Telle]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

If people have the sole right to decide what happens to their bodies, why then do we have things like placing people under "suicide watch"? Why can we attempt to force someone to live when they don't want to? It's their right to kill themselves, isn't it?

I agree with you there. People's lives are their own and if they want to end them then they should be allowed to. I think the premise of such things though is that it's assumed that the person doesn't really want to commit suicde but their judgement might be so impared that they think that they do (which is certainly a debatable position).

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Telle

A woman has the sole right to decide what happens to her body.

Absolutely. But who gets sole right to decide what happens to the baby's body?

[sachmo71]

Sack et all,

I see your viewpoint, I really do. Here is my response...

The law says women have the right to choose whether to have an abortion.
Is there another alternative to this? Should we change the law to say that both parents must consent to having an abortion preformed? I don't think that would work very well, but i'll bet it would appeal to the pro-life camp, as it sure would cut down on the number of abortions!

I don't really have much sympathy for men in this case. As has been stated before, the man provides the sperm, and that's about it. The woman has a long nine months ahead of her, and she has a lot more at stake if she decides to have her child.
Yes, paying a percentage of your salary for the next 18 years can be a burden, but I can't really see another solution. There is a lot more to this decision than finances, but there will always be more at stake for the woman than the man. I can't see the benefit in giving a man the right to choose something just for the sake of allowing him a choice.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Because here's the conundrum.

Remember kids, if you're going to have sex, always use a conundrum.

[Telle]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Absolutely. But who gets sole right to decide what happens to the baby's body?

Well see, you have to approach this from the position that that's irrelevant because of how the current laws are regarding abortion; at such point that an abortion can be performed the "baby" is for all intents and purposes not considered a being in need of rights but rather a part of the mother's body. But then if you outlaw abortion, the whole thing becomes a moot point.

[lurker]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

couldn't it work like this?:

- if both parents want to abort, abortion is allowed
- if mom wants the baby, dad wants it aborted, baby is birthed and mom gets custody with support from dad
- if mom wants to abort but bad wants the baby, baby is birthed and dad gets custody with support from mom

This makes too much sense for it to ever become law.

I'm not saying that it's not hard to carry a baby for nine months and give it up (never been pregnant, but I'm sure it sucks) but there is something inherently unjust in aborting a baby that the father might want (and if he is anti-abortion, he probably believes the fetus is a baby, and he will have to suffer the loss).

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Telle

Well see, you have to approach this from the position that that's irrelevant because of how the current laws are regarding abortion; at such point that an abortion can be performed the "baby" is for all intents and purposes not considered a being in need of rights but rather a part of the mother's body. But then if you outlaw abortion, the whole thing becomes a moot point.

So what is squirming when the doctors cut it up with knives, or stick a spike in its brain?

[Telle]

Originally Posted by stevew

So what is squirming when the doctors cut it up with knives, or stick a spike in its brain?

A fetus which is legally a part of the mother's body.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by stevew

So what is squirming when the doctors cut it up with knives, or stick a spike in its brain?

dude, a point of advice: Sitck to making stupid arguments with the likes of bubba wheels and the wig* clan, Telle is way outta your league.....

[stevew]

Originally Posted by RendeR

dude, a point of advice: Sitck to making stupid arguments with the likes of bubba wheels and the wig* clan, Telle is way outta your league.....

I dunno.....if she likes you....well...um

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Telle

Once men start getting pregnant then they can start making the decisions about any beings living in their bodies.

This thread needed a woman's touch

[ice4277]

Originally Posted by Telle

A fetus which is legally a part of the mother's body.

Just out of curiosity, at which point do you think it is not part of the body and its own person?

[oykib]

Originally Posted by Telle

Once men start getting pregnant then they can start making the decisions about any beings living in their bodies.

Actually, this is the most bullshit, nonsensical argument that has ever been allowed to stand up.

Either abortion is a correct course of action or it is an incorrect course of action. Whether a man or a woman makes the argument for or against has no bearing on the argument's merit.

By the same logic, a menopausal woman or sterile woman should have no say either. But I don't think that any pro-choice advocate would say that.

Another point is that we could easlily find tens of millions of fertile American women that are pro-life. So the argument that men can't get pregnant and therefore their views on the morality of abortion are invalid is itself invalid.

[Buccaneer]

Too much talk about "legalities" and "law" and not enough about "moral", "life", "caring" and "responsibilities" (and too many quotey things).

[oykib]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Too much talk about "legalities" and "law" and not enough about "moral", "life", "caring" and "responsibilities" (and too many quotey things).

Word.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by oykib

Actually, this is the most bullshit, nonsensical argument that has ever been allowed to stand up.

I don't know if it's the most bullshit. I've seen some pretty far out stuff on this board , but I'm glad you called this one. Is Telle a woman? Is that why people seem afraid to question her? Without commenting directly on the substance of the thread, I think that to automatically dismiss a person's view on a topic as grave and serious as abortion just because of their gender is a big, big problem.

[tucker342]

There's a very simple answer to this: use the pill and a condom, chances are you won't have a kid if you do that...

I look at it this way, it's the female's body, and they should get to choose what to do with the baby that's in their body. Ya it sucks for men, but that's why men need to be careful that no matter what if the women says she's on the pill or not, the man must wear a condom.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

What ever happened to the good old days when if she got pregnent you married her, then spent the next 20 years drinking heavily and beating the shit out of her? I miss my dad...

[stevew]

What I dont understand is when a guy has like 2 out of wedlock kids and is paying like 400 a month in child support. Instead of going and spending 300 bucks and getting his pipline snipped, the dude will continue to run around. If you dont want to wear condoms, get fixed....geez.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

I don't know if it's the most bullshit. I've seen some pretty far out stuff on this board , but I'm glad you called this one. Is Telle a woman? Is that why people seem afraid to question her? Without commenting directly on the substance of the thread, I think that to automatically dismiss a person's view on a topic as grave and serious as abortion just because of their gender is a big, big problem.

I didn't read it this way. It was never said men couldn't have an opinion. What was said was that the right to control your own body is a personal issue.

[Franklinnoble]

Like it or not, the moment a woman becomes pregnant, she is the custodian of another human life. Aborting it is not simply a matter of "controlling her body." Not all responsibilities in life are desireable. In fact, most things you can label as a "responsibility" are downright unpleasant, and some are even dangerous and/or life threatening, but they are responsibilities just the same, and we are a weaker society for cheapening the responsibility we have towards innocent human life.