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 (http://www.nas.com/c4m/)
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? (http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/11.14.96/cover/dads-9646.html)

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 :D

[SackAttack]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Telle]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Word. :p

[Cuckoo]

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 :D , 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]

I don't know if it's the most bullshit. I've seen some pretty far out stuff on this board :D , 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.

[haji1]

One problem I have with men having much of a say is that they can always leave. They may say early on that they want the child, but in the eighth month run off with the bar skank and leave the woman hanging. Now she has the child and no one there to help support it. I guess what I am saying is that because so many men do flee when they get a girl pregnant, it is hard for me to justify men having very much say in the birth of the child.

[ice4277]

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.
Solid post.

[Cuckoo]

One problem I have with men having much of a say is that they can always leave. They may say early on that they want the child, but in the eighth month run off with the bar skank and leave the woman hanging. Now she has the child and no one there to help support it. I guess what I am saying is that because so many men do flee when they get a girl pregnant, it is hard for me to justify men having very much say in the birth of the child.

Remember, women can also leave in a sense. Yes, the have to endure the pregnancy and birth of child which the man obviously does not, but most states have safe haven laws now making it acceptable to simply abandon a child. That is if they choose not to give it up for adoption.

I don't think the actions of the men who act irresponsibly should dictate the rights of those who wish to be responsible.

[Cuckoo]

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.

I understand that reading. What I would argue with is whether a baby (or even a potential baby for those who don't believe it's a life) is part of a woman's body or a creation of the two parties. I would assert that it's the latter.

[SirFozzie]

Well, when you consider that men are the agressors/initiators in most sexual activity.. I have NO problem with them being held liable for their actions.

Basically.. "You caused this problem.. if the woman goes through with it, and gives birth you have the obligation to help with the problem"

[judicial clerk]

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

Any father to be has already been allowed "input", literally.

Thank you. I'll be here all week.

[clintl]

I don't think a life becomes a "person" until the brain has developed to the point that consciousness is possible. My understanding is that doesn't happen until at least the 5th month. Up to that point, I think it is perfectly reasonable to treat the fetus as a part of the woman's body, and give her complete choice about whether to carry it.

As far as men are concerned, if they don't use a condom, they are as responsible as the woman regardless of what she may have told them, and should be fully on the hook for the financial obligations of the child's upbringing. Men have complete control over the decision to wear a condom.

[Maple Leafs]

I don't think a life becomes a "person" until the brain has developed to the point that consciousness is possible.That's really the key: when is the fetus a human life? I never really understand why these abortion discussions ever get past that point.

If it's not a human life, then all the pro-life rhetoric becomes moot. If it is a human life, then it seems undeniably cruel to suggest that a woman can have a "choice" to kill it.

All the rest of the pro-choice/pro-life debate is just smoke and mirrors.

[Cuckoo]

All the rest of the pro-choice/pro-life debate is just smoke and mirrors.


I disagree actually. Since the Supreme Court has ruled that a fetus can be aborted, arguing over whether it's a life, although an important discussion, doesn't effect much. Some believe that the decision should be overturned, and that's a worthy argument, but it's just as important to discuss how to address the current situation. This thread was looking at one aspect of parental responsibility, not necessarily the old abortion debate.

[Franklinnoble]

That's really the key: when is the fetus a human life? I never really understand why these abortion discussions ever get past that point.

If it's not a human life, then all the pro-life rhetoric becomes moot. If it is a human life, then it seems undeniably cruel to suggest that a woman can have a "choice" to kill it.

All the rest of the pro-choice/pro-life debate is just smoke and mirrors.
Personally, I don't care for the arguments that pro-abortionists make with regards to the difference between a fetus and a baby. If left alone under normal circumstances, a fetus will indeed become a full-grown human at some point. It is alive, and it is a separate and distinct living being. By virtue of the fact that it could not exist without the introduction of a male sperm negates the argument that it is simply a part of a woman's body that can be casually removed at will. Splitting hairs over the stage and condition of its development is merely justification for early euthanasia.

[Fidatelo]

Personally, I don't care for the arguments that pro-abortionists make with regards to the difference between a fetus and a baby. If left alone under normal circumstances, a fetus will indeed become a full-grown human at some point. It is alive, and it is a separate and distinct living being. By virtue of the fact that it could not exist without the introduction of a male sperm negates the argument that it is simply a part of a woman's body that can be casually removed at will. Splitting hairs over the stage and condition of its development is merely justification for early euthanasia.
I'm pro-abortion, but I agree with you here. Defining the exact moment of life is just an attempt for people to feel better about killing their baby. The decision to kill your unborn child should not come without some seriously moral baggage, but I still think it is a decision that should be allowed. This world does not need anymore un-wanted, un-loved children than it already has. Plus there are the rape reasons and health risk reasons that I feel are valid as well.

[Franklinnoble]

I'm pro-abortion, but I agree with you here. Defining the exact moment of life is just an attempt for people to feel better about killing their baby. The decision to kill your unborn child should not come without some seriously moral baggage, but I still think it is a decision that should be allowed. This world does not need anymore un-wanted, un-loved children than it already has. Plus there are the rape reasons and health risk reasons that I feel are valid as well.
Well, the problem isn't un-wanted children... any adoption agency will tell you that they have a waiting list of parents who are hoping to adopt babies in this country. Several members of my church have decided to adopt foreign children because of the difficulties with adopting American babies. Something else is systemically wrong if there is any instance of "unwanted" children in this country. I suspect the welfare/child support reward model needs to be closely looked at.

While I am sympathetic to cases of rape and health risks (more than you can possibly imagine), I don't find that to be an acceptable excuse for abortion. My wife was at severe risk with our second baby (now 8 months old) because of gestational diabetes and preeclampsyia that was diagnosed by the time she was two months pregnant, and she rejected any suggestion that she should terminate the pregnancy for the sake of her own health. She survived, and so did the baby, and both are happy and healthy, but I have no doubt she would do it again, and gladly give her life for the sake of her unborn child. Would that be convenient for me, and her two other children? No, but it IS responsible, and it IS the right thing to do.

[Marc Vaughan]

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.

(gets up from his normal position sitting on the fence)

I'd use the same arguement for this which is frequently used against men - "If you aren't ready for the consequences then don't sleep with someone" ... simple as that.

I see no reason to victimise an unborn child because an adult made a mistake personally.

If a man has a child with a woman (regardless of his view on wanting or not wanting the child) then he is liable to pay childcare for the first 18 years of its life (in England at least), so if the alternative is to give the man the right to decide to support and raise the child in return for the woman sacrificing 9 months of being pregnant ...

I know if I'd had a girlfriend who aborted a baby of mine I'd have been traumatised and I personally think its awful that a father has no say in these things ....

(jumps back on the fence before anyone throws something at him)